Can Failing Schools Be Turned Around?
Disparities on school performance have always been one of the most challenging issues in the United States. Some schools have been performing better than others. In addressing the gap, different questions need to be answered substantially. These questions include: What affects the performance of students in schools? And how can these schools be reinstated back to better performance? These are essential questions that educationist in the US may be encountering most times. Even though some proposals have been made over the issue, it has raised a lot of debates and critiques from different stakeholders. As a result, this essay compares conflicting views between Roxane Garza and Melissa Tooley, and Laura Hoxworth.
First of all, I would agree with Roxane Garza that leadership is one of the critical factors that influence the performance of schools. Therefore, to turnaround failing schools, leadership is one of the first things to consider. As such, Roxane argues that the workload for principle determines whether the policy can practice strong skills. As far as the belief is expected to meet the curriculum demands of the school, he or she also manages other activities in schools such as students’ safety, finances, and discipline. Therefore, as far as parents and other stakeholders would want to blame the principles for poor performance in schools, Roxane creates an emotional appeal to the reader by claiming that “this bind is acute for all principles” (Garza and Tooley 463).
On the contrary, focusing on leadership alone as a way to turn around schools is what Laura Hoxworth would describe as “the myth of single-lever turnaround” (Hoxworth 470). I would also agree with Hoxworth because the performance of the school is affected by numerous factors in play. These factors include poverty, availability of adequate learning materials, including other financial issues that may affect the school or students. Therefore, although Garza and Tooley over-emphasize leadership as an essential factor to consider, other various factors need to be considered.
Moreover, as far as Hoxworth agrees that leadership changes are fundamentals for change, she warns against the myth that “fundamental, lasting change can happen fast” (Hoxworth 470). I would agree that long-lasting change doesn’t come so fast but takes time, resources, and commitment to achieve positive, permanent change. It is commendable how Roxane and Tooley attempt to build their credibility by incorporating information from credible sources. However, we need to be careful about what to follow because, like in the case of Iowa Foundation (Garza and Tooley 461), funding seven district schools for one year (2009-2010) is such a short period to realize a permanent change.
Hoxworth’s examples are very relevant to the topic of achieving permanent change in school performance. For instance, he argues that even though engineers build a bridge, “they are aware that after so much usage, the bridge is going to fail” (Hoxworth 471). This is a very relevant example because systems have failed for more than I can recount. For instance, legal systems that were created objectively for positive change have been unable to serve their purposes. This is a fundamental lesson and perception that leaders need to develop. Besides, Hoxworth suggests that achieving positive change is a complicated process, but change is attainable. Therefore, turning around failing schools is not as easy as the way Garza and Tooley put it, but it is a complex process that requires meticulous consideration.
Work Cited
Garza, R., & Tooley, M. Freeing Up School Turnaround Leaders. National Association of State Boards of Education, 2018.
Hoxworth, Laura. 5 myths that inhibit School Turnaround. UVA Today, 2017