Turnarounds: Why Some Chose To Restart, And With Whom?

It's no real mystery why there are just 31 "restart" schools nationwide -- 5 percent of the 733 listed by the USDE in its recent update on SIG models and schools nationwide (44 states).  The restart model is arguably the most dramatic (draconian?) of the four allowed, in that it involves a change of governance as well as (ostensibly) leadership, faculty, curriculum, and the like.  They can be run by a CMO or an EMO selected by the district, and must by law enroll the same grades and kids it used to enroll.  They require a district to hand over a school that is about to receive an influx of new cash, which few districts are inclined to do.  It also involves finding and vetting a provider interested and able in doing such a thing on very short notice, and getting state approval -- much more involved than finding new books or principals or teachers, relatively speaking.  All that work (all those angry teachers and concerned parents) and there's no guarantee it would work.  As Paul Tough once noted, charter schools aren't magic.   What I'm *really* curious about is (a) why some districts and states took this route, (b) why they picked particular schools to do as restarts rather than transformations or whatever else, and (c) who the districts got to do the restarts (what CMO and EMO folks volunteered for the job)?  Anyone?  Here's my handy dandy list of them for all you reporters and reformers following along (Restart Schools 2010-2011).  

Comments

[Martha]

You are missing Fremont High School in Los Angeles. Locke High School might fit somewhere on that list although it was a teacher-initiated charter conversion.

[Write Essay]

I think change is the only constant thing in this world. Restarting things is a product of constant review and remodel methods. Its a good way to come up with a good and final output. http://www.writessay.com