Turnaround schools

THE debate rages on when it comes to money and education. On a micro level at least, the preliminary results of one state program reveal that simply throwing more funding at schools doesn’t necessarily improve performance.

Back in 2015, lawmakers created the “turnaround school” program. The intent is to provide additional money for underperforming schools in hopes of boosting test scores over a three-year period. Eligible campuses get a new principal and as much as $500,000 in additional allocations. Principals also enjoy more staff flexibility.

But in a story published last Sunday profiling one of the program’s successes, Review-Journal reporter Amelia Pak-Harvey revealed that the “results are mixed at producing long-term” results.

“High schools have shown significant increases in graduation rates that continue after exiting the program,” she wrote, “although many of their star ratings have remained stagnant. Yet some elementary and middle schools are in the program for a fourth year — a year beyond the exit target — and have declined to one-star ratings.”

Those findings mirror a 2017 UNLV study that recommended the state more closely monitor the turnaround program because of conflicting results.

The program is just three years old, so perhaps more definitive answers will materialize as it matures and school officials better learn about what works and what doesn’t. But the results so far belie the notion that simply pouring more money into the public schools will automatically fix what ails them. @NRO with a film review:

If “Chappaquiddick” had been released in 1970, it would have ended Kennedy’s political career.

National Review

▶