The Turnaround Model is one of four strategies available to American local education agencies (LEAs) under the Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants programs of the Obama administration.
[1] The Obama administration increased its control over the education systems across the United States by implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),[2] also known as the 2009 economic stimulus package.
The Turnaround Model is one of the four strategies that an LEA can choose to implement in its local schools in an effort to raise student achievement per a 2009 Department of Education initiative.
[8] The turnaround initiative stems back to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, which was enacted by Congress under the Johnson Administration.
NCLB operates with the same charge as ESEA, but focuses specifically on providing all children with accessibility to a high-quality education as measured by standardized assessments.
[10] As the deadline for 100% Proficiency in Reading and Math continues to approach, it became increasingly obvious that unless there was a drastic change, the U.S. would not reach its 100% target and schools would receive various sanctions that correspond with length of underperformance.
[11] In addition to SIGs to aid school progress, President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced a $4.35 billion grant competition titled Race to the Top in July 2009.
[12] Between 2001-2008, a predecessor to the Turnaround Model was originally used by the Chicago Public School System under then Chief Executive Officer Arne Duncan.
This experience served as an inspiration to Duncan when creating and implementing the SIG and RTTT programs as Secretary of Education to utilize the $3.5 billion surplus to improve low-performing schools nationwide.
Because the tenets of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are relatively new, there is no precedent in how schools can push their students to reach AYP in the turnaround model.
"[20] The studies also found that state and local resistance to federal intervention in improving schools prevented broader participation in applications for SIG funding.
Lastly, the analysis discovered that data systems and improved accountability measurements enhanced the states’ ability to accurately apportion funds based on student performance.
While there are certain criteria that must be met at every school, districts and principals have relative freedom to utilize the structures that best suit the needs of the student audience receiving the education.