Sarah Garland wonders out loud why a disproportionate number of high schools are involved in the turnaround grant program. She is asking the right questions, but the answers she received don’t tell the whole story. These grants may, in fact, be a case of too little too late. I thought that it might help to offer a high school principal’s perspective.

Every Grade

High schools should not be singled out for any special treatment and neither should middle or elementary schools. Every grade in school is just as important as any other. What year would you advise your own child to take off? Most likely you would want every year of schooling to be a quality experience. Everyone must come to accept the fact that every minute counts with every student. I used to believe that low-performing ninth graders had three more years to catch up. However, I learned through practice, now supported by research that those students would most likely drop out. The reality is that marginal middle school students fail in high school. Students do not suddenly lose their math or literacy skills when they walk through the doors of a high school, nor can they suddenly make up a three-year deficit after entering high school. If, as a high school principal, I were given a choice between receiving a federal turnaround grant or having students arrive at my school on-target for post-secondary education, I would not hesitate to choose the latter. I learned the hard way that waiting for students to fall behind and then spending large amounts of money to catch them up is a high-risk strategy doomed to fail.

The Funding Gap

While most would agree that every year in school is important, that is not how federal funding has flowed. In fact, when it comes to funding, the federal recording has been stuck on elementary schools for years. Policy makers have erroneously believed that a strong beginning in the early grades would carry students to success in later years. That may work for advantaged middle class students, but for under-resourced students this plan has been a disaster. In literacy for example, students who do not come from language enriched home environments need direct, explicit literacy instruction each and every year or they will not progress. To the shock and dismay of our elementary principals and teachers, our school had a significant number of students reading at grade level at the end of the third grade who were two to three years behind by grade nine.

Not ready for prime time

I once watched an assistant superintendent summarily promote a whole stack of unsuccessful students because they had simply been retained too many times. Many overage and under-credited students arrive at high school because they were “too tall to retain” any longer. They arrive with a history of low achievement, unable to read their textbook, and lacking basic computational skills. Despite that fact that only 20% of eighth graders are on target to be college-, career-, and workplace-ready, high schools are under extreme pressure to prepare students for postsecondary success.

Graduation and Dropouts

High schools are the only schools held to measures of accountability that include graduation rate, dropout rate, end-of-course exams and barrier tests. The fact is that students begin dropping out long before they reach high school.

Range of Learners

Diverse high schools with significant numbers of second-language learners like ours had students with skill levels that ranged from kindergarten through the second year of college. Our elementary principals were surprised to see that our library contained many of the same books as their own.

Size and Complexity

As we go higher in the grades the complexity of the course content and the curriculum increases dramatically. Today’s high school curriculum is extremely complex. Many high schools offer twenty or more AP or IB courses along with dual enrollment classes, CTE programs, and work-study programs. In addition they offer host of standard level courses including electives in the fine and performing arts. High schools tend to be larger because it is impossible to offer the variety of offerings in a smaller school.

Systemic Failure

My last superintendent didn’t particularly like it when I said “Whatever happens in the school system good or bad manifests itself at the high school level.” High schools are at the end of the assembly line. Whatever was or was not corrected along the way surfaces at the high school level. A number of experts have come to believe that weak schools are a result of dysfunctional district leadership and the failure to construct a properly aligned K-12 instructional program. Strong district leadership is a prerequisite to individual school success.

Our current national strategy is to stand at the end of the assembly line and inspect for defects. We are not yet about building quality into the entire K-12 process. We are still stuck in trying to inspect for quality, and that will not render the kind of results that we are looking for. Helping each and every student acquire the solid math and literacy skills they need in order to succeed in every content area is a K-12 issue and cannot be accomplished by remediating large numbers of students who were passed through the grades with glaring skill deficiencies and allowed to languish in failure and mediocrity.

It is true that the work of turning around elementary and middle schools is “potentially easier.” However, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to all students. We cannot afford to ignore millions of high school students simply because they are not the easiest to work with.

Finally, we do know how to turn around high schools. There is now an extensive body of evidence that support to successful turnaround efforts. However, high school turnaround is not easy and it takes time. In most cases, it takes at least three to five years to change the culture of a high school. Arne Duncan was right. When it comes to high school turnaround, there are no silver bullets.