An excellent article in the Washington Post describing the efforts in Boston around both charter and district-led pilot schools:
[Boston] has unleashed imaginative teachers to run both independent charter schools and semi-independent “pilot” schools, with much of the rest of the country waiting to see which does best. [...]
A study by scholars from Harvard, MIT, Michigan and Duke, sponsored by the Boston Foundation, shows the Boston charters are doing significantly better than pilots in raising student achievement. This includes results from randomized studies designed to reduce the possibility that charters might benefit from having more motivated students and parents.
I am not surprised by the study and I confess I find the efforts of districts to create their own semi-autonomous schools misguided. Making significant changes to large organizations – be they bureaucracies, private companies or governments – is not achieved through incremental steps. One cannot successfully get half-pregnant with reform. What is unclear is why these schools would be better off trapped in this halfway house of reform rather than becoming full charter schools and shredding the complete carapace of the district system, instead of just one or two parts.
This is relevant to Denver as well, as the district’s efforts to create reform within the schools they operate (compared to charter schools which they oversee) are at best inconsequential and at worst a waste of time and resources. In recent memory were first beacon schools, then innovation schools (originating with an initially promising legislative bill, eventually badly watered down by special interests). I have not seen a study of relative performance of these schools compared to their peers, so perhaps there is some data to the contrary, but my anecdotal reading of the lists of distinguished schools makes this seem unlikely. I’ve written before on the mistake of DPS in trying to create new schools from inside a system which is not hospitable. At some point hopefully consensus will emerge that these efforts are a platonic cave of of real reform.
There have been hints of Denver once again trotting out new efforts to create high-performing district schools that would claim innovation while encumbered by many of the same practices (district operations and hiring, principal approval) that have shown no progress. Proponents of the “do-it-ourselves” efforts would be well-informed to find some evidence of success nationally (and safe to say it won’t be in Boston) or admit that this idea is neither new nor good.
Popularity: 1% [?]
There were some important caveats that Mathews included in his article. For example, not all Boston charters were studied. I think the Mathematica Policy Research study, which will look at KIPP students over several years and compare them to students who tried to get into KIPP, will give us some solid data.
Your point about trying to change from within the system caused me to think about a recent decsion that our District’s Policy Council just made. The council is made up of parents, students, association members and district personell. The decision had to do with teachers allowing students to make up work if their absence was unexcused. Last year a change was made to the policy which stated that teachers had to accept late work regardless if the absence was excused or unexcused. Well, the Policy Council changed the policy back to having teachers not accept late work if the student was unexcused. This change flew in the face of work we have been doing at our school regarding grading policies.
Our school research led us the see that if a grade is to represent what a student knows at a given point in time, in other words the grade shows a student’s academic standing, then we should accept late work. At least accept it until the summative exam is given. Accepting it after that would be useless if homework, or formative work, is used to inform students and teachers how they are doing BEFORE the exam. This is one example of how district actions can negatively impact great work taking place at local schools. We are a successful school that had to turn down hundreds of requests from families in the district from attending our school. The frustrating point is that what we’ve done at our school can be done at other schools. It’s not rocket science!
I thought this was the purpose of charters: to find local success and bring them to other schools in the district. I am not sure the problem lies solely in district bureaucracies. As our policy council shows, it also lies with the association and community members.
Mark, that was a very interesting example.
I would think that Substance should prevail over Form. There must be some way to get the point across in some other way, that Form is also important. However, this emphasis on the discipline as opposed to the knowledge is misdirected and I really thought that was a provocative example of the distinction.
As you well know, I don’t teach and have never been confronted with these real life experiences, my questions are more on the theoretical and I’m humbled by what it must be like on “the front lines” of education when they drive me nuts as a relative outsider!
I was also taken with your final paragraph, and share your frustration that — since you have developed policies and practices that are effective — they cannot be more widely implemented given the existing dynamics.
I posted an inquiry on another thread, raising a couple of more general questions about charters that have kept me from supporting them more enthusiastically, those being –
* The emphasis on what children are interested in at a certain stage in their lives (art programs, for instance) and the threat that this sets them on a “track” that predirects their futures when Politically we have supported a generalized public education instead, on the theory it eventuates in a more effective program
* My concern that children who do not (or cannot) participate in such programs are disinclined to pursue those arts or other career options, even though they may have as much or more talent than those who do, or that higher educational resources will be made available only to those with what will become a prerequisite training period
* My questioning — as the daughter of two commercial arts and the sister of an Arts History degreed art scholar — whether by promoting certain charters, we are giving children an unrealistic notion of true career options in the arts.
Can anyone address whether there has been community dialogue on these issues? Because I would think that from my KIDS’ standpoint, they would seem like Holidays somewhat akin to “Fame” — when in fact I wonder whether they may have that Phantom of the Opera effect in the end. Sure, you can get them to sign up! — but (as in the horse-training example I cited earlier) can some reasonable percentage of these children progress along to make any money later? and isn’t that what a public education is for, to actually equip the populace?
To the extent certain charters were implemented to serve disadvantaged populations instead….please don’t misunderstand my position on this. If you have built a life boat that floats and are fitting in as many survivors as possible, that deserves laudatory recognition from everyone in the state!!!
Please don’t think my preferring to see whether it would be possible to plug up the sagging Titanic denotes any negative connotation about the quality of these rescue vehicles….it’s just that this is how they seem to me: Limited in size and capacity, lacking in the stability of a larger vessle, subject to the philosophies and capabilities of the officer at the helm and a few crew members…and still fighting some of the very same issues the Titanic herself tackled with a good many more resources. Not until the boats made their way to another Mother were the occupants truly safe, thus I have fears about children in the Denver Public Schools unless we take the time to run her over once again with a keen eye — and an understanding heart that Humans commit errors, but as Societies, we must correct this particular one, for our children and our survival as a country.
Reading this over, I’m appreciative of the fact that it is DPS itself that has “arts” focused schools so maybe those questions should have been directed more to those programs than to charters.
From that perspective, it’s cheating to give kids pony rides or dance recitals as the main part of a general education, in my humble opinion. That’s not Life. That’s a bribe.
I have great sympathy with Mark’s lack of control of school-level policies. Before I digress on where we diverge, it is worth pointing out that the decision he discusses is whether or not a teacher accepts late work – which presumably has little to no impact on student learning overall (and if the argument is that this policy promotes the completion of [late] work, I find that deeply self-fulfilling).
Where we diverge: Mark writes about this “recent decsion that our District’s Policy Council just made. The council is made up of parents, students, association members and district personell” and continues “I am not sure the problem lies solely in district bureaucracies. As our policy council shows, it also lies with the association and community members.”
Um, the district bureaucracy includes its Policy Councils and thus the “association and community members.” This is precisely the group that comprises the current system, and I think his point illustrates how hard it is for these unwieldy and far-reaching organizations to act efficiently.
Mark also says: “I thought this was the purpose of charters: to find local success and bring them to other schools in the district.”
Actually no. The purpose of charters is to educate kids.
As a final side note, Mark writes: “We are a successful school that had to turn down hundreds of requests from families in the district from attending our school.”
The school to which Mark refers has HS math proficiency of 43%, reading of 78%, writing of 58%, with just 12% of the student body qualifying for Free and Reduced Lunch. My hunch is that these results are about average (or slightly above) for schools with that low a RFL composition. It is better than most of the nearby schools, which hopefully is not the main source of accomplishment.
Well, this dialogue seems to be getting us noplace fast.
I was unaware until digesting this, that teachers do not have already complete discretionary power to determine which students’ work ought be received late, and which not.
That sort of micro-management by any beaurocracy just can’t work, I don’t care whose involved.
No wonder we are stuck on these issues!!
My approach has been on the more holistic financing end, figuring that more money at the teaching end would fix most of the issues. Apparently not. Sign me still hopeful — but discouraged!
Before hitting “submit” — may I ask: how in the world did teachers lose this basic sort of discretion over classroom activities? If some kid has been trying hard and the work is a little late, that’s one thing. If some kind has been blowing you off all year and now wants to slide in at the end, that’s another. Some teachers are harder to please than others. That’s part of the deal, always was, and reflects the true life experience I thought children were being prepared to face.
But then, it’s also my understanding that teachers and schools can’t hold kids back if they fail to demonstrate they’ve acquire the last year’s education…not sure how that happened, either…so frankly, I can’t figure out why it matters whether you give the child credit for a late product anyway.
I’m more confortable viewing these issues on the Overall than the Specific, but if the Specific is that cumbersome….no wonder the legislature and judiciary have both kept their hands off.
We are just above average, but more importantly we have shown growth for the past five years. The surrounding high schools, while a few are rated excellent, have not shown growth.
See my most recent post on the purpose of charter schools.
My point with the Policy Council decision was that it was a bad decision made by poorly informed people (exacerbated by the bureaucracy). The community, one of the decision makers, exists with or without the district bureaucracy.
I hate that dreaded word “bureaucracy” so much that I can’t spell it, don’t usually have that problem, and have decided it’s some sort of mental block against the very idea.
Mark, when you say “the community is one of the decision makers,” are you saying the community itself (through representatives allowed to participate) does not support teacher discretion over these day-to-day matters? If so, why not?
Mark, you are mushing very different ideas into a single unambiguous stew.
The community exists with or without the district bureaucracy; I suspect the “Policy Council” (and its rule-making authority) does not.