Archive for the ‘Edreform’ category

Emerging Trend: Superman Snubs the Justice League, Lex Laughs to the Bank

September 18th, 2010

NBC’s Education Nation confirmed their list of panelists for the upcoming education summit – none of whom are teachers and all of whom seem to take snaps from the same ed reform playbook. All except for the lone Randi Weingarten. She will play the role of Dissenting Voice in an ed reform narrative that is being ballyhooed across the nation. (Except where it’s not.)

It was important for event organizers to give Randi a place on the panel. The basic ed reform thesis, chronicled in the upcoming “Waiting for Superman,” begins with the idea that the school system & schools are broken, and that unionized teachers are where the faulty rubber meets the road. The trouble is, if the powers-that-be were to directly cast teachers as Lex Luthor their plan might backfire.

Who’s willing to place the failure of the American Education System on little old Mrs. Newton, teaching 2nd grade to generations of tots that loved her? That won’t sell well or bring in votes.

Enter unions stage left. Randi, as president of the American Federation of Teachers, has been a vocal critic of NCLB, RTTT, & the Fire-(Teachers)-At-Will squad of trigger happy reformers. As a teacher representative, she’s become the de facto Lightning Rod in the plot line that pits unions (as antagonists) against the great teachers the ed reformers (as protagonists) would deliver if only meddling teacher advocates would step aside.

For the NBC organizers, she needs to be a panelist in order to give the Gates’ League the whipping boy (girl) it requires.

The story goes like this: the unions enable the hordes of bad teachers who are responsible for keeping students from achieving. All the while the benevolent market forces of goodness & quality do their darnedest to right this wrong through superhero feats of privatizing, hiring & firing, and incentivizing teaching to the tests.

We are asked to buy into this plot-line and then jump to reformers’ same conclusions. Effectively, we are asked to leap these tall buildings, each in a single bound of reasoning:

  1. If we weigh the cattle more often, they’ll get fatter.
  2. Non-union teachers teach better.
  3. Charter schools = silver bullet against poverty & lack of parent involvement.
  4. Merit pay will be enough improve teacher “performance”. (A recent Vanderbilt study concludes otherwise.)

These unproven assumptions need more than super breath to blow me over. I’m just not convinced that these measures will lead to more professional educators & greater access to quality learning environments for all students.

The Bottom Line Variable

But what if they are wrong?

What if the fear mongering and hyperbolized “broken” metaphors that the media outlets have bought-into & hyped are the machinations of private stakes and bottom lines, rather than deep insights into poverty, parenting & learning? (That’s not to say there are not deeply rooted problems that need transforming. But “broken”?! That seems a slap in the face to the thousands who work in our nation’s schools.)

On his site, How the University Works, Marc Bousquet brings this point to light:

I’d like to see a few more of us start to question the objectivity of The New York Times and Washington Post, both corporations with increasingly large hopes that profits from their education ventures will prop up sagging journalism revenues. The Post, which owns Kaplan and shocked readers by blatantly pushing Kaplan’s legislative agenda in print and in person is already an education corporation that owns a newspaper as a sideline.

What is curious is that even Fox & Friends has discovered what the Chamber of Commerce and the Washington Post knew a long time ago: The Obama/Duncan algorithm for improving our nations’ schools has a hidden variable — profitability.

Non-union teachers + prepackaged curricula + (test x test x test) = Corporate Bling Package

Standardizing content across the country simplifies what all teachers teach, making it easier to . . .

Increase class size and save moola on teachers (especially the union-free teachers in charter schools who get paid less & have fewer benefits), which frees up money for . . .

Buying curricula in bulk from major textbook companies (which are more profitable to produce in larger numbers) which will necessitate. . .

Buying tests designed specifically for those prepackaged curricula, which will be justified because it will help  prepare students for . . .

Super-sized multiple-choice assessments to determine if teachers are teaching, which will . . .

Earn testing companies stacks of benjamins for administrating & scoring those tests, and has the added benefit of . . .

Determining which teachers should be fired, so newer, cheaper teachers can be hired, and more curricula can be bought to raise scores.

The private sector’s opportunity to profit handsomely from this brand of standardization has stockholders salivating & lobbyists scheming. The Chamber of Commerce, at the behest of former FL governor Jeb Bush (whose younger brother, Neil, profits from NCLB & RTTT), has become a testifying standard anywhere education reform is on the legislative docket.

It all makes me wonder if ed reform is being driven by Superman, or Lex Luthor.

What if we are asking the wrong questions?

What if the propagandized central conflict, Unions vs. Good Teaching, isn’t the central conflict after all? What if it is just a sub-plot? What if the problem is much more complex than that?

What if the central argument, “Pay great teachers for student achievement and great teachers will flock to the classroom” doesn’t hold water? What if the actual teachers we want teaching and shaping our youth are not the ones attracted by promises of pay for performance?

What if wooing and keeping great teachers requires a different sort of honey altogether?

Unfortunately, no-one is asking what it takes to attract (and retain) the truly innovative educators who can provide the transformative learning experiences that transcend race, gender, and socio-economic status. It seems assumed that bonuses, based on centralized high-stakes tests, will be enough.

In a tweet-versation with RiShawn Biddle (@DropoutNation), an education journalist and ed reform advocate, I asked if the current slate of reforms was likely to narrow the curriculum and decrease educator autonomy. He replied that it would, that it was necessary.  This made me wonder what it would take to attract and keep the best and the brightest (the most ambitious and well educated among us) to the field of teaching. So I asked him.

His response?

They need more than a paycheck. They need an environment which allows them to utilize their skills in new and creative ways. In essence, they need autonomy and the flexibility to work in a professional atmosphere where they have latitude.

And therein lies our paradox. We want/need the best and the brightest to embrace teaching as a profession, but our brand of ed reform vinegar (high stakes testing, value added firing, & standardized everything) is a hook without a worm. It doesn’t attract and/or keep the very candidates we need flocking to our schools.

Superman & the Justice League

We seem to hope that by testing the kryptonite out of students Superman will arrive. However, him being faster than a speeding bullet doesn’t make him a silver bullet. We’ll need more than Superman if we aim to make meaningful, relevant, and lasting changes to our national school system.

We’ll need the entire Justice League in order to effectively address the central conundrums of transforming our schools into learning environments of equality where students are engaged, enabled, and empowered.

Our villains are many:

  • Poverty
  • Lack of parent involvement
  • Untenable dropout rates
  • Too few high achievers in the field of teaching
  • Overly specific centralized learning goals
  • Undervalued teaching profession
  • Inaccurate measures of teacher effectiveness
  • Overuse of high stakes assessments as a cure all
  • Elitism

To tackle these villains, we must recruit & engage every one of the Justice League heroes, many of whom are dedicated teachers who’ve been asked to stay quiet and do as they’re told for far too long.

The Justice League is supposed to be a collection of people banded together in mutual cooperation.

Too bad they’ve been left off of Superman’s panel.

Thanks a lot, Man of Steel. You could’ve gotten a teacher on the panel if you wanted. After all, with that cool x-ray vision thing you got going, you should be able to see through their shenanigans.

This post was originally published on Ecology of Education.

Justice League Image: OSU Department of Statistics
Lex Luthor Image: Prodigeek

1 comment »

Posted in Accountability, Arne Duncan, Big Idea, Collaboration, Duncan, Edreform, Education, Education Reform, educational reform, Jason Flom, Merit pay, Michelle Rhee, NCLB, Schools, Teacher Evaluation, Teacher Pay, Teacher's Unions, Testing

Tags:

Emerging Trend: Teachers as Advocates

June 15th, 2010

(This piece was originally published at Cooperative Catalyst.)

I keep waiting on the invitation:

Who: Teachers

What: Education Reform Policy Party

Where: Wonk Circles All Over

When: NOW!

Why: We want YOU to help envision & shape the next generation of schools.

The paradox, of course, is that as the reformation of education garners greater and greater media attention, teachers — the unrecognized professionals — continue to find ourselves left out despite the fact we have one of the largest stakes in the debate.

While it would be fun to point fingers at others, the truth is that we have a long history of grudgingly accepting whatever comes down the pipe at us, so it may well be of our own doing. Fortunately, that is changing, and none too soon.

However, thanks to the Race to the Top and the unprecedented funding by the federal government, the reform effort has amassed a following of armchair experts who all seem to sing from the same hymnal:

  • Market driven solutions will work.
  • Increasing competition among teachers will improve their “performance”.
  • Firing teachers must be a first priority.
  • Threats achieve results, especially if the threats involve closing a school.
  • Standardized tests are effective measures of success.
  • More standards = more learning.

Yet the most egregious (albeit tacit) tenet of the movement seems to be that reform should happen to teachers rather than with teachers.

While nearly everyone intimately involved in the reform effort would publicly deny this, the fact is that teachers remain the underutilized voice on how to improve our schools.  The most recent example of this was in the New York Times Sunday Magazine’s May 23rd piece, “The Teachers’ Unions’ Last Stand“.

The over 8,000 word education reform article did not quote one teacher.  Not one!

It’s outrageous! When an editor from one of the world’s most powerful newspapers does not insist that a teacher’s voice be included in such a premiere education piece we learn a lot about the esteem teachers are held in. It’s the The-emperor-has-no-clothes moment of truth. Finally, we see and we should be livid! After all, we have the most profound of roles in our schools — we teach the children.

Imagine for a second a comparable examination of banking reform that does not quote from at least a single banker. It would never happen.

Fortunately, the letters in response to the article raised this concern, perhaps most poignantly by 2nd grade teacher, Emily Miller.

There are many things in Steven Brill’s article that trouble me, but my greatest concern about the education-reform debate is the absence of teachers’ voices. When the country was debating the economic-stimulus plan, policy makers asked economists for advice, and the press frequently provided a forum for them to express their opinions. Yet when discussing education, the experts — those who work with children every day in classrooms — are rarely consulted. Many of those who were interviewed for Brill’s article said that they want what is best for children. It seems to me that if this is a genuine concern, those who best understand the challenges and problems in our schools, namely teachers, should be asked what they think.

The fact is, teachers have little history making or getting our voice heard. We are the unrealized professionals.

Thankfully, change is in the air.  Through social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, & ASCD Edge educators are building networks that turn up the volume on their ideas, concerns, and potential power of their numbers.  This ability to make our voice heard is an important first step toward being substantively included at the table.

It is a start, but we still need to do more. But how?

As with most grassroots efforts, it begins at home: Think Globally, Elect Locally.

Our local officials and state representatives need to know our names, not just the names of the union reps.  During the summer, we can make calls to our elected policy makers, write letters to the editor calling out publications for misrepresenting us, and learn how to advocate. We can interact with politicians running for office and insist they answer questions about education.  And if their answers seem copy-pasted from the Reform Hymnal, we help educate them, or deny them our vote.

Perhaps Jessica Luallen Horten said it best in her piece, “Calling Teachers to Action Beyond SB 6“:

I implore you to think about your beliefs about how children learn, what have you discovered in your years of experience? Write it down, share it, speak it and continue to examine it every day. If you truly want to advocate for children, you will become active in the process that will shape their tomorrow.

We have an opportunity to capitalize on the press and the widespread focus on education, even if we never get an invitation to the party. It’s time to bust down the doors and demand to be heard. As the experts in the field, we have a civic responsibility to speak truth to power and to armchair experts everywhere.

Change will happen.  However, the onus is on us to either be recipients of it or agents in it.

How else can teachers get involved? What other ways can we help shape the debate?

Image: alli coate

2 comments »

Posted in Collaboration, disruption, Edreform, Education Reform, Jason Flom, Professional Development, Race to the Top

Tags:

Problem X: eXploring and eXposing Problems In Education Reform

April 22nd, 2010

Albert Einstein famously said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

When it comes to the problems of education reform, there has been a lot of great thinking done by a lot of great people. Ask a thousand educators, students, parents, researchers, business people, or politicians what the problems of education are in America today and you are bound to get a thousand different answers. Ask these same people how to solve these problems and you will get a thousand different solutions.

The problem of education in America today is not just a simple problem, or even a complex problem, but a wicked problem. But it’s more than a wicked problem… it is an X-problem.

Adam Richardson of frog design coined the term X-problem in his new book Innovation X.

Adam explains that most organizations or systems face 4 types of problems.

Simple Problems: These are problems for which both the problem and solution are easily defined.

Which budget should be used to purchase supplemental materials? Which grade level will require an additional teacher next year? Who is going to teach the new section of Latin? Which classrooms need instructional aides?

Complex Problems: Here the problem is known, but the solution is not.

How can we get students to complete their homework? Which technology is best to introduce into an elementary classroom? Which curriculum will best meet the needs of our students who are two years below grade level? How do we create a system that allows for student input? What is the most effective assessment of reading comprehension for English Learners? How can we increase teacher collaboration and trust?

Wicked Problems: The challenge here is that neither the problem nor the solution is known. How can you define a good solution when cannot even state what the problem is?

The wicked problem was a term coined in the 1960′s by mathematician and planner Horst Rittel. He described them as messy, confounding, and aggressive. In 1968, C. West Churchman detailed the issue of wicked problems in an issue of Management Science.

Churchman describes wicked problems as, ” a class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing.”

There is no definitive statement of the problem, and each solution reveals new aspects of the problem.

How do we fix public education? What is the problem? Which part is broken?

Take the issue of technology. Is technology essential in education? Do we need more technology in school? How much technology is enough in school? Which technology should we focus on? Who decides? How do we measure it? How do we pay for it?

Or take the issue of creativity. Do we attempt to teach creativity or let students use their own creativity? Can creativity be taught? If so, who should teach it? How do we measure it? Is there good creativity and bad creativity? Is creativity in school even a problem?

Or how about the questions of making students go to school longer. They do they go more days or should they go longer each day? What about breaks? Should they go to school on Saturday? How long is too long? Do we pay teachers more for the longer day or just for more days?

Each one of the problems opens us another can of worms as you dive deeper into it. There are so many factors involved with each. What does the research say? What do the parents think? What is best for the brain? How will it impact the budget? Who makes the final decisions? Who is in charge? What is best for our society? Which will ensure success in the future? Is it scalable? Who should be involved in crafting the solution?

As you try to answer these questions more questions arise. It really gets…wicked.

None of these “problems” can be explicitly stated as a problem statement, because, they may or may not even be problems. It all depends on your perspective.

Since there is no definitive problem, there is no definitive solution.

Can’t fix it if we can’t point out exactly what is we need to fix.

Each wicked problem is risky because it is unique, and it’s hard to test or simulate solutions ahead of time.

There is no way to simulate a new public education system in America, without actually building a new public education system in America. Simulating a school model here or there does not provide solutions or the same experience as a new system of public education. The scale is simply not comparable.

There are many stakeholders with different perspectives on the problem and how to resolve it.

Teacher, parent, student, administrator, union official, county official, state official, federal official, education researcher, business person, school board member, elected city, county, state, and federal politician, statistician, economist, sociologist, technologist, etc. They all have a different definition of the problem and a different solution.

But there is a problem even more difficult to grapple with than the wicked problem.

It’s called the X-problem. Why X-problems? Adam shares his thinking on why X represents another level of problem.

X is extreme: X-problems are extreme in risk and complexity.

Educating an entire country’s population and building a system that does it in the most effective way is a risky proposition. You can’t build the wrong system. You can’t make a mistake.

X is mysterious: Every X-problem revolves around questions that have never been asked before, or challenges that are unprecedented.

Solving the “problems” of education and doing so in a way that meets all the needs of all the stakeholders now and in the future is going to create some questions that we have never encountered of thought of.

X is a crossroad: A crossroads is a place where things converge together—and diverge outward. At a crossroads one must make a choice among paths, each of which could entail risk or opportunity.

Do we take the road of creativity, technology, brain research, etc? Saying yes to certain solutions requires that we say no to others. Which do we choose?

X means opportunity: X marks the spot for treasure—the winnings that come from finding the problem and capitalizing on it before others can.

In the global competition for knowledgeable, creative, innovative, caring, informed, collaborative, cooperative, and intelligent populace, the country that can figure out which problems to solve and which solutions to choose will have an advantage in the future.

See what I mean? This is not easy. It’s not a simple, complex, or even a wicked problem. Education reform is an X-problem.

No comments »

Posted in Edreform, educational reform, Rob Jacobs, Uncategorized

Tags:

The Builder- Designing The Future of Educational Leadership

December 21st, 2009

If we are to create “tomorrow’s” educational organization and model, are the leaders of “yesterday’s” model the leaders we will need to build “tomorrow’s” model?

If education is to be transformed, should we not transform its leaders? If we are to create a new educational organization, then does it follow, we would need a new style of educational leader?

Current educational leaders are skilled at leading in yesterday’s model. Today’s educational leaders are attempting to fit the needs of “tomorrow” into the organization and model of “yesterday.” The educational organization has created leaders who are skilled at operating within that model. But as the model becomes outdated, misaligned with current needs, and in some cases broken, current leaders can only continue to adjust, repair, and re-align the old model the best they can. What they are not able to do is build a new organization. For, according to Umair Haque, author of a post on the Harvard Business Review blog entitled “The Builders’ Manifesto” it is not leaders that we need, but “builders.”

“What leaders ‘lead’ are yesterday’s organizations. But yesterday’s organizations… are broken.”

“Today’s biggest human challenge isn’t leading broken organizations slightly better. It’s building better organizations in the first place. It isn’t about leadership: it’s about “buildership”, or what I often refer to as Constructivism.

“Leadership is the art of becoming, well, a leader. Constructivism, in contrast, is the art of becoming a builder — of new institutions. Like artistic Constructivism rejected “art for art’s sake,” so economic Constructivism rejects leadership for the organization’s sake — instead of for society’s.”

Educational leaders are formed by the needs of the organization of the past. They were developed within a broken organization, to meet the leadership needs of a broken organization, and are skilled at leading a broken organization. But, if what is desired is to build a new organization, what will be needed are educational builders.

Umaik Haque contrasts the boss, the leader, and the builder in piece on

The Boss The Leader The Builder
drives group members coaches them learns from them
depends upon authority depends on good will depends on good
inspires fear inspires enthusiasm is inspired — by changing the world
says “I” says “we” says “all” — people, communities, and society
assigns the task leader sets the pace sees the outcome
says, “Get there on time.” gets there ahead of time makes sure “getting there” matters.
fixes the blame for the breakdown fixes the breakdown prevents the breakdown.
knows how shows how shows why
makes work a drudgery makes work a game organizes love, not work.
says, “Go.” says, “Let’s go.” says: “come.”

For it is the “builder” that includes us all, student, teacher, parent, communities, and society, in the design. The builder watches and learns from both teacher and student. Most importantly, the builder harnesses the love. For it is the love, the love of learning, the love of students, and the love of teaching that drives us all forward to build the education organization of tomorrow. The builder harnesses that love.

Philosopher Emile Chartier said, “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one we have.” Might it be time to build a new idea of what educational leadership should be for the future?

Catalytic Questions:

When was the last time you revisited your view of leadership in education? Would you benefit from a fresh look at what education leadership is or needs to be?

Can we continue to rearrange our existing resources, methods, and strategies or is it time that we build an entirely new model of what education is?

Should construction start with demolition before building?

In what ways can you become a builder? How might that impact your school?

Suggested Reading:

What if your school blew up?: The Little Becky approach to school reform


No comments »

Posted in Edreform, Leadership, Schooling By Design

Can "The Least Of Us" Disrupt and Change Education for "The Rest Of Us?"

October 3rd, 2009

Disruption is a buzzword in education these days. This is a story about disruption. What follows may not happen, but then again, it might.

Education is highly resistant to change. Education has not fundamentally changed in over a 100 years. Many in my Personal Learning Network believe that public education will not change. If public education in this county will not change on its own, how can disruption become a factor and where will the source of this disruption come from?

Matt Mason insightfully points out in his book The Pirate’s Dilemma that youth movements are a source of social change. Youth movements through the years have brought Do-It-Yourself attitudes from punk rock. The youth movements have brought remixing music, video, video games, etc, forcing a reexamination of our copyright laws. Street artists challenge the meaning of open spaces and advertising. Rap brings voice to the disinfected. Matt points out that history has proven time and time again that youth movements have the potential to enact social change. They disrupt.

The question is where will disruption come from and who will bring it to education.

Matt Mason notes in his book that there are, “…currently 1.5 billion ten-to twenty-four-year-olds on Earth, and 86 percent of them live in a developing country.”

Developing countries are ripe for disruption because they provide the gaps where disruption can easily occur.

“While the U.N. Research Institute estimates that the richest 2 percent of adults in the world own more than half of all household wealth, a report from the World Institute for Development Economics Research at the United Nations University says that the poorer half of the world’s population owns barely 1 percent of the global wealth.”

The worlds poor does not have material wealth, but they do have minds and a desire to learn. The world’s poor posses a desire for knowledge and self-improvement that is equal to the wealthy. A “digital bridge” is slowly spanning the gaps between the rich and poor in developing countries.

“Efforts are being made to close the digital divide between the developed and the developing world. Open-source education, $100 laptops, and free, decentralized WiFi are a great start.”

But they are just a start. The key might lie in WiFi and Internet access.

“A report on Internet readiness rankings by the Economist Intelligence Unit in April 2007 shows that Asian and African nations are catching up with big Net users in the West.”

In other words, the poor are getting wired up and plugging into the Internet.

“According to the report, broadband is becoming cheap and affordable in almost every nation on Earth.”

Internet access brings knowledge and information to the poor around the world. The reality is that a poor person is more likely to gain access to the Internet and the world of knowledge and information that it brings, than he or she is to get well-trained teacher in school.

Disruption will come when the poor of the world figure out ways to educate themselves and their neighbors via the Internet. Of course this education won’t match the focus, rigor, and quality of Western schools, but never the less, the drive and need to learn will create a youth movement in these developing countries for using the Internet as a tool to educate themselves and others.

And if all one has is the Internet, one is eventually going to get very good at using it to meet their needs. He or she will develop methods and practices that seem strange, different, and unorthodox. They will rely on the Internet as a source of education.

Some in the West might begin to look at these poor kids in developing countries teaching themselves and their neighbors without classrooms and without teachers. Some might begin to wonder and ask, “If it works for them, might it work for us?” Some might adopt some of these strange, different, and unorthodox practices.

Some might say this is the way that works best for me. This is the way I want to learn.

And change might finally come to public education. Disruption brought to the wealthy West from the dusty villages, back alleys, and crowded slums of the developing world.

Probably won’t happen right? But it might.

No comments »

Posted in disruption, Edreform, Rob Jacobs, teaching, technology

DFER Fundraiser for U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)

June 5th, 2009

Democrats for Education Reform is hosting a low-dollar fundraiser ($25/person) for U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) this Tuesday, June 9th, from 6 to 8 pm at the Capitol City Brewery in Washington, DC. You can register by clicking here.

Senator Bennet came to his new position from the Superintendency of Denver Public Schools, where his record was extraordinary. He instituted one of the most innovative merit pay systems in the country (with the teachers union members’ support) which pays high-performing teachers and those who teach in high-need schools more. He hit the pavement to bring students back into the system, while closing failing schools so that those students would return to a renewed system. During his tenure at DPS, he advised then-candidate Obama on education issues and was a short-list candidate for Secretary of Education.

He is already a crucial part of the discussion in the Senate and within the Democratic Party about what meaningful education reform will look like. Here’s what the Denver Post had to say: “U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet staked out his claim to help shape national education reform … announcing in his maiden speech on the Senate floor that he would draw up comprehensive legislation by year end. The bill could include some of the most critical elements of a national reform agenda supported by the Obama administration and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan: merit pay for teachers, voluntary national standards, and evaluations of students’ performance as they advance from grade to grade, known as longitudinal tracking.”

We’d like every stripe of education reform advocate to meet this rising star in the Democratic Party, so I hope you’ll join us on Tuesday at the Capitol City Brewery!

No comments »

Posted in DFER, Edreform, Education, senate

On Charter Schools, Part 3: Criticisms of Charter Schools

April 23rd, 2009
This is the third in a series on the growing Charter School movement in American education. Previous articles have outlined the general disrepair of the American public education system and attempted to define specifically what is meant by the term “Charter School”. This series is being cross-posted at the blog, Sweat & Technique.
Much of the media attention on charter schools as a solution to our educative woes seems to be positive. Charter schools played an important role in Barack Obama’s education speech in Ohio. Barack Obama’s new education secretary, Arne Duncan, helped to rebuild public schooling in Chicago in part with charter schools. This post will not extol the virtues of Charter Schools, but instead will attempt to outline their critiques. As this article published Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal suggests, there are criticisms being levied against the expansion of charter schools. This post will not attempt to refute or discuss these critiques, but merely to present them as objectively as possible. For objectivity’s sake, let me make it clear that I am a teacher at Ánimo Justice Charter High School, a charter school managed by Green Dot Public Schools.

They Reinforce Segregation

“Charter schools are largely more segregated than public schools.” Charter Schools and Race: A Lost Opportunity for Integrated Education, the Harvard Civil Rights Project, 2003.

In the forward to a 2003 report issued by the UCLA Civil Rights Project (formerly the Harvard Civil Rights Project), Gary Orfield writes, “Although there was an early concern that charter schools would serve as a haven for white students to escape diverse public schools, many minority parents have expressed strong interest in alternatives to their local public schools.” That minority parents should be embracing charter schools should not be surprising. I believe that our nation’s Achievement Gap speaks to the fact that problems faced by our public education system are compounded for minority communities. As a result, “charter schools in most states enroll disproportionately high percentages of minority students, resulting in students of all races being more likely to attend school that on average, had a higher percentage of minority students.”

Difficulties with Accountability

In my post last week, I wrote “a charter school must outperform the public school to remain in existence.” Commenter, jkowal, responded,

“in most states & districts, charter schools don’t actually have to *outperform* the traditional public schools. I wish this were the case! But in many areas they can be getting results just as lousy as the nearby district schools and stay open. It really depends on the rigor of their sponsor/authorizer’s accountability standards, and whether or not the sponsor has the resources/stomach/fortitude to shut down a school that’s still better than some in the same district.”


Many may be familiar with the struggle around the closing of Uphams Corner Charter School in Boston. The seven-year-old Charter serving fifth through eighth grade students had made great strides in establishing an identity offering a classical education to struggling students. What Uphams Corner had failed to do was post test scores.
Though a state inspection team found improvements over the past year in student behavior and classroom instruction, MCAS scores remain low. For the first four years, many classes lacked rigor, and teachers didn’t teach a curriculum that was aligned with the state’s academic standards. A majority of teachers left the school in the second and third years.

On the MCAS last year, Uphams Corner performed worse than Boston’s regular, noncharter public schools in math, and similar to Boston in English, according to the state inspection report. Seventy percent of Uphams Corner’s sixth- and eighth-graders failed the 2006 math MCAS tests, compared with about 50 percent in Boston and about a quarter statewide. English scores were better — 49 percent of Uphams Corner’s eighth-graders scored proficient in English, the state’s goal. In comparison, 54 percent scored proficient or higher in Boston, along with 74 percent statewide.

Take note of the year. The article references 2006 scores. The Massachusetts State Board of Education voted to revoke the charter of Uphams Corner Charter School in January of this year. The charter is revoked effective June of this year. The review of scores and practices found Uphams Corner to be deficient in 2006, but the nature of the review process is such that it took two more years for the process to be completed. The process is by nature costly.

According to “Grading the Chartering Organizations,” a June 11, 2003 Education Week article, “In most states, however, there are few resources for oversight of schools and revocations of charters for educational failure, as opposed to financial problems, are rare.” The realities of public schooling on the ground often prevent sponsoring agencies from holding Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) accountable. Each year, the Center for Education Reform (CER) publishes an Accountability Report on Charter Schools. The 2009 report states that, since 1992, less than 100 charter schools have been closed down by their sponsors for failure to achieve their stated academic goals.
Distribution of funds
Charter Schools receive funding through their sponsoring institution based upon the Average Daily Attendance of their student body. Unfortunately, charter schools do not receive all of these funds. According to CER, “Nationwide, on average, charter schools are funded at 61 percent of their district counterparts, averaging $6,585 per pupil compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools.” Part of the problem is the path of this funding. In California, for example, the money goes from the State to the local District to the CMO or School. In California, 31¢ of every dollar does not make it from the District to the CMO or School.

Another criticism of Charter School funding revolves around CMOs. In some states, such as Michigan, it is possible for a CMO to be a for-profit organization. Designed to bring competition to the administrative side of education, criticisms of for-profit involvement with education are pretty clear. If tax dollars are being diverted from the classroom to private shareholders, even as a reward for efficiency, these are dollars that are not being spent as intended … on the education of children. According to an evaluation performed by Western Michigan University, Michigan Charter Schools are on average lower performing than Charter Schools in other states.
They Skim Off The Cream
While it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the measured success of Charter Schools, certainly, it would be easier for a Charter School to succeed if it were enrolling only the best students from a low-performing local school. Many attribute the success of Charter Schools to just this phenomenon i.e. the Skimming of the Cream. In California, Charter Schools must enroll students when they have available spots. If there are more applicants then available spaces, a lottery must be held in order to determine who will enroll. In theory, the practice is extremely egalitarian. Schools can, however, require interviews and/or personal essays as part of the application process. While these may not be judged for merit, they can be judged for “fit between the charter school and the family” and certainly favor the highly motivated. A December 2008 article on Chicagoist.com speaks of community “disappointment with the charter school program and how they are ‘destroying neighborhood schools’” by catering “to the kids that shine on state tests, leaving the lower-scoring kids behind in neighborhood schools.”
Union Issues/Job Security
Much of the education reform debate seems to cast union advocates as obstructionist, and while some of this is deserved and fair, a strong teacher’s union can increase teacher longevity and job security. There has been no love lost between prominent CMOs and powerful teacher’s union. The union I am a member of, Asociación de Maestros Unidos, which represents all teachers at Green Dot Public Schools, seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

CMOs as a general rule seem to see union organizing as an obstruction to school reform. The internet has multiple references to the cleansing of unionizing schools and unfair labor practices when it comes to the formation of unions. I realize that this is a flashpoint issue, and I do not wish to now debate the issue. I simply wish to highlight that there are teachers who wish to unionize at charter schools who are being blocked in their efforts.
Burnout
I am currently in my fourth year of teaching. At my young Charter School in its third year of existence, I am a veteran. I serve as Chair of a Department, Testing Coordinator and on various committees. In the past, I have thought nothing of working a 70-hour week. I am not a workaholic, I just have a strong commitment to my school and its needs. But this is not a sustainable pattern of behavior and leaves me susceptible to any number of diversions such as blogging about charter schools instead of lesson planning (rest assured, I am fully prepared for school tomorrow:) Kidding aside, however, according to a post at EdWeek, “In the charter schools, nearly a quarter of the teachers ended up leaving by the end of the school year, 14 percent of them leaving the field altogether and 11 percent transferring to another school.”
Conclusion
I write this post not because I am anti-charter. I am pro-education reform. I write this post looking for solutions to these problems. While I have attempted to stay impartial in presenting these criticisms, I hope that you will weigh in with your opinions on these and other criticisms of Charter Schools. I will leave you with a quote from a Pennsylvania legislator who voted to create charter schools, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, culled from the Wikipedia page on Charter Schools. According to Wikipedia, Cohen said that

“Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of staff undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff, technology, and state of the art buildings.”

9 comments »

Posted in Achievement Gap, AMU, CER, Charter Schools, Criticism, Edreform, Education, Harvard, Joshua Cook, Teacher's Unions

Part 2: What is a Charter School?

April 17th, 2009

This is the second in a series on the growing Charter School movement in American education. This series is being cross-posted at the Sweat & Technique.

Last week’s post discussed the state of our current public education and attempted to address the question, “Why is Change Necessary?”. The underlying assumption of this series going forward will be that America’s public education system is in a state of crisis and requires change. A quick Google Search for “public education alternatives” shows several alternatives to traditional public education, Private Schooling, Homeschooling, School Vouchers and Charter Schools being the most prevalent. This post will not attempt to resolve why any of these is superior to the others, but will attempt to clearly define exactly what is meant by Charter School.

Perhaps the most famous charter …

the Magna Carta.

I believe that a Charter School can be most clearly defined as a School of Choice. Failing all other options, enrollment in the local public school is compulsory for all American children under the age of 18, while enrollment in a Charter School is not mandatory. The same may be said of any of the other stated alternatives. Parents may choose to homeschool their children, choose to pay for a Private School or choose to receive a Voucher so that their child can attend another Public School outside of their local area. What distinguishes Charter Schools from each of these, and what makes the school more appropriately a School of Choice, is that the intent of a Charter School is to provide a local alternative to a student’s local public school. In theory, students attending a Charter School should be doing so in their local area.

In terms of enrollment procedures, Charter Schools very closely resemble public schools. Charter Schools can not charge tuition or have a religious affiliation, nor can they selectively admit students. If more students wish to enroll in a local charter than there are available seats, the school must hold a lottery to randomly admit students. If a Charter School has an available seat, they must admit a student regardless of the student’s prior educational performance. The intent of Charter Schools is not to create Magnet Schools with specialized or advanced curricula.

The purpose of Charter Schools is not merely to create choices for the sake of choice. Strictly speaking, a Charter incorporates an institution and defines its rights and responsibilities. In terms of schooling, a charter defines what the school will be, what will be its stated goals and who it will be accountable to. When states began passing laws allowing public schools to be chartered they did so with the understanding that these schools would be in more direct, local control of their day-to-day and year-to-year operations, but the trade off would be that these schools would have to show superior results when compared to the local public school they would be competing with. In this sense, a school charter is two things: 1) a granting of rights to the charter’s managing body and 2) a performance contract between this managing body and the sponsoring institution. To put it succinctly, a charter school must outperform the public school to remain in existence. To quote Spiderman’s Uncle Ben, “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Charter Schools are similar to Public School Vouchers in the sense that Charter Schools receive public funding. As part of the school’s charter, a Charter School is sponsored by some institution. This may be the State Board of Education or a local School District. Charter Schools receive funding through this sponsoring institution based upon the Average Daily Attendance of their student body. Beyond receiving these funds, however, Charter Schools are legally and financially autonomous. They do not need to submit budgets for approval to their sponsoring body. They may use the funds they receive in any way provided they are meeting the goals spelled out in their Charter. In this sense, a Charter School is similar to a non-profit that has written a grant for funds, then must use the funds to complete the goals spelled out in the grant.

Currently, 40 states and the District of Columbia have Charter Schools in operation.

9 comments »

Posted in Charter Schools, Edreform, Joshua Cook, Schools

Switch to our mobile site