- Pennsylvania Among 'Terrible 10' Most Regressive Tax States
- February 4 Non-Partisan Training: HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013: HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Republican Governors Opt-In to Medicaid Expansion
- The Reports of Unions' Death Are Greatly Exaggerated
- Ask Allyson Schwartz to run for Governor
- Mind the gap: Opting Out of Medicaid Expansion Leaves Low-income Families Behind
- Jan. 14 Workshop:HOW TO RUN FOR ELECTION BOARD IN 2013; HOW TO RUN FOR COMMITTEEPERSON IN 2014
- Seth Williams on Guns, Jasmine Rivera on School Closures @PFC Meetup Wednesday
- PA Revenue Strong Midway Through Year; Tax Cut Could Have Big Impact
- What to Make of the Fiscal Cliff Deal?
Karen Heller on free market "courage" for the public schools
Submitted by HelenGym on Sat, 02/21/2009 - 9:05pm.
For now, I am reserving opinions on Dr. Arlene Ackerman’s "Imagine 2014" Strategic Plan document as I reflect on some of the progress the schools have made over the past decade and the challenges that we still face. But one area I am not reserving opinion for is the tired analysis in Karen Heller’s latest commentary on the Philadelphia schools.
Heller talks about plans to "detonate" the "worst schools" and turn over new schools to organizations with "successful track records" like we haven’t heard that line before.
It’s a bold admission that, despite a $2.3 billion budget, what’s being done isn’t working, and outsiders might do a better job.
She dismisses the concerns of those who raise questions about such a plan like the young woman she quotes from the Philadelphia Student Union – a youth group, by the way, whose members have a high school graduation rate exceeding 90 percent.
She then quotes Mastery Charter Schools CEO Scott Gordon for this insight: "Competition works everywhere else as a business model, why not in education?"
Perhaps Heller needs a brief history lesson.
In 2002, the School District of Philadelphia was to all effects detonated in the biggest experiment in privatization in the country. Originally, Edison Schools Inc. was supposed to take over as manager of the entire School District of Philadelphia as a result of the state takeover of the public schools. Overwhelming public opposition and the fortuitous move (from a schools perspective at least) of then-Gov. Tom Ridge to the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security resulted in Edison receiving management of only 20 schools in the district; an additional 25 schools went to a variety of for-profit, non-profit and community providers.
Also since 2002, the district’s charter school system has grown to effectively become the second largest school district in the Commonwealth.
So how’s it all turned out?
Study after study of the district has shown that our experiment in the free market has turned up negligible results. (Go to Research for Action’s website for a compilation of studies; I also referenced a number of studies for my recent Public School Notebook blog post.) In other words, after almost a decade and despite investing hundreds of millions of dollars, overall education management organizations (EMOs) and charters don’t academically outperform the average district-managed school. Now clearly, there are some outstanding charter schools, just as there are some district schools that are outstanding models of achievement, but taken as a whole we come up about even.
We also found out that immigrant students and special education students got shortchanged in the EMO/charter effort. And we found out there really isn’t a competitive market out there when private managers don’t work out. One of the reasons the School District in 2007 renewed its EMO contracts – despite internal district recommendations against doing so – was because it couldn’t find other private managers to replace the failing managers it had.
Furthermore, no matter how successful some private outfits have been, few have a record in turning around large urban high schools on any level of scale. There are a handful of examples out there – South Bronx High School comes to mind – but, as far as comprehensive high school reform goes, if Heller claims there are private managers with "track records," I would like to see the evidence.
Meanwhile what have been the consequences of this experiment? In addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars and reduced capacity in the District, in my mind the lost opportunity costs have been the greatest loss. The opportunity, for example, to focus on serious institutional change – like an investment in our teaching force, for example, or the opportunity to develop quality and equity across the district through a baseline school budget that defines what every school needs. Or perhaps a real plan to lower the high school drop-out rate or improve third grade literacy.
But why do that when knee-jerk reactions are so much more satisfying? It’s so much easier to look at the failure of our schools and start looking for easy answers.
There’s nothing courageous about blowing things up. We’ve done it district after district in this country. Take a look at Chester if you want to see a blown up school system. Or perhaps a trip to New Orleans is in order. It’s easy to detonate. It’s hard to build and invest and believe in our public schools.
We all know the well-documented failure of our schools. We well know the consequences of not investing in them. But the next time you hear someone say it’s time to blow up the schools, we need to think twice about what that really means.
Putting Children First?
And just look what Ackerman's plan is for the public school system: close schools like Gillespie, an Edison managed school students have fled from, and increase the class size in neighboring schools.
Does this sound like a recipe for success?
How about keeping Gillespie open, fire Edison, and institute proven programs like Reading Recovery, Read 180, and serve a specific clientele neighborhood schools do not have the resources remediation requires, and charter schools won't accept.
Fixing our schools really isn't difficult. It requires someone who puts children first and union bashing second.
Ackerman has apparently committed to a reduced class size plan
that would be implemented districtwide and lower class sizes to 20 students in kindergarten and 22 in grades 1-3.
Changing or Closing Poorly Performing Schools
The whole point of providing alternatives to the traditional public system was to create many "systems" or "methods" of running schools. It is a little bit about parent choice for their kids but, in my opinion, a lot about seeing which schools and programs work and why and spreading it through the system. We need to get rid of charters that don't perform--I hear this all the time and agree. What about traditional public schools that don't perform?
I have recently taken a tour of two charter schools: KIPP and Independence. Both seem to be working very well based on test scores. At KIPP kids score in the 91st percentile on tests by 8th grade. At Independence around 84th. KIPP is only 5th through 8th grade. Most of their students come from North Philadelphia and are from poverty level families. They are chosen by lottery (this is the extent of the "application" process people are inferring makes charters different--I understand self selection of parents who are more engaged). My recollection is that KIPP kids come in scoring in the high 20's on tests. Most come into 5th reading at a second or third grade level.
Independence has spanish language immersion or heavy focus on it from 1st grade. (I think its 1 thru 8). Also children are chosen by lottery. It is a clean, safe environment (as is KIPP). Counselors and social workers work closely with kids outside of the classroom. Kids are taught to expect to go to college.
These schools impressed me. Their systems and methods are working for the children there. At both schools kids go on to and graduate from high schools. Very good high schools usually. It sounds like the ideas (I am sure they are data driven and working elsewhere) mentioned by Helen should be tried in our public schools and we can see how effective they are at addressing the problem--or if they can in fact be implemented successfully within the traditional system. What works can be spread. That is what the SRC is supposed to have been doing.
Rather than fighting about generalized statistics: all charter schools are as bad as all public schools--we need to replicate what is working and dump what is not working. The odds of the kids in the 35 worst schools in the city making it as productive citizens (the mission of the School District) will likely improve as a result of change from the status quo--whether it be more resources in the traditional system, empowering principals or a switch to charters. We are not arguing about a need for dramatic change are we? Let's see which change works for children (No--not through experimentation, through replicating what works here and elsewhere: changes driven by data).
Keeping a focus on what is best for children should help us to work together toward the goal of having all schools produce productive citizens. There is not ever ONE way of accomplishing a goal.
Actually Councilman I have to disagree with these two points
Parents don't want a multitude of choices. They want quality choice alternatives. They want to know that these systems that have been set up and which we're pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into have a certain vetting and a level of oversight that makes them worth the investment. Yet according to numerous studies I referenced above, taken as a whole, the EMO/charter experiment has been underwhelming in its results.
It simply isn't true that a change in the status quo makes things better. Things can and have gotten worse for a whole host of schools as a result of poor oversight, rotten contracts (which among other things exempted EMOs largely from adeuqately serving the needs of special ed and bilingual students as well as paying them for students they didn't have), and the "let somebody else take care of these kids" excuse to drop responsibility. Meanwhile we've lost time and money in investing in things that can turn things around in the district.
Don't get me wrong. I am not bashing KIPP (I am even not familiar enough with their outfit to do so) or any of a number of good charter schools out there, including one I helped found myself. Nor am I a defender of the status quo - that's a rather manipulative argument that came out during the takeover days against people who demanded to see the qualifications of private managers to conduct public education.
I am saying though, that Karen Heller's sentiment that hiring outside managers is new and bold territory for us is flatly inaccurate and not borne out by the data.
I do wish things were as easy as this:
But it just isn't. I believe there are important lessons that not only KIPP and Independence have to teach us, but also a host of other Philadelphia public schools which are successful. I do think that we know what works for kids and what it takes for us to turn our schools around.
To me the biggest hurdle is not ignorance or lack of expertise, but rather it's the public will to invest in our public schools; to engage with parents, teachers and students rather than prescribe to them; and to look at long-term data-driven investments rather than short term fixes.
What is the ideal?
Helen,
This is a simple question with no simple answer. But, what is your ideal for what a fully funded Philly School District looks like? Forgive me if this has already been done by the Notebook, but I (and I think many generally sympathetic people) really don't have a good idea of what we should really be shooting for internally.
I know that is not answerable in a comment or whatever, but that would certainly be something that would be in the the Notebook's wheelhouse, as it becomes the place that we can reference for education advocacy in the city.
Here's a shot
In my opinion, I would first start with a basic template of what every school in the District should be guaranteed if it opens up and expects to offer a quality education. This is what we have been calling a baseline school budget - in my mind it includes, lower class sizes in the primary grades; literacy emphasis through assigned grade reading specialists, tutors; functioning school libraries, library programs, and librarians; a full-time nurse, counselor and special ed and at-risk specialist to address social, behavioral, health and academic needs. We need staffing for a basic curriculum, including arts, music, and science (including equipment and a lab) in every school. I don't think we reach for the sky, but we need a floor.
Then we need to consider what it takes for kids to succeed in the primary grades, middle grades, transitional grades and in high school given different populations and needs. With a basic school budget in place, I would fully support Dr. Ackerman's vision of a weighted student funding formula that gives kids with needs greater weight, allowing broader funding for professional development investment or targeted programs.
The difference is mostly that we need to balance what schools and classrooms need with the traditional categorical budgeting approach which takes a look at huge chunks of dollars like salaries and benefits, materials and supplies, contracts, etc.
No difference (for K-8 schools)
I am a School District of Philadelphia (SDP) teacher and have worked in both Edison and SDP schools in two vastly different regions of Philadelphia. I can say that the Edison school was no better nor worse than a school managed by the SDP. I worked for the Edison school for 3 years and the SDP for 1 1/2 years. So, I ask, why bother wasting more money by turning it over to more educational management firms?
In my experiences, both schools did not make AYP in the previous 4 - 5+ years. The Edison school had a high teacher and administrator turnover as well as a high rate of student turnaround. The SDP school had highly experienced leadership and teachers. Most of the teachers had 10+ years experience, many with over 20 years being spent within the SDP system. The principal served at least 8 years in the school including an additional 25 in the SDP system. Yet, despite all of this experience, the school did not make AYP.
Both systems have a group of people who come in to "observe" the situation and "advise" on what should be done to "make improvements" every 4 - 6 weeks. These groups, in the SDP, are now called Empowerment Teams, and Edison referred to them as the Edison People, or something similar. Some have very little teaching experience, or have never taught in an urban setting. They come in and rudely enter your classroom, no expression on their faces, sit down in the back with their notebooks and furiously write notes. Teachers are not given any feedback but see glimpses of what may have been their classroom in the 6-week report. These reports are given every few weeks with a list of goals and objectives for the schools to meet. They are then updated based upon their findings. This is a way to justify the team member's positions. I wonder who grades the team members of both organizations as no one has ever asked for my input on how they behave or treat me while in my classroom.
The materials used are somewhat different for literacy only. Otherwise, Everyday Math, is used for the math block. Edison prefers Success for All for literacy with black and white books. The SDP prefers an array of materials. Some schools use Harcourt's Trophies series while others use StoryTown. The same number of minutes are utilized for both blocks. There is more of an emphasis on Guided Reading in the SDP.
Both systems provided PSSA drilling and after-school programs focusing on the "bubble-kids" or those who are just below basic and have a prayer of doing well enough to push the school into a positive AYP status. Both schools have high ESL populations, 25-30%, and at least a 10% Special Education population with some overlap in both groups. Both schools have more Special Education teachers than ESL teachers. Both schools utilize the inclusion model in which ESL and Special Education teachers push-in and teach within the regular education classroom. Both schools do not allow adequate time for teachers to co-plan lessons and the ESL and Special Education teachers end up being supportive tutors rather than an teachers.
Both schools require specific strategies and skills to be taught during specific weeks. They also both require specific posters to be hung in each classroom. It's all about show. Show us these things and we'll stay off your backs.
Each time the special teams visit, I hear that the schools are doing what they are supposed to do with some minor tweaking needed on instructional issues. Yet, each year none of the schools made AYP.
I think the SDP should be questioning the methods they are forcing teachers to utilize in their classrooms, the curriculum pacing schedule, the curriculum itself, and inclusive practices and the effectiveness of the push-in model of teaching before they begin to pay more money to education managers whose own bottom line is to make money, not to make educated students into educated adults. Couldn't this money used to pay the education managers be used to continue to decrease classroom size, hire assistant teachers so grade teachers have support rather than having two fully qualified teachers in one classroom? Couldn't the funds be used to develop a more holistic curriculum that taps into the student's interests and experiences that they can relate to? Not to mention the repair of rundown buildings.
I have been teaching for a mere 4 1/2 years, entering from a previous career. I wanted to teach to help make a change. Yet, I feel more and more that I am part of the problem which enables the SDP to oppress and hold back my students from truly succeeding and functioning in the real world. I have already begun to search for another way to advocate and help the children of Philadelphia because I refuse to continue to be part of the problem.
I'd like to include a few more things that I would spend that money on in the future. I would either fire or retrain teachers who have only taught in the SDP for 10+ years because they are a product of this lazy, unprofessional, and failing culture that is rampant in the SDP. They need to receive training on professionalism and how to advocate for the students not their own interests. I would also immediately fire any administrators who teachers and parents have repeatedly complained about not doing their job or being racist, etc. I would not allow them to continue destroying the lives of our students nor the spirits of our teachers! I would also ask for and listen to teachers' input! After all, they are the ones who are on the ground, in the action on a daily basis. I would end the culture and attitude that declares teachers are at the bottom of the food chain!
However, in my experience with the SDP, in the end, nothing makes a difference.
Phillyteacher: Thanks
for taking the time to write out your comparative experiences. I think your comments are important food for thought as we talk about the challenges in undertaking institutional change. I am with you on both accountability and support for teachers in the district - one of the things that in my mind is hardest for school districts to balance. And I am with you on your critique of leadership and administration all too often being distant rather than engaged partners in the classroom.
I hope you'll take a moment to check out the Public School Notebook's new website where you might find some kindred spirits struggling and seeking answers to many of your concerns and questions, and, hopefully, finding out that a difference can be made.
I really appreciate your comment
And I would like to invite you to consider testifying in front of the SRC on your experience. Last year Edison hired one of the largest PR firms in the country, Edelman based out of New York City, to retool its image and change its brand. As result of moves like these on the part of EMO's and extended public relations campaigns, they can be very successful in creating the illusion that they are doing better and are more innovative than they actually are. They are very clear that this is about a war for people's hearts and minds, about image, not substance. As a result of their backing by the district an politicians, there is never really an opportunity for parents, students, and teachers to speak about the truth of their experiences. We might not have millions of dollars to pay public relations firms, but we have our voices, and that is often the only thing that can prevent those in leadership from making decisions based on political interests and profit motives. Edison knows its contracts for Philly schools are up again in June, which is why it helped pay for a study to try to show a positive performance which has gotten a lot of play in the media. There is an evening SRC meeting coming up on March 11 - at 6:00 p.m. To testify you simply call 215-400-4040 and tell them what you want to talk about. The earlier you call in before the day of, the better.
I would either fire or
Thanks for bringing this up. The tremendous power of the teachers' union makes meaningful change very difficult. Teachers can't get fired and all promotion is based on seniority, not performance. Until this changes, I'm afraid the schools will continue to stagnate.
Powerful teachers union?
Please expand on the tremendous power of the union. Quite frankly, I a teacher, believe they are just the opposite.
What failed policies are the union responsible for?
Karen Heller is Irrelevant
this is the same karen heller who wrote "suck it up, Philly" a few weeks back, right?
Who cares what Heller thinks? She writes an ignorant column for a dying newspaper.
I believe it was The Clash's Joe Strummer who remarked of Led Zeppelin, "I don't even have to listen to the album, one look at the cover and I know it's crap." (paraphrased). I kind of feel the same way about Karen Heller: predictable, boring, conventional wisdom. The only thing she's good for is a sleep aid (and unlike most of those, the quality of her writing renders her completely nonaddictive).
KIPP and ICS
I agree these schools are clean and wonder why the SDP can't even manage that, but as far as the lottery process goes I have to disagree. I know several parents who investigated charter schools and somehow none of them were denied admission at the school they chose.
EMOs are disgusting
I can't believe we let corporations make money off of our children. That is horrible.
Don't people understand that profit does not lead to anything but the drive for more profit?
We privatized our prison system - so prison corporations found a way to get more people in jail. We privatized our military - so the mercenaries find endless new ways to make war. And then there's the privatized healthcare system that is killing and impoverishing people and ruining our economy.
This is what happens when you have no other value left than money. Our children are not commodities.
If they actually worked, I wouldn't care
but they don't, or better put they cost more, exclude more sepecial needs kids and deliver on average about the same results. Public education is simply not something easily "free marketized" because the desired end result is well educated citizens, not share-holder profits. EMO's are not so much disgusting as all-too predictable in their modus operandus. They are very good, at least in the short term, at pursuing their bottom line - which is achieved by wooing politicians who direct them contracts. Quality education is irrelevant to that goal. They just need to convince enough of the right politicians they will do a good job to make money for a few years until their general lack of results starts to bear itself out overtime. They are the equivalent of those guys who go door to door selling the cheap knives for politicians anxious for a "quick fix" for public education.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
I was a bit incoherent there.
Sorry, let me back up and explain.
I spent many years working for a non-profit in the arts and culture sector of Philadelphia. While I was there, we spent a lot of time writing reports about how arts and culture is good for Philadelphia because it creates jobs, and it brings money into the city. Every one dollar you spend at the Philadelphia Film Fest means X number of jobs created, tax income for the city, money clueless suburbanites drop at Rouge, etc etc.
This is all fine and good. And I think that argument had to be made. But I don't think that this is the only metric we should have for things we choose to do. Aka. the Green Economy stuff - where making and building things that aren't toxic is worth doing because it creates jobs, not becuase we don't want to poison ourselves.
We didn't always think like this.
It doesn't matter whether you are rich or poor, you have to have some other values, other than money, or else you will be running like a hamster in a wheel your whole life because you will never have enough. There are whole societies and countries out there with a lot less money than we have, that believe you build schools because everyone should have an education. What is the point of being the richest country in the world if all we want to do is run after more money all the time? We should value what we have, and make sure that everyone is taken care of, and doesn't have to sleep on the street.
Sometimes an art museum is worth building because - well - it's an art museum. Or a hospital. Or... you name it.
It's all about the Benjamins.
As soon as I wrote that post, I hated it. I can't figure out what to say what I want to say. I am thinking out loud. Great. Esp since I have a good job and half the city is living on fruit pies.
I guess it's more like - economic growth is desperately needed in a city with so many people out of work.
But that can't be our only value. That's not enough. We need a vision for what to do with the money, and how to spend it, and how to make sure it is distributed humanely, and consciously to those with the greatest need.
How can we do that?