Implementing "charter" schools in a public setting - what the REAL results are.

[donco6]

My school district is a small, urban fringe district. We're about 6,000 kids, 72% Hispanic, the rest white. 47% of our kids come in speaking no English. We're over 70% free lunch. Our graduation rate was less than 50% in 2000. The community is a shifting mix of older, white Italians giving way to Hispanic families with young kids. We have a large industrial base, including one Superfund sight contaminated with lead and cadmium. Over the past 20 years, the district's performance on the variety of tests we gave over that time (CTBS, Terra Nova, CSAP, NAEP, etc.) has steadily fallen from average to far below average.

About eight years ago, the district embarked on a districtwide reform to try to address our new reality. We knew there was no little tweak that was going to fix what "ailed" us. So we figured we'd start from scratch. How would we remake this district if we had complete flexibility to do whatever we wanted? We started with a preschool, 6 K-5 elementaries, 2 6-8 middle schools and one 9-12 high school. We got rid of the middle schools completely, created 5 small K-8s (1 Coalition of Essential Schools, 2 Community Schools, and one University Partnership Lab School), 4 small K-6s (a Montessori, CES Language School and 2 Expeditionary Learning Schools) a 7-12 Expeditionary School of the Arts, a 9-12 New Technology school, a K-12 Expeditionary Learning School, a K-12 International Baccalaureate School, A Big Picture 9-12 and a 9-12 Academy. We left the preschool alone, as it was already doing very well. Our idea was to provide parents and students with a choice of *learning styles*. We specifically REJECTED going toward a choice of vocations.

We housed all the schools in existing buildings by working out ways to share the space. A school that once housed one 800-student elementary now housed a K-8 and a K-6. Another building housed 2 K-6 schools. The high school housed 2 small high schools and a Montessori school. Each school was given it's own entrance and office space - except for Montessori where we couldn't figure out how. Which had implications later.

Here's the critical part: Because we did this as a system, we were able to deny any one of the school models the use of a "default" school. In other words, the small schools were not allowed the option of saying, "You know Johnny, you have these extensive special education needs we just can't serve here - see ya!", or "Johnny, your behavior just isn't fitting in here - so we're going to let you go back to School X." Here, there is no other place for the kids to go. We didn't preseve one old school that still owned everyone. Yes, they can transfer from school to school, and that happens sometimes, but we are able to see it if a school is trying to "dump" a kid off on someone else.

The interesting thing is that when the models first came in, their national advisors kept pushing the district to create such a school where all the "leftovers" could be dumped. (They were a little more diplomatic than that, but not much). We refused. We told them, If your model cannot serve all kids, it's not a valid model. ANYONE can create success when you just sift through the kids. We need a model that can work with all kids, at all levels, with the wide variety of needs that our kids exhibit. Show us.

(We used to have a central administrator who would say, "You know, our parents aren't keeping the good kids at home! They're sending us the best they've got! These *are* our kids, and we have to figure out how to teach them, not pine for the kids who aren't here." His passion really helped keep us focused.)

Anyway, it's about 8 years later now. Though our performance has improved very gradually over time, we have not blown the socks off of any test like the 3-inch headlines will scream about a charter school. We did see the largest student achievement *growth* in the Metro area, according to the Colorado Dept. of Ed's new growth model analysis. So that's been encouraging. But kids are still well below grade level on reading. We still get yelled at about AYP. But like we tell the Department of Education, If there's a more extensive reform we have to go through to create a miracle, we're all ears.

We have closed three schools in those eight years. One was a 9-12 Expeditionary Learning originally, that just didn't get the right culture established and started spiraling into chaos. We closed it and implemented a Coalition of Essential Schools K-12 which is now bursting because it's so popular. Another was a K-6 CES school that started losing enrollment and was on NCLB Corrective Action facing closure anyway, so we combined it with another school. And our Technology 9-12 is closing next year. It was supposed to be a project-based model, but we don't think our 9/10 kids are established enough to be able to work that independently, and so it just never could get the performance gains that would legitimately serve the kids. So we're combining that one with the remaining 6 high schools. And we're moving our Montessori out of the high school. As much as we tried to make it work, the parents just didn't like it there, so we're moving it to the vacated Technology school.

My point is that REAL reform in this controlled model has taken a lot more time than this charter school turnaround bullshit that Arne Duncan is selling. It's all phony. I've seen what these models wanted to do in the beginning - I was *there* in the meetings with them where they told us that *some* kids just shouldn't be allowed to select their model. That they shouldn't have to take kids who hadn't been with them through the entire K-8 program. That forcing schools to take a kid as a Junior would not be "implementing with fidelity." Uh - we're REQUIRED to serve all kids who live in our district regardless of when they arrive, we'd say. How does your model fit reality? Having seen this type of manipulation, I'm not surprised at what happens elsewhere. When charters are allowed to spring up in the midst of other schools, they can and will slough off any kid who doesn't "fit their model." And when they take over a regular public school, they don't end up serving the kids who were at that school to begin with. The population completely changes. To crow about these "gains" is just preposterous. I've seen what they should be doing, and it's a slow, steady slog.

Conversely, we believe we're doing the right things. We believe we've just gotten better at knowing our kids, knowing our curriculum and what we're trying to teach, knowing our mission and knowing how to create safety nets for the kids who do fall through. (One of the new schools was a dropout recovery program, which was a real struggle because it felt like a "default" school and we just refused to go there for so long - but that was a mistake - we have 57 kids in that school now who were not in school last year.) We have a very powerful postsecondary model that introduces each student to a myriad of postsecondary options - including college for all of them if they choose that. More kids are choosing college and sticking with it for more than one year on our surveys. Enrollment is up. Parents are happy. But of course, NONE of this counts in NCLB.

Here are some things I've learned.

One, there is no magic formula. The idea of replication is often taken too far to assume that if it works in one place, it can work anywhere. Not true. What you see too often is people "making" it work. Hey, if you pound that square peg, it'll fit the round hole eventually.

Two, there is no "turnaround school." There is only a recreated school. "Turnaround" implies quick and simple - a matter of will. It's much more than that.

Three, claiming improvement with a different group of students is a baldfaced lie, and anyone doing it is a liar. That reveals character.

Four, reform apart from a system is a mistake. Autonomy is no more a magic bullet than small size. Autonomy puts you in the hands of Hitler or Jesus. It's a flip of the coin which one it's going to be.

Edit spelling.

[OrwellwasRight]

1. Great post!

As a former teacher and teacher's aide (2 years in elementary, 1 in middle school, and 6 in high school), who now works in education policy, I am constantly amazed at the bullshit that is sold as enlightened policy solutions. I often have to remind them that when they say schools don't work because teaches are lazy, they are calling me lazy, and when they say that test scores are the only things that matter, that children are not widgets. Now, how do you convince messianic figures like Arne Duncan and Michelle Rhee that the solution isn't to put inexperienced 22 year olds in every classroom and teach to the test?

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Huge push for Charter Schools down here in Ala.

Huge
Gov. Riley is pushing them. Which tells me a lot.
Pro-arguments running in editorial pages and not so thinly disguised "articles" of newspapers.
As it is, the South is quite infamous for its lily white private schools.

( as an aside, one of the most popular flour brands down here is " White Lily")

[Catshrink]

5. And I think that's why so many corporate and religious types are

so single-mindedly embracing charters: it is a way back to segregated schools. They can, and often are, very selective in recruiting and admitting students.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Just the Ayrans, looks like.

[mzteris]

23. take a look at charter demographics . . .

Charter Schools
Metrics& %
White.......... 38.4%
Black.......... 29.7%
Hispanic....... 24.7%
Asian.......... 3.9%
Other.......... 3.3%

Non-Charter schools
Metrics
White.......... 53.4%
Black.......... 16.8%
Hispanic....... 22.1%
Asian.......... 4.9%
Other.......... 2.8%

http://www.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/page/race/year/2009



Charter Schools
Metrics&
Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch.......... 48.2%
Ineligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch.......... 51.8%


Non-Charter Schools
Metrics&
Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch.......... 45.2%
Ineligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch.......... 54.8%

http://www.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/page/lunch/year/2009


edit to try and make chart more readable on here. . .

[KitSileya]

3. That's really interesting.

Here in Norway, there's such an emphasis on the 'unified school system', i.e., that all kids go thru the same school system, that I fear we are ill serving the outliers. However, the emphasis came about due to the belief in equality - that everyone have the same chance regardless of socio-economic status, that I cannot fault the intentions of the politicians that pushed it. There are very few private schools in Norway, and even fewer for-profit ones (mainly high schools, because high school is not mandatory in Norway.) However, I have long felt that forcing all students to learn in the same way is detrimental to some students, and I wish we could have schools with different pedagogical approaches as part of our public school system.

I'm glad that you're seeing improvement - and that slow and steady seems to win the race.

[donco6]

12. We have a different take on equality here.

We've shifted the idea of equality from us to our students. We used to see equality as our providing equal resources to all kids. But now we see equality as providing kids with the resources they need so that they can all be prepared to "realize their personal genius" (our mission statement). It's much different. Some kids may need more reading support, while others may need to participate in that Science and Engineering Fair. What's a student's maximum potential? That's our idea of equality.

[mzteris]

4. Great job!

It would be great of more districts followed the direction of this one. Most don't have what it takes to basically "start over". The innovations and redesigning the schools to appeal/accommodate diverse individuals/learning styles/desires. . . that's what most charter public schools are doing because most districts don't offer them. As you have attested, these kind of changes can have a significant impact on kids' achievements.

Kudos!

[Dinger]

7. K & R! (nt)

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. I think the most important thing is giving reform enough time to work

We can't look at a school after one or two years and declare it a failure because achievement has not increased. Real reform takes time. But sadly, we are an impatient society.

[donco6]

11. Absolutely - this is CRITICAL.

When we started, for example, the Expeditionary Learning model called for it's teachers to develop their own curriculum. That's how it's supposed to work in their model. So they worked and worked and worked on it. And it worked great for social studies, literature, art and other liberal arts. But math and science? It just overwhelmed them - especially in their struggle to integrate things into their Expedition. So they had to step back and really figure out their own philosophy on math and science, apart from what the national model was pushing. They then came to the district to get help on selecting a text that they could use (anathema in EL). But that took TWO YEARS to get there! They gave it the old college try, but just had to change their whole approach to math and science . . . so sure, their test scores sucked! Duh! But they knew that and we knew that . . . we just had to back up and try again. Finally, our 7th and 8th grade scores are really going up - but it took this long to see it.

Maybe people coming after us could avoid some of this mess, but like I've been saying - I think this process is UNIQUE to any district that tries it. You have to figure out your own solutions to your own problems. There is no cookie cutter! And it's not because people are lazy or recalcitrant! They were working their BUTTS off. It just didn't work here. Go figger.

[LWolf]

9. This is a beautiful post,

and does a much better job of pointing out what I've been trying to for years:

We don't need charter schools outside the system to provide flexibility, choice, or diversity in offerings. We can, and should, do it within a district.

Offering those kinds of choices within a regulated system protects students and tax payers from malpractice.

Having been part of an attempt to do just that in a different state, I have questions about a practical matters.

I've always assumed that our union should be on board with this kind of thing, but practical experience told me otherwise. There were all kinds of problems with allowing one of the district "schools of choice" I worked at to create their own calendar and hours, for example.

Does your union support what your district is doing? How do they work with district administration to both support teachers and support this kind of a system?

How do you manage the transportation piece? I'm assuming that families have choices about what school to send their kids to.

[donco6]

10. Thank you LWolf.

That means a lot coming from you. I respect your opinion highly.

Our union was on board pretty much from day one. When we went to visit schools to see how they worked, we always took at least three teachers and the union pres. with us. Now, keep in mind, our staff of teachers is only about 330, so we know them all. So it's really different from a big city district where there's a lot of division right off the bat. It just wasn't like that, even from the start. I think when the teachers got a chance to see other schools working with the same type of kids, and how they were doing it in a different way and seeing some success - I think it really inspired them, as much as it did the rest of us. We wanted that. They wanted that. The board wanted that. It really wasn't that difficult to get there after those experiences. I highly recommend it.

Our schools work from a central calendar that they can waive for variances. But they have to pay for the cost. So, for example, one model uses late starts quite a lot (which introduces some problems for the community, but they seem to have dealt with it OK). So, they submit a waiver and I calculate how much it's costing to provide that late start (an extra bus run, mainly, as our routes are all circle routes so that any kid can choose any school - we don't have attendance boundaries.) If they can afford it, they let me take some budget and add it to transportation. Then the board approves the waiver and we're all done. So each school has its own calendar that the teaching staff has to have a 2/3 vote to approve. It works pretty well - although calendars are always messy projects, as you know.

The teachers, after 8 years, are very, very committed to their schools. They have really grown with their specific model. An Expeditionary Learning teacher is now very different from a Global Leadership teacher. But we have one Master Agreement with some subclauses on work year and calendar and stuff like that which differentiate between the schools. There isn't a lot, though. I just haven't seen a lot of upset over the *schools* or the structure - mainly teachers are concerned about the same things all teachers are - pay, work year, input on decision-making, time to enter data, entering grades, etc.

Transportation. We eliminated all attendance boundaries and created a circular bus routing system that allows any child to attend a school if they live more than 1 mile away. They may have a school across the street, but if they choose one across the district, we transport. This has required a larger commitment of resources to transportation. But because our mission statement says: "We will not allow anything to impede a student's success" we believe we are obligated to provide this. What is "choice" when you can't choose it?

We only cover about 18 sq miles in area, so we aren't dealing with enormous routes. And like I said, every district that considers this has to do it their own way - it just isn't reproduceable in the way so many granting agencies (ala Gates) would like to believe.

[LWolf]

13. I would like to see

a district like yours be a model for other districts.

Two points: small district, small area of coverage, seem to be key to making it work.

I much prefer a small district over a large. Having worked in both, I've found small districts to be friendlier, more flexible, and more focused on actual classrooms and students.

I've got a reasonably small district now. We work pretty well together.

The coverage area, though, is vast. Because we are semi-rural, we cover approximately (my estimate)247 square miles.

Figuring out the transportation piece, so that each school is truly open to all, is tricky. It's not going to happen in the midst of budget crises, when we're cutting programs and jobs. But when the economy improves and the budget stabilizes, I'd like to see my district at least consider the possibilities.

What district are you in? (pm me if you'll share.)

[donco6]

14. That certainly presents a lot of problems.

One thing that really helped us was a 3-day strategic planning session that we held at the Stanley Hotel (yes THAT Stanley Hotel) about 2 years before we changed the schools. We had about 60 people there from the community - teachers, admin, parents, paras, business people, board.

We spent the first day just hammering out what we believed about our school district, our kids, our community. It was a very, very hard discussion with lots of tears and frustration. We had to face that we were failing our kids. And nobody liked it.

The next day we hammered out a mission statement. I know, I know . . . mission statements. But this was different. It wasn't a statement about who we were. It was about who we wanted to become. It created a "strategic gap" between where we were and where we needed to be. All of our plans and goals from that time on were geared at closing that gap. That's where the transportation plan came from. That's why we chose a variety of different school models, instead of just creating small schools (which would have been our biggest mistake of all).

On the third day, we commited to the mission. It wasn't a vote - everyone had to agree, or we had to start over again. We had small groups up until 2:30 a.m. the night before, hammering out this word and that word because someone just couldn't agree to it. But in the end we had complete, firm agreement. And a really renewed sense of purpose. I remember that time fondly. We really felt together. It's not always been that way since.

With the mission in place, we were able to have great subcommittee groups to work on Action Plans. These were mostly teachers, but also classified staff and parents. They were the ones who came up with the actualization of the mission. All we had to do was keep asking, "Is this going to fulfill the mission?" If it clearly did - cool. If it didn't, it would be weeded out. There wasn't even really a lot of arguing at that point.

Probably our biggest issue though was bilingual versus ELL versus Spanish language support. We had all three going at once back then, and it was a mess. We were able to streamline this a bit.

Anyway - I highly recommend a group called Cambridge Strategic Services. Bill Cook has a great strategic planning model that goes far beyond just the usual long-range planning (which really isn't strategic, but operational).

[LWolf]

15. Good info, thanks.

And thanks for the link.

My district is on the brink of more changes; our superintendent just announced her retirement. She was with us for 4 years.

And a friend of a newly elected board member showed up at the board meeting last week to present a document attacking teacher's unions and demanding that the board hire "non-unionized teachers."

At the same time, we have a positive group of people sincerely dedicated to the families we serve; classified, certified, and administration. Our first order of business is to try to survive next year without cutting more jobs.

We spent a year hammering out a "vision" statement, but it wasn't really a great process. We were presented with a statement by the superintendent, she took feedback from us and from the community about adjustments, and went forward. We've been working on it for a couple of years. I wonder if the new superintendent will support that vision, or something else?

[donco6]

16. The union/non-union thing is such a red herring.

I can unequivocally say that working with a union did not present any real obstacles in making changes we needed to make. (Well, some obstacles, but they were things we shouldn't have been able to ignore at any rate, so they were good things). To point to THAT as some sort of bogeyman you have to slay before you can bring about change is cowardly.

I haven't seen any other process of "visioning" or mission building that did anything worthwhile. This process really changed us. We've held on to the same mission for 8 years and just refocused the whole thing again - through multiple board member changes, though we have kept our supt the whole time.

[mzteris]

22. i am really impressed with this.

I guess you think I'm being sarcastic (that is if you can even read my posts. :P) but THIS IS the type of change that I can get behind.

I wish that this type of effort and commitment and community support could be instilled in every school district in the country!!

[terryg11]

17. that's an incredible story

I can't imagine the chaos and stress that resulted from the restructuring you implemented.
Which school district is that exactly? I would love to see what the Colorado press has to say on it, surely the papers took note of it?
Real progress will come slowly for sure.

[donco6]

19. Fortunately, they had me to handle operations.

Ha!

We pulled it off in phases. We started with two new high schools. Then switched all the high schools and let the one original high school graduate out. At the third year, we switched over all the elementaries.

We organized all the movement of teachers and classroom equipment over one summer.

We had to completely rework the entire bus routing system every year for four years.

We created new calendars for each school every year. After three years, we implemented a somewhat more standardized calendar, as parents were having trouble putting different children in different schools because the breaks didn't line up right. We wanted a parent free to choose any school for any kid - they are different even within families! Duh.

The national press has been more attentive than our own. I guess "a prophet in his own country" come into play. Obama mentioned us in his "infomercial" just before the election. You may want to Google Mapleton Expeditionary School of the Arts - that's one of ours.

[Hannah Bell]

18. great post.

[cjbgreen]

20. unions

For those of you who have worked in big school districts and smaller districts, is there a difference in how the Union operates. The New Yorker's article titled "The Rubber Room" (I think last August) was a story that portrayed the Union as despicable. An experience that is foreign to me. I found that most Unions represent their members but do not defend egregious behavior. What is the experience of other DU readers?

I noticed when I searched for the article by S. Brill that a correction was added, here is Correction, December 1, 2009: A twentieth of one per cent of all New York City teachers are Rubber Roomers, not half of one per cent, as originally stated.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill#ixzz0eP8ZG9Ew

Unfortunately, most readers will not be checking the online version and are left with the impression that Unions protect a significant number of grossly incompetent teachers. So we assume all teachers are bad and need to be supervised like children, unlike other professions.
SAD

[tonysam]

21. My experience is the unions are worthless in defending teachers

when they are marked for termination; they cut deals with districts in order to defend wrongdoing or negligence by principals.

[PVnRT]

24. Great story, but most school districts are comprised of spineless wimps

They don't have the guts to try a reform like that and give it time to see if it works. They just want to call the consultants in, gut the schools to get federal money, and rely on testing to tell them how students are doing.