REACH poker tournament

The REACH poker tournament on Monday night was a BLAST!  Thanks to all who were there and/or supported REACH!

Another day, another email exchange with my new pen pal, Gary Rubenstein

Another day, another email exchange with my new pen pal, Gary Rubenstein, that covers the most interesting (to me, anyway!) debates in ed reform.  In the first, Gary uses the old doctor-teacher spurious analogy:

 

I think I'll use an analogy, believe it or not.  (Only in these discussions with you do I use so many analogies.)

One day, a news report comes out that there's a major epidemic known as 'old age' which will kill everyone on the planet, eventually.  Ravitch, the historian of medicine, says this is not a big of a crisis as the media is painting -- it's just the way things are.

Reformers say this is a crisis and a big one.  How can we stand by and do nothing while every human being on this Earth is going to die within 100 years?  They move into action.  Since this is such a crisis, they don't have time to do proper experiments to check if different solutions are viable.

They decide that if we make robotic hearts and brains for everyone, that will surely fix the problem.  Ravitch says that it won't fix the problem and it will actually make things worse as people die from rejecting the artificial hearts and brains.

They ask Ravitch what she thinks will cure this crisis and she says she doesn't know how to fix it, isn't even sure it qualifies as a 'crisis,' and that we'd be better off just doing what we were doing than the radical unfounded solutions that reformers are proposing.  Reformers say that she is a defender of the status quo.

Ravitch says that people can live a little longer with exercise and healthy eating.  Perhaps we can get life-span up by five years with that solution.  Reformers say that this is unacceptable.  Life expectancy of 88 is too low.

Another reform is to shut down 'death factory' hospitals.  Replace with smaller charter hospitals that don't treat people who are very ill.

Something like that ...

 

I and some of my readers addressed this issue in Sept. 2007 in response to something Randi said.  Here's what I wrote at the time (http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/09/randi-weingarten-md.html): 

In an interview last weekend, Randi used the flawed analogy that holding teachers accountable for student performance would be as unfair as holding oncologists accountable for the mortality rate of their cancer patients.  She is correct that teachers are not solely (or even primarily) responsible for where children end up in life -- that's principally the job of parents -- but they absolutely should be held accountable for the gain in student learning while in their classrooms.  The NY Sun editorialized about this on Monday:

No one would suggest the doctors be fired for each death, but certainly  they should be, and are, held accountable for performance. This is the role of  hospital internships, strict board examinations, and discriminating patients.  Would that teachers were held to such standards as exist in the oncology ward.

I also wrote something about it in response to a letter to the editor in March (http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/03/letters-to-editor-on-brooks-column.html): [The] analogy of "blaming doctors for the cancer  rate" is SO wrong! The proper analogy would be if a patient showed up  at a hospital with symptoms of early-stage cancer and then the doctors: a)  failed to do the proper tests to determine what was wrong; and b) once  determining it was cancer, failed to treat it quickly and properly, allowing it to metastasize into something fatal. If this type of criminal negligence  were being practiced in our hospitals, resulting in uncared-for patients dying left and right, there would be a justifiable hue and cry, yet this is precisely what is happening to millions of children in our school RIGHT  NOW!

 

And here are three spot-on comments by my friends (http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/09/comments-on-oncologist-teacher-analogy.html and http://edreform.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-comments-on-randis-oncologist.html):

A) From Mike Goldstein, founder of MATCH charter schools:

Whitney, there's another strand of the medical analogy. My  wife is an oncologist. She likes her job a lot.

Each day, she's put in a position to succeed. If she does what she's been trained to do on nuts-and-bolts medical issues, she gets to do the  "art" -- which for her is helping families deal with the intersection of health and emotion.

At No Excuses charter schools, teachers are put in a position to succeed, too. If a No Excuses teacher does what she's been trained to do --  phone parents to build relationships; start the class with a written do-now;  handle disruptions in a prescribed manner; etc etc -- he/she gets to do the "art"  of teaching, which is to make science or math or English "come  alive."

At many traditional urban schools, teachers are put in a position to fail. That's in part because teachers are taught in Ed School,  then again by the union, to FIGHT any school-wide methodology on how to handle nuts-and-bolts classroom culture issues.

While a doctor accepts that she will learn EXACTLY what to do on many matters (the science), before dealing with the nuance (the art),  teachers are taught that this means "their professional judgment, and  autonomy, is being questioned."

Funny, my wife pores over journals which tell her EXACTLY what  to do in a million different situations, and never feels her professional judgment under siege. (She only feels that way when insurers block her  preventive medicine efforts, particularly Medicaid/Medicare).

This dynamic gets exacerbated because traditional school leaders, when they do assert control, do it over the wrong thing -- curriculum. That's precisely BACKWARDS, the worst of both worlds.

Now teachers who are frustrated by behavior issues (since nobody is telling them to sacrifice their autonomy to follow a schoolwide approach) are getting curriculum that, no matter how "good" in theory, will necessarily be ineffective b/c the class will still be chaotic.

Many No Excuses schools go the other direction. They prescribe in great detail how teachers must develop and maintain classroom culture, then decentralize some/many curriculum decisions to individual teachers or small  groups of them.

 

B) From another friend:

Randi  gave a speech to incoming TFA corps members this summer during which she also used the cancer doctor analogy.  Arguments by analogy are dubious by definition, but this one really takes the cake.  I sat in on a small group debrief of Randi's speech to the corps members and everyone there was  extremely confused.  Of course strange analogies, confusing logic, and stonewalling are all key components of the union's arsenal.  It  would be interesting if someone wrote an article comparing the union's use of logic, critical thinking, and transparency to the basic lessons on logic, critical thinking, and rhetoric that are taught in middle school and high school English and Social Studies classes.

C) And a final comment from a retired NYC principal:

Everything you stated  today is right on the money. The UFT and its leader have non-harmonious objectives. As teachers they want to be treated and respected as professionals. As unionists they are concerned with workplace issues of more pay and less work. There can never be congruity between these goals.  Unfortunately, as an elected leadership with the need to respond to membership to stay in their jobs, the tendency is to focus more on the union needs.  However, to the union's credit, the UFT has a first-rate professional development program headed by Aminda Gentile.

Rather than take the stand that "Teachers know what children need," it would help all to make their conflicting dichotomy more visible and public.

Email discussion with Gary Rubenstein about teacher quality

The second discussion Gary and I have been having is on teacher quality, what is a crappy teacher, why, whether they can become better, how many there are, etc.  Here's the beginning (full exchange below):

Gary's email: What percent of teachers, do you think, are 'crappy'?  And could you break down that percent into the two types 1) Crappy teachers who are choosing to be crappy because they have job security and 2) Crappy teachers who just have no talent for it.

This is a vital question.

Do you truly believe that if we replace bottom 6% of teachers with average ones, achievement will soar?  It seems like a very easy conjecture to prove.

My reply: I did a totally unscientific survey of my email list a couple of years ago, asking this question:

Based on your experience working in a traditional public school serving primarily low-income and/or minority students, what percentage of the teachers you worked with were (the numbers in the three boxes must add up to 100):

1) Good/great (you would be happy to have your child in the class)

2) Fair, but improvement is possible (you would have reservations having your child in the class)

3) Horrible and unlikely to ever improve (you would NEVER permit your child to be in the class)

Of the 48 respondents, mostly TFA corps members or alums, about half in NYC, the average percentages were 20%, 35% and 45%, respectively.  Based on the inner-city schools you've taught at, what are your percentages, thinking about the teachers you'd want in a few years for your own two children?

As for the motivations of crappy teachers – do they suck because they aren't capable of teaching or because they don't care, are burnt out, don't like children (at least poor, minority children), or are unmotivated because they know that their union and its ridiculous contract will protect their jobs no matter what they do – I don't know.  What do you think?

For the most compelling description of the type of teacher I'm talking about, see: http://edreform.blogspot.com/2009/07/story-from-trenches-send-me-more.html; here are other stories: http://edreform.blogspot.com/2006/12/people-who-suck-teacher-quality-data.html

To your question about the impact of firing the bottom 5% of teachers, it's hard to know.  But my study of organizations (mostly for-profit companies – that's my business, finding companies that can turn themselves around) shows that in any organization there are a certain percentage of great people, then there is the significant majority in the middle, doing a decent job, and then there are the lemons.  But here's the key: if you don't get rid of the lemons, they poison the barrel because they drag everyone down, especially the people in the middle, many of whom will follow the lead of the great people, if they're "winning" but will also follow the lemons if they're "winning."

In any case, we're about to find out the answer to your question in DC, where 5.1% of teachers were just laid off due to poor performance (http://edreform.blogspot.com/2011/07/dc-teacher-performance-evaluations-are.html). 

… You seem to care why teachers suck and see the best in even teachers who have completely given up on kids are aren't even attempting to teach them – you know, like the ones who are basically running a movie theater (surely you've been in the schools in which you walk down the hall or past the auditorium and they're showing movies all the time – and not the History Channel – think Karate Kid).  I think it's a high crime to do this and anyone who does this (including the principal and asst principals) should be subject to immediate termination – and I don't really care to hear the lame excuses about how hard the job is, how badly behaved the children are, how unresponsive the parents are, etc. 

My bottom line: deliver results in the classroom for kids, or go find another profession.  There is no shortage of college-educated adults who would be grateful for that job, especially in this economy!

-------------------------

---------------------

Email discussion with Gary Rubenstein about teacher quality

 

Gary's email: What percent of teachers, do you think, are 'crappy'?  And could you break down that percent into the two types 1) Crappy teachers who are choosing to be crappy because they have job security and 2) Crappy teachers who just have no talent for it.

This is a vital question.

Do you truly believe that if we replace bottom 6% of teachers with average ones, achievement will soar?  It seems like a very easy conjecture to prove.

My reply: I did a totally unscientific survey of my email list a couple of years ago, asking this question:

Based on your experience working in a traditional public school serving primarily low-income and/or minority students, what percentage of the teachers you worked with were (the numbers in the three boxes must add up to 100):

1) Good/great (you would be happy to have your child in the class)

2) Fair, but improvement is possible (you would have reservations having your child in the class)

3) Horrible and unlikely to ever improve (you would NEVER permit your child to be in the class)

Of the 48 respondents, mostly TFA corps members or alums, about half in NYC, the average percentages were 20%, 35% and 45%, respectively.  Based on the inner-city schools you've taught at, what are your percentages, thinking about the teachers you'd want in a few years for your own two children?

As for the motivations of crappy teachers – do they suck because they aren't capable of teaching or because they don't care, are burnt out, don't like children (at least poor, minority children), or are unmotivated because they know that their union and its ridiculous contract will protect their jobs no matter what they do – I don't know.  What do you think?

For the most compelling description of the type of teacher I'm talking about, see: http://edreform.blogspot.com/2009/07/story-from-trenches-send-me-more.html; here are other stories: http://edreform.blogspot.com/2006/12/people-who-suck-teacher-quality-data.html

To your question about the impact of firing the bottom 5% of teachers, it's hard to know.  But my study of organizations (mostly for-profit companies – that's my business, finding companies that can turn themselves around) shows that in any organization there are a certain percentage of great people, then there is the significant majority in the middle, doing a decent job, and then there are the lemons.  But here's the key: if you don't get rid of the lemons, they poison the barrel because they drag everyone down, especially the people in the middle, many of whom will follow the lead of the great people, if they're "winning" but will also follow the lemons if they're "winning."

In any case, we're about to find out the answer to your question in DC, where 5.1% of teachers were just laid off due to poor performance (http://edreform.blogspot.com/2011/07/dc-teacher-performance-evaluations-are.html). 

I don't have time to elaborate further, but I've written extensively on teacher quality – see:

http://edreform.blogspot.com/2009/12/ed-reform-ground-zero-in-dc-story-from.html

http://edreform.blogspot.com/2010/01/stop-presses-heres-new-article-not-yet_07.html

http://edreform.blogspot.com/2010/02/lausds-dance-of-lemons-why-firing-desk.html

http://edreform.blogspot.com/2010/10/stop-trashing-teachers.html 

http://edreform.blogspot.com/2011/01/teacher-bashing-1.html

I assume it's OK to use your questions when I send out my response to my email list?

PS--Here's some background reading on Ryan Hill and his views on improving teacher quality: http://edreform.blogspot.com/2010/01/ryan-hills-testimony-on-improving.html (Note: to access any web page at www.tilsonfunds.com/Personal, you need to enter a user name (tilson) and password (funds)).

Gary's reply: Good / Great: 60%

Fair: 39.5%

Horrible: .5%

If the reality is closer to what I've observed, how would that alter your plan?  I taught in 4 different schools, 3 were low performing, and I'm basing these numbers on what I saw in those 3 schools.  Stuy actually has similar percentages, believe it or not, as others.

I am not making up these numbers to support some kind of agenda.  This is really what I've seen.  Three schools isn't that many schools, so perhaps I just saw a good group and not a random sampling.

 

My reply: How is it possible that 48 other people with nearly identical backgrounds and experiences saw something so massively different?

Gary's reply: Because most teachers that they see as horrible (not capable of improvement) I see as capable of improvement.  You didn't have a category that was horrible but capable of improving, so I had to rate those people in your 'fair' category.  I think about 10% of the people would belong to that category.  Still far from the 45% they have, but still 20 times more than my .5% for incapable of improvement.

Other relevant stats, by my estimation, % of people who get brought down by the horrible teachers: 0%.  % of people who get brought up by the amazing teachers 5%.

I promise you I'm not making up these numbers to be a pain.  It's really what I think.  I'm going to speak to my friend who is a principal in The Bronx and get a sense of what he thinks.  There's a chance I'm remembering with nostalgia about what it was like.  I taught in Houston from 1991-1995, so that was 16 years ago.  I'll admit my numbers could be skewed by that.

Another factor is that there were teachers I assumed were horrible because of their negative attitude in the teachers' lounge but who were actually good teachers.  We don't get to see the teachers teach much, so it is hard to judge how good they are.  I know these negative teachers were good because some of my students who had them showed me what they were doing in that class, and I was pleasantly surprised.  At the high school I taught at in Houston, there was just one teacher who I felt should be fired -- had not chance for improvement.

Teaching is a self-selecting field.  Most bad ones quit since when you are bad, the kids torture you.  There are easier ways to make $30K than being abused by kids all day.  There are a few bad teachers who manage to make it easy for themselves still, by having very strong discipline, but that is pretty rare.  Kids want to learn so they make life miserable for teachers who aren't doing a good job.

Funny how in D.C. all those fired teachers taught poor kids.  I'd say, though, that, on average, the teachers of poor kids are better than those who teach in the wealthy suburbs.  It's like major league hitters are better than high school hitters even though a good batting average in the majors is .300, while a good high school player might bat something like .600.

My reply: ALL of the evidence is to the contrary – see my presentation.  Poor kids get totally fu*ked when it comes to teacher quality, any way you want to measure it.

Re this: "Because most teachers that they see as horrible (not capable of improvement) I see as capable of improvement.  You didn't have a category that was horrible but capable of improving, so I had to rate those people in your 'fair' category."

You seem to care why teachers suck and see the best in even teachers who have completely given up on kids are aren't even attempting to teach them – you know, like the ones who are basically running a movie theater (surely you've been in the schools in which you walk down the hall or past the auditorium and they're showing movies all the time – and not the History Channel – think Karate Kid).  I think it's a high crime to do this and anyone who does this (including the principal and asst principals) should be subject to immediate termination – and I don't really care to hear the lame excuses about how hard the job is, how badly behaved the children are, how unresponsive the parents are, etc. 

My bottom line: deliver results in the classroom for kids, or go find another profession.  There is no shortage of college-educated adults who would be grateful for that job, especially in this economy!

Gary's reply: That depends.  Are we talking about the original Karate Kid or the 2010 remake?

No, honestly.  Teachers showing non-education related movies should be disciplined.  Principals can prohibit them from using the equipment if they abuse it.  Principals have to do their jobs to keep people honest.  It is too bad that people (not just teachers) have to be forced to do the right thing sometimes, but it is human nature to try to get away with what you can, unfortunately.

 

My reply: BTW, my comments, word for word, apply to principals and asst principals as well: leadership quality is as important as teacher quality – you gotta have both, and I believe in accountability for ALL adults in the school building.  There is just as high of a % of crappy principals as there are crappy teachers, and they too often have unions that protect mediocrity (or worse).  Did you know that the Newark principal contract limits principals – MANAGEMENT! – to only 29.5 hours/week?!

 

To your question about what my exact program/agenda is (covered in my slide deck), I'd ask the same of you -- it's one of my main criticisms of Ravitch (after her bias, distortions and bad facts and/or deliberate lies): even if some of her critiques of reformers have some validity, what is she offering as an alternative to the status quo that even she admits is unacceptable?  I read her book carefully (and read/follow her closely) and I've never heard ANYTHING.  Seriously, in her 242-page book, after shi**ing on EVERY reform effort and reformer, she only turns to any ideas for moving the system forward in the last 15 pages – and she says absolutely nothing of any practical use.

 

So I'll put the same question to you that I put to her in my letter that the NYT published (which she, of course, ducked):

…while it's very clear what Ms. Ravitch is against (she's a vocal, clever and, sadly, effective critic of what we reformers are doing), I can't for the life of me figure out what she's for.

Saying you want a good teacher in every classroom and a well-rounded, rigorous curriculum is as trite as saying you're for motherhood and apple pie. What would Ms. Ravitch say to John White and Cami Anderson, who just took over two of the toughest school systems in America, in New Orleans and Newark? What would be the top three to five things Ms. Ravitch would have them do in their first year?

In all her writings, I have not seen an answer to this all-important question.

I know Cami and John well.  If you give me something useful, I'll make sure they see it.

Here's Mike Petrilli, with a great response to the NYT article below about the controversy re. charter schools opening in affluent suburbs:

The myth of the "good" school

Posted by Mike Petrilli on July 18, 2011 at 10:04 am

www.educationgadfly.net/flypaper/2011/07/the-myth-of-the-good-school

Matthew Stewart, a state-at-home Dad in a wealthy New Jersey suburb, is leading a battle against the "boutique" charter schools that are being planned for his community.

"I'm in favor of a quality education for everyone," Stewart told Winnie Hu of the New York Times. "In suburban areas like Millburn, there's no evidence whatsoever that the local school district is not doing its job. So what's the rationale for a charter school?"

Great question! With an easy answer: different parents define "quality education" differently. One person's "good school" is another person's "bad fit." Stewart may love his public schools, which might do an excellent job providing a straight-down-the-middle education to its (mostly affluent) charges. But the parents developing a nearby charter school want something more. (Namely, a Mandarin-immersion experience for their kids.) For which Mr. Stewart labels them "selfish."

"Public education is basically a social contract — we all pool our money, so I don't think I should be able to custom-design it to my needs," he said, noting that he pays $15,000 a year in property taxes. "With these charter schools, people are trying to say, 'I want a custom-tailored education for my children, and I want you, as my neighbor, to pay for it.' "

So let me get this straight. As a parent, I'm "selfish" if I want to send my sons to a public school that meets their needs, and meshes with my values and my aspirations for them? The "selfless" thing to do is to send them to a school that's not a good fit, or to write a check for private education?

What happens of course is that energized public school parents turn to advocacy to mold the one-size-fits-all offering into a school of their liking. The environmentally-minded parents push for eco-friendly cafeterias and lots of outdoor education. Numeracy hawks rally around Singapore math. Warm and fuzzy types push for more time for self-expression. And on and on it goes. Beleaguered school boards and administrators do their best to find the golden mean. And everybody settles for much less than their ideal.

That's a "social contract" in frustration. Supporters of public education ought not make "hey parents, suck it up" their rallying cry.

-----------------

Charter School Battle Shifts to Affluent Suburbs

By WINNIE HU

Published: July 16, 2011

www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/education/17charters.html

An embarrassing article for charters – yes, some charters do this and it's not right.  I'm glad it's getting exposed (though see my last email about my discussion with Gary about the "creaming" that regular public schools do):

A South Bronx charter school has been put on probation for what city education officials called "serious violations" of state law mandating random admissions, including possibly testing or interviewing applicants before their enrollment.

The school, Academic Leadership Charter School, opened in 2009 and is the first New York City charter to be disciplined for violating the rules for random admissions.

---------------------

July 20, 2011

Bronx Charter School Disciplined Over Admissions Methods

By ANNA M. PHILLIPS

www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/nyregion/bronx-charter-school-disciplined-over-admissions.html

What Achievement First has achieved

A great op ed by the super in Hartford, Steven Adamowski, whom I've heard great things about, giving well-deserved kudos to Achievement First:

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_adam17_07-17-11_81P60CA_v8.4dc52.html

HARTFORD

When I took over as superintendent of the Hartford Public Schools in 2006, one of the first things I did was to call Dacia Toll, the president of Achievement First, to ask her to bring her high-performing school model to my district.

I made the call for two reasons: Connecticut had passed legislation that permitted public-school districts to enter into collaborative agreements with charter-management organizations, and Achievement First was one network operator that was well known for providing excellent schools in high-poverty areas. Most importantly, Achievement First had a track record of enabling its students to close the achievement gap.

Under the terms of the arrangement, Hartford Public Schools provided a physical plant, utilities, custodial and other support services, while Achievement First provided the instruction and operated the school according to its successful model. As with all schools in our portfolio, Hartford sets the neighborhood attendance area and claims the school's results on state assessments.

The results have been nothing short of astounding and rewarding. Achievement First now operates two high-performing schools in Hartford that serve 600 students.

-----------------

What Achievement First has achieved

01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, July 17, 2011

By Steven J. Adamowski

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_adam17_07-17-11_81P60CA_v8.4dc52.html

HARTFORD

Joshua Vidro: Poor children in R.I. deserve chance for success I got

A powerful op ed by an Achievement First student who calls on Cranston, Rhode Island to welcome AF:

As a proud graduate of Providence College, and an alumnus of Achievement First, I would like to present a voice that hasn't been heard as much in the debate to open additional high-performing public charter schools in Rhode Island — that of a former student. Cranston Mayor Alan Fung hopes to partner with Achievement First to offer parents of children in Providence and Cranston first-rate public education at a new mayoral academy.

I was in the first class of students at the original Achievement First school, Amistad Academy, in New Haven, and greatly benefited from its no-excuses, high-expectations approach as I climbed the mountain to college.

From a longer school day and year to the "team and family" partnership between teachers, parents and students, Achievement First placed me on a different trajectory than the one I had been on. My teachers cared about me, inspired me and taught me to dream big in order to reach my fullest potential.

One of my fondest memories of Achievement First was Kendall Petri, my seventh-grade adviser, who expected the very best from me and never accepted mediocrity. She once gave me a "B" on a paper, which I thought was good enough, but she pulled me aside and coached me to an "A" by helping me understand that a "B" mentality would not allow me to reach my fullest potential in life.

------------------

Joshua Vidro: Poor children in R.I. deserve chance for success I got

01:00 AM EDT on Sunday, July 10, 2011

By Joshua Vidro

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_vidro10_07-10-11_H9OSLQR_v11.600d3.html

Hedge Fund Industry's Deep Throat Reveals "Real Deal" on Charters!

Peter Murphy slaps an idiotic story in The Amsterdam News about how hedge funds are supposedly making millions off of charter schools – HA!  Now THAT'S funny!

 

If this article is indicative of the Amsterdam News, that publication really has fallen off a Washington Heights cliff. The falsehoods and cheapness of this story leaves me tempted to ignore it altogether except that such recurring mythology and fabrications finding their way to a once-serious media outlet demand a response with a mixture of ridicule.

In sum, the Amsterdam News, Mr. Barker, and his editor (when he or she returns) take note: charter schools are public schools, not "for-profit enterprises;" they get less funding per pupil than district students, as even the flawed IBO report cited by the article documented; and most charters in the city are in district space as a way to equalize the resources since charters do not get facilities funding. Oh, in case anyone forgot, charter schools serve students from all over the city, including thousands residing in Harlem, Flatbush, south Bronx, and dozens more low-income, heavily minority areas.

If any hedge funds are "making tremendous profits off charter schools," I would sure like to know which ones so I can tell all my friends to hop aboard this make-believe gravy train. In reality, the article's hedge fund claims are complete fiction as evidenced by the absence of any substantive back-up in the story, plain common sense, and the facts of how charter school finances really work.

Such a bogus story like this one on charter schools is both comical and pathetic; yet, sadly, many will read this nonsense and accept it as truth rather than farce. The resulting misinformation emanating from the Amsterdam News only increases polarization in the community over charter schools and serves no positive purpose - starting with the truth.

-------------------

Thursday, June 30, 2011

http://blog.nycsa.org/2011/06/hedge-fund-industrys-deep-throat.html
Hedge Fund Industry's Deep Throat Reveals "Real Deal" on Charters!

Rick Hess with an insightful interview of KIPP co-founder Mike Feinberg:

Mike Feinberg is co-founder of the KIPP Academies and superintendent of KIPP Houston, which serves more than 6,000 students in 18 schools. In 2007, KIPP Houston announced its "KIPP Turbo" plan, under which it aims to grow into a Pre-K to 12 network of 42 schools. The goal is to enroll 10 percent of the students in Houston, making KIPP Houston by far the largest network of charter schools in one city. As part of this effort, Mike recently announced that he'd be shifting roles to focus on fundraising, advocacy, and external relations, while handing the superintendency of KIPP Houston off to a successor. If you're not familiar with Mike's story, you can check out Jay Mathews' KIPP book, Work Hard, Be Nice for an immensely readable, if pretty syrupy, account. Anyway, with Mike changing roles and with KIPP Houston well into its ambitious growth plan, I thought it'd be interesting to chat with Mike about looming challenges and lessons learned.

Rick Hess: Can you tell me a bit about the KIPP Houston growth plan?
Mike Feinberg: We cooked it up back in 2006. We call it KIPP Turbo. The goal is to try to find the tipping point. What would happen if we get about 10 percent of the neighborhood in a large school district to be in a high performing system of schools? Is it possible to keep our current college matriculation and graduation rates at a very high level and even improve them? What would be the impact of the other 90 percent [of schools]? In Houston, that 10 percent represents about 42 schools and 21,000 kids.

-----------------------------------

Straight Up Conversation: KIPP Co-Founder Mike Feinberg on KIPP Turbo and His New Gig

By Rick Hess on July 7, 2011 8:04 AM | No comments | No recommendations

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2011/07/straight_up_conversation_kipp_co-founder_mike_feinberg_on_kipp_turbo_and_his_new_gig.html

Jay Mathews with an article about Dave Levin and Mike Feinberg's new roles:

 

As the co-founders of KIPP, the best-known and most successful public charter school network in the country, Dave Levin and Mike Feinberg have devoted most of their energies to leading the KIPP schools in their regions — New York City for Levin and Houston for Feinberg.
    Their duties are about to change. Both have decided to leave their day-to-day work as local superintendents and devote their time to broader KIPP and public education issues. Their energy, imagination and prestige will continue to influence KIPP policy, but their successors as superintendents will have challenging jobs because of the importance of New York and Houston to KIPP.
     When Feinberg and Levin began KIPP as a fifth grade of 49 students housed at Garcia Elementary School in Houston in 1994, Feinberg was 25 and Levin was 24, with only two years of teaching experience each. As I explain in my book "Work Hard. Be Nice," they learned fast, with much advice from veteran teachers Harriett Ball and Rafe Esquith. Their formula of longer school days, required summer school, teamwork, imaginative teaching, strict rules of behavior and much singing and travel was so successful that Gap clothing store magnates Doris and Don Fisher gave them $15 million in 2000 to create a national network.  
     This summer, KIPP (once short for Knowledge Is Power Program, but now just KIPP) has 109 schools with 32,000 students in 20 states and the District. Several independent studies have shown KIPP students making significant gains in achievement, in some cases raising low-income minority children from levels typical of inner city schools to those of suburban schools.

---------------

KIPP founders leaving regional duties to focus on bigger picture

By Jay Mathews

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/kipp-founders-leaving-regional-duties-to-focus-on-bigger-picture/2011/07/13/gIQAmmGXCI_blog.html

RiShawn Biddle gives the NAACP and UFT well-deserved smacks, but also has good advice for we reformers:

This isn't to say that school reformers can simply celebrate the fall from grace of these two organizations. Reformers still have to do a better job of working with grassroots leaders and church leaders, especially those in black communities who have strong ties to the NAACP and view outsiders with skepticism. Charter school operators must also figure out how to bring more community members onto their governing boards and advisory councils; the lack of diversity on those boards is one of the main reasons why some blacks still view charters with skepticism. And similar battles in other cities will eventually become the norm, especially as reform-minded mayors and districts embrace charter schools and support efforts to let them share space with traditional counterparts.

But the NAACP and the AFT have found themselves on the same side — and in the same pit as others with failed visions of American public education.

------------------

The NAACP and the AFT Strike Out on New York City's School Reform

July 22, 2011 1 Comment by RiShawn Biddle

http://dropoutnation.net/2011/07/22/naacp-aft-strike-out-school-reform/

U.S. Department of Education Awards $49 Million in Charter School Grants to Florida and New York to Increase Public School Options

Some great news from the US DOE last week that hasn't gotten any attention, but which is HUGE for high-quality charters in NY and FL:

 

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced the award of two charter school grants, totaling $49 million, to increase public school options in Florida and New York. The Florida Department of Education and the New York State Education Department will each receive five-year grants under the Charter School Program state educational agency (SEA) competition, which provides funds to states to create new high-quality charter schools and disseminate information about existing charters.

 

Democrats for Education Reform was one of a number of organizations and people that worked hard over the past two years to make this happen for NY.  Note that the $49M is only for the first year and there's a chance of additional funding that could result in over $100 million for NY charter schools.

-----------------------

U.S. Department of Education Awards $49 Million in Charter School Grants to Florida and New York to Increase Public School Options

July 21, 2011

 

Contact: 

Press Office, (202) 401-1576, press@ed.gov

 

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today announced the award of two charter school grants, totaling $49 million, to increase public school options in Florida and New York. The Florida Department of Education and the New York State Education Department will each receive five-year grants under the Charter School Program state educational agency (SEA) competition, which provides funds to states to create new high-quality charter schools and disseminate information about existing charters.

 

"High-quality charter schools have an important role to play in the overall strategy of successful school reform," said U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. "These states have an opportunity to spread effective practices and provide public charter school choices for more students and parents."

 

The purpose of the Charter Schools Program is to increase financial support and build a better national understanding of public charter schools, while expanding the number of high-quality public charter schools across the nation. In total, the administration will invest $255 million in fiscal year 2011 through several grant programs administered by the Charter Schools Program, which together will:

 

    * help plan and implement public charter schools;

    * support charter school efforts to find suitable facilities;

    * disseminate information about successful charter school practices; and

    * replicate and expand high-quality charter schools

      .

 

President Barack Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $372 million to expand educational options by helping grow effective charter schools and other autonomous public schools that achieve positive results and give parents more choices.

 

More information about the Charter Schools Program is available from the Education Department's Office of Innovation and Improvement at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/csp/index.html

Debate with Gary Rubenstein

Last week I received an email from a teacher at Stuyvesant, Gary Rubinstein, who started his teaching career as a TFA corps member and also blogs regularly, generally skeptically about charter schools and our type of reform (he's a big fan of Diane Ravitch – in fact, he's the blogger who provided her with the test score data – later shown to be very incorrect – about Urban Prep that she used to slam it in her NYT op ed).  Here's his bio (from www.prufrock.com/bioPopUp/contributorbiography.cfm?ContribID=606):

 

After graduating from Tufts University in 1991, Gary Rubinstein trained as a teacher with the Teach for America (TFA) program, which recruits recent graduates to teach in rural and inner-city schools throughout the country. During his five years with the program, he taught both middle school and high school students and wrote a monthly TFA newsletter column called "I Didn't Do Nuthin'." During his fourth year, he was named Teacher of the Year at his school.

 

Rubinstein now lives in New York City with his wife and baby daughter. He teaches at Stuyvesant High School where he teaches ninth and tenth grade math. Rubinstein is also the recipient of the 2005 Math for America Master Teacher Fellowship. His essays and articles about teaching have appeared in national magazines and journals, including Education Week, Teacher Magazine, and Mathematics Teacher. For the past thirteen years, he has presented workshops on classroom management.

 

In his email, he invited me to debate him on various reform issues.  I said I don't have the time to do so formally (for example, on the pages of the Huffington Post), but would be happy to swap emails, time permitting.  So, we've been having quite a prolific exchange of emails on a variety of topics over the past few days, which I've actually enjoyed.  With his permission, I'm sharing four exchanges.

Email discussion with Gary Rubenstein about his analogy of students and their parents being lamps, and schools/teachers being bulbs

Here's the first, in which I respond to his analogy of students and their parents being lamps, and schools/teachers being bulbs.  Here's an excerpt from what I wrote and the full text is below:

 

Excerpt from his email: It's like when a lamp isn't working so you replace the bulb and the lamp still doesn't work.  It means that the lamp is the problem.  This isn't to say that it is impossible to increase the standardized test scores of those kids.  It just means that with limited resources it is nearly impossible.

 

My reply: I've been thinking about your lamp analogy.  If I flip the switch on a lamp and it doesn't turn on, I assume that it's a bad bulb (I.e., ineffective adults in a school) (and will be correct 99% of the time).  Put a different, better bulb in and, voila, there's light!  I'm loving this analogy!

 

But you are claiming that NO bulb will ever work -- not even a tiny flicker -- because the lamp is broken -- in other words, the kids and their parents are so incorrigible and/or beaten down by life that NO school and NO teachers can move the needle for them (at least within any realistic spending levels).  Do you seriously believe this???

 

The real problem with your lamp analogy is that you assume that the light is either on or off -- nothing in between.  Yet in your very next email, you said that even at schools with the worst test scores, there's learning going on.

 

So, if we're going to use a lamp analogy, let's talk about a lamp with issues, one in which a bad bulb will flicker very faintly and erratically, a normal bulb will produce a weak somewhat flickering light, but then there are rare and special new bulbs that manage to produce a bright, steady and long-lasting light, even when placed in the lamp with issues. The problem is that these special bulbs, while not costing any more than normal or even bad bulbs, are REALLY hard to manufacture, so they are in terribly short supply.

 

So, what should our strategy be?  Well, that's obvious, isn't it?  1) Do everything humanly possible to ramp up production of the special bulbs. Shower money on the people who've developed the new bulb technology, remove regulatory barriers, etc.  And 2) Replace the bad bulbs with the special bulbs as fast as the latter can be produced (and, in the meantime, replace the bad bulbs with at least the normal bulbs).

 

Ah, but what about the manufacturers of the bad bulbs, dominate the market currently?  They know that they produce a high number of defective bulbs, but rather than fix the problem, which would involve painful changes for their employees, they instead tell themselves that it's not really their fault – the bulbs are fine, it's just that that are so many defective lamps.  To fight change, they use their enormous financial and human resources to cleverly win vast, unrivaled political power, aiming particularly at utterly destroying the small, entrepreneurial folks making the special bulbs -- sadly, with a great deal of success.  Isn't it obvious that our policy should be to stop this outrageous and self-serving behavior?

 

But, you'll reply, it's hard to tell what type of bulb it is until it's placed into the lamp -- and given that the lamp has issues, sometimes the new bulb is no better than the bad one it replaced.  True enough, so again here the strategy is obvious: only replace the very worst bulbs, only do so when you have a reasonable degree of confidence that a better bulb exists, and lastly, have reasonable expectations. There will be some failures, and even the improved bulbs still might be weak and flicker a bit (but a lot less than before).

Email discussion with Gary Rubenstein about his analogy of students and their parents being lamps, and schools/teachers being bulbs

 

Excerpt from his email: It's like when a lamp isn't working so you replace the bulb and the lamp still doesn't work.  It means that the lamp is the problem.  This isn't to say that it is impossible to increase the standardized test scores of those kids.  It just means that with limited resources it is nearly impossible.

 

My reply: I've been thinking about your lamp analogy.  If I flip the switch on a lamp and it doesn't turn on, I assume that it's a bad bulb (I.e., ineffective adults in a school) (and will be correct 99% of the time).  Put a different, better bulb in and, voila, there's light!  I'm loving this analogy!

 

But you are claiming that NO bulb will ever work -- not even a tiny flicker -- because the lamp is broken -- in other words, the kids and their parents are so incorrigible and/or beaten down by life that NO school and NO teachers can move the needle for them (at least within any realistic spending levels).  Do you seriously believe this???

 

The real problem with your lamp analogy is that you assume that the light is either on or off -- nothing in between.  Yet in your very next email, you said that even at schools with the worst test scores, there's learning going on.

 

So, if we're going to use a lamp analogy, let's talk about a lamp with issues, one in which a bad bulb will flicker very faintly and erratically, a normal bulb will produce a weak somewhat flickering light, but then there are rare and special new bulbs that manage to produce a bright, steady and long-lasting light, even when placed in the lamp with issues. The problem is that these special bulbs, while not costing any more than normal or even bad bulbs, are REALLY hard to manufacture, so they are in terribly short supply.

 

So, what should our strategy be?  Well, that's obvious, isn't it?  1) Do everything humanly possible to ramp up production of the special bulbs. Shower money on the people who've developed the new bulb technology, remove regulatory barriers, etc.  And 2) Replace the bad bulbs with the special bulbs as fast as the latter can be produced (and, in the meantime, replace the bad bulbs with at least the normal bulbs).

 

Ah, but what about the manufacturers of the bad bulbs, dominate the market currently?  They know that they produce a high number of defective bulbs, but rather than fix the problem, which would involve painful changes for their employees, they instead tell themselves that it's not really their fault – the bulbs are fine, it's just that that are so many defective lamps.  To fight change, they use their enormous financial and human resources to cleverly win vast, unrivaled political power, aiming particularly at utterly destroying the small, entrepreneurial folks making the special bulbs -- sadly, with a great deal of success.  Isn't it obvious that our policy should be to stop this outrageous and self-serving behavior?

 

But, you'll reply, it's hard to tell what type of bulb it is until it's placed into the lamp -- and given that the lamp has issues, sometimes the new bulb is no better than the bad one it replaced.  True enough, so again here the strategy is obvious: only replace the very worst bulbs, only do so when you have a reasonable degree of confidence that a better bulb exists, and lastly, have reasonable expectations. There will be some failures, and even the improved bulbs still might be weak and flicker a bit (but a lot less than before).

 

Thanks for getting me thinking about this...

 

His reply: > So there is a lamp bulb combination that is producing hardly any

> light.  There are two options:  fix the lamp or change the bulb. 

> 'Fixing' the lamp (tackling all the effects of poverty) is extremely

> costly, much more than we can afford.  Better bulbs produce more light

> with this lamp, but the potential seems to be limited by some constant

> in physics that we are running up against.  It is, at least,

> theoretically possible that there could be a bulb that will produce a

> lot of light without fixing the lamp, but the cost of producing that

> bulb is also more than we can afford, perhaps even more costly than

> fixing the lamp itself!

>

> How can it possibly cost more to make a bulb (improve the

> adults) than to fix the lamp (cure the poverty of the kids)?  Well (to

> exit the analogy for now), I asked one of my good friends who is a

> principal at a public middle school in the South Bronx.  I asked if he

> had an infinite budget, what would it take to get his students to all

> pass the standardized tests.  He said he'd need mental health services

> for half the parents.  He'd need translators and English teachers for

> parents who don't speak English.  He might need to quadruple his

> teaching staff.  You asked in an earlier e-mail what do I mean by

> limited resources.

> Now, I'm not a businessman at all, so this is just hypothetical, but

> people are always saying 'we doubled the amount we spent on education

> and it didn't make any difference so more money is not the answer. 

> It's like (here's a new analogy) if there's a fire and you tried to

> put one cup of water on it and it didn't extinguish it,  so you

> doubled it to two cups, when you really needed hundreds of gallons. 

> So I'm suggesting that the better lightbulb while perhaps not as

> expensive as fixing the lamp, could still break the bank.  It may be

> that we can't afford to do either.

>

> So this brings us to the question of what can we afford to do.  Some

> districts try to get a little gain by changing lightbulbs.  This isn't

> shutting down a school, as you make your analogy, but when you fire

> the principal and the staff and 'reconstitute' the school.  Miami

> Central, one of Ravitch's miracle schools did this.  It didn't work.

> Though it got them mentioned by Obama and Jeb Bush, that school was

> recently slated for closing and replacement with charters for lack of

> improvement.  The ed commissioner saved the school for another year. 

> It is an ironic epilogue to that story.  Yes, better staffs will get

> some improvement.  But the question is whether it is worth the

> upheaval to get it, if the gains aren't that much larger.

>

> This brings us back to KIPP.  KIPP is a bulb that works well with a

> particular lamp.  That lamp has some factors in common with those

> lamps that work so poorly with any known bulb.  Both schools have poor

> minority kids.  So it seems like if we can't find any bulbs that work

> with the real problem schools, perhaps we can take a model that is

> producing light with a 'similar' lamp and try to pump money and

> attention onto that.  But I don't think the lamps are as similar as

> wealthy funders want to believe.  Yes they have poor minority

> children, but there are many different types of poor minority

> children.  There are kids with mild to severe learning disabilities. 

> There are kids with behavioral disabilities including ADD and ADDHD.

>

> One last factor is that bulbs can be 'improved' through support and

> training.  So I think that just as many gains -- with a lot less

> disruption to the system could be made if teachers are supported

> better with things like really usable lesson plans and activities.

>

> I don't think that any charter system is willing to put their

> reputation on the line and attempt to take over a failing school by

> keeping all the same kids.  But it won't be until that happens (Did

> KIPP try to do that with a school in Denver, but just gave up?  I

> heard something like that, but don't know if it is true) I don't agree

> that we should invest heavily in the KIPP lightbulb that works on a

> lamp that may look the same to most outsiders.

Email discussion with Gary Rubenstein about Green Dot and Locke High School

At the end of his response to the lamp/bulb analogy, Gary wrote "I don't think that any charter system is willing to put their reputation on the line and attempt to take over a failing school by keeping all the same kids."  So, I told him about Green Dot's takeover of Locke High School in LA and, after Gary expressed skepticism about what happened there, I put him in touch with Green Dot's President and CEO, Marco Petruzzi.  Here's what Marco wrote and below is the full exchange:

 

The first thing I did was read the link below from the guy who "researched" Green Dot and I had to laugh.  The problem with blogger/researchers is that they can claim whatever they want and if they write decently and with authority people think that they are credible.  Now, you certainly don't have to believe me either, but we do have UCLA doing an independent study on Locke and the results are very encouraging. 

 

The most incorrect claim in the blogger's article and the guy he quotes are that we dumped all the students, and that we spent outrageous sums of money.  We kept all the students.  We obviously no longer had the old 12th graders, who graduated, and we got a new batch of 9th graders, but we basically had the similar trends in enrollment than years before in terms of incoming population from the attendance area.  This was not a choice school, but their school of default, and everyone basically showed up. In terms of spend, please note that Locke is 3,000 students.  We did get $15 million for the first 4 years and then we will break even with public funds.  Note that that adds up to $1,250 per year per student for the first 4 years.  Note that as a charter we get about $7,800/student, which happens to be about $1,500 less per student that LAUSD got before.  So we really are just getting close, but below, what the District previously got and then we go back to having a $1,500 gap.  And note that we are below the $11,000 average for the US and below the $16-18,000 that NY gets.  Our critics apparently can't do 5th grade math. In any case, after 3 years at Locke here's where we are (and I can tell you we are not a 90-90-90 school yet):

 

- Our biggest impact has been on student retention.  If you look at the data prior to Green Dot taking over, you would see entering 9th grade classes of around 1,200-1,300 students that would quickly go down to about 250 graduates 4 years later. However, the data is not perfect as LAUSD has the nasty habit of counting in the 9th grade not only incoming 9th graders but also "returning 9th graders", students who didn't drop out but basically failed the majority of their freshman courses and therefore had to stay another year in 9th grade. Anecdotally, from teachers from the old Locke that stayed with Green Dot, almost all of the returning 9th graders would eventually drop out.  In any case, from records we can tell that the actual graduating rate of "new" 9th graders, who were approx. 1,000, only 250 graduated and of those only 85 did with a college prep diploma (California still allows two types of diplomas, the good one and the useless ones). Since you are a teacher, I'll let you do the math of the devastation that that school was creating in that community.  Our entering 9th grade class the first year was approx. 900 students. 

 

A-ha, you might say, why 100 students less? Are you not accepting all the students? Demographic trends will show you that the population in South Central Los Angeles has been declining steadily for the past 10 years and that the trend will continue.  The decline has actually accelerated in the past 3 years with the crisis, due to less immigration in general, less undocumented immigration specifically, and the lack of jobs for people with no high school degree in the area, who have all had to move out.

 

Anyway, what has happened to the incoming 9th graders?  The majority are still with us, and we believe that if the trends hold, by the fourth year we will graduate approx. 600-700 students, all of which will have taken the college prep curriculum.  Is it perfect? No.  Are there still some drop outs? No doubt. But a marked improvement in retention.  We did it by throwing the kitchen sink at credit recovery and intervention courses and doing whatever it takes for every child.  This year, after 3 years we had 560 graduates from a class that didn't start with us with 100 more that are still enrolled for one more year (mostly ELL and Sped) with high likelihood of achieving all their credits

 

- The second impact has been in access to more rigorous courses.  This was easy as we put everyone on a college prep track, no exception, no excuses.

 

- The third impact was achievement.  This has proven as you can imagine the most difficult one, and the main reason we cannot claim "we did it" just yet. While we have doubled or tripled the number of proficient students in most subjects the percentages are still low.  We suffer from a "double impact" a numerator impact and a denominator impact. The numerator problem is that Locke started so low - 4% proficiency in math - that even when you triple that, it still sucks. We're not there yet.  The second problem is that with our amazing success in retention, guess who you keep as a student? The lowest performing ones.  They rarely contribute to your numerator, at least not right away. So we have a long way to go.  Our biggest issue here is that the actual entry level of the students is so darn low, coming from the K-8 system reading at about 4-5th grade that it is difficult to accelerate them so much.

 

In any case, Gary, if you're ever around, I'd be happy to show you Locke.  I think all of this nonsense will disappear when the country fully embraces value added measures.  When we start measuring schools by how much they move their students up, independent from their point of entry, we will actually possess data to do true comparisons.  In the meantime, many of our critics will continue to muddle the arguments and get us nowhere.

Email discussion with Gary Rubenstein about Green Dot and Locke High School

 

Gary's email: Re. the Green Dot Miracle.  I haven't fully researched it myself, but others have. http://www.markgarrison.net/archives/977

 

Marco Petruzzi's reply: The first thing I did was read the link below from the guy who "researched" Green Dot and I had to laugh.  The problem with blogger/researchers is that they can claim whatever they want and if they write decently and with authority people think that they are credible.  Now, you certainly don't have to believe me either, but we do have UCLA doing an independent study on Locke and the results are very encouraging. 

 

The most incorrect claim in the blogger's article and the guy he quotes are that we dumped all the students, and that we spent outrageous sums of money.  We kept all the students.  We obviously no longer had the old 12th graders, who graduated, and we got a new batch of 9th graders, but we basically had the similar trends in enrollment than years before in terms of incoming population from the attendance area.  This was not a choice school, but their school of default, and everyone basically showed up. In terms of spend, please note that Locke is 3,000 students.  We did get $15 million for the first 4 years and then we will break even with public funds.  Note that that adds up to $1,250 per year per student for the first 4 years.  Note that as a charter we get about $7,800/student, which happens to be about $1,500 less per student that LAUSD got before.  So we really are just getting close, but below, what the District previously got and then we go back to having a $1,500 gap.  And note that we are below the $11,000 average for the US and below the $16-18,000 that NY gets.  Our critics apparently can't do 5th grade math. In any case, after 3 years at Locke here's where we are (and I can tell you we are not a 90-90-90 school yet):

 

- Our biggest impact has been on student retention.  If you look at the data prior to Green Dot taking over, you would see entering 9th grade classes of around 1,200-1,300 students that would quickly go down to about 250 graduates 4 years later. However, the data is not perfect as LAUSD has the nasty habit of counting in the 9th grade not only incoming 9th graders but also "returning 9th graders", students who didn't drop out but basically failed the majority of their freshman courses and therefore had to stay another year in 9th grade. Anecdotally, from teachers from the old Locke that stayed with Green Dot, almost all of the returning 9th graders would eventually drop out.  In any case, from records we can tell that the actual graduating rate of "new" 9th graders, who were approx. 1,000, only 250 graduated and of those only 85 did with a college prep diploma (California still allows two types of diplomas, the good one and the useless ones). Since you are a teacher, I'll let you do the math of the devastation that that school was creating in that community.  Our entering 9th grade class the first year was approx. 900 students. 

 

A-ha, you might say, why 100 students less? Are you not accepting all the students? Demographic trends will show you that the population in South Central Los Angeles has been declining steadily for the past 10 years and that the trend will continue.  The decline has actually accelerated in the past 3 years with the crisis, due to less immigration in general, less undocumented immigration specifically, and the lack of jobs for people with no high school degree in the area, who have all had to move out.

 

Anyway, what has happened to the incoming 9th graders?  The majority are still with us, and we believe that if the trends hold, by the fourth year we will graduate approx. 600-700 students, all of which will have taken the college prep curriculum.  Is it perfect? No.  Are there still some drop outs? No doubt. But a marked improvement in retention.  We did it by throwing the kitchen sink at credit recovery and intervention courses and doing whatever it takes for every child.  This year, after 3 years we had 560 graduates from a class that didn't start with us with 100 more that are still enrolled for one more year (mostly ELL and Sped) with high likelihood of achieving all their credits

 

- The second impact has been in access to more rigorous courses.  This was easy as we put everyone on a college prep track, no exception, no excuses.

 

- The third impact was achievement.  This has proven as you can imagine the most difficult one, and the main reason we cannot claim "we did it" just yet. While we have doubled or tripled the number of proficient students in most subjects the percentages are still low.  We suffer from a "double impact" a numerator impact and a denominator impact. The numerator problem is that Locke started so low - 4% proficiency in math - that even when you triple that, it still sucks. We're not there yet.  The second problem is that with our amazing success in retention, guess who you keep as a student? The lowest performing ones.  They rarely contribute to your numerator, at least not right away. So we have a long way to go.  Our biggest issue here is that the actual entry level of the students is so darn low, coming from the K-8 system reading at about 4-5th grade that it is difficult to accelerate them so much.

 

In any case, Gary, if you're ever around, I'd be happy to show you Locke.  I think all of this nonsense will disappear when the country fully embraces value added measures.  When we start measuring schools by how much they move their students up, independent from their point of entry, we will actually possess data to do true comparisons.  In the meantime, many of our critics will continue to muddle the arguments and get us nowhere.

 

Gary's reply: Marco, from what you've described, I'm very pleased that you have what I'd call a 'great' school.  Note that I call it 'great', but not a 'miracle' (a 90-90-90 school).  This is fine since, as you know from your experience, you can be great without achieving the 90-90-90 metrics.

 

You were off my 'debunking' radar because no politician that I had heard used your results as proof that their reforms were working.  This is a shame since your school sounds like a model for what is possible and for what a realistic time-table for success is.  So not being a 'miracle' school is not an insult or a bad thing.  There is no need for me to 'debunk' your school since you so candidly 'debunked' yourself with an honest explanation of your impressive successes.

 

I wish a politician would point to your school about what sorts of improvements can happen.  If everyone knew what realistic improvement looks like, we would have fewer teachers getting fired and schools getting shut down for having test scores comparable to yours.  Please believe that I am being sincere when I say 'Keep up the good work.'

 

Here's my question:

Which of these two statements is more accurate about your school, and why?

1)  We have some outstanding teachers at our school.  If they were replaced by average teachers, our school would fall apart.

2)  We have some outstanding teachers at our school.  If they were replaced by average teachers, our school would still be successful because of some of the other things that make us great.

 

Marco's reply: Hmmm...not sure I know how to answer this.  While I do think that teacher effectiveness is one of the most, if not the most, important element of building a great school, I think that there are other elements as well that go hand in hand with that.  Certainly, of equal importance, is the quality of the principal leadership.  Never seen a great school without a great leader.  Needless to say these elements are self-reinforcing.  Great leaders build a great team and great teachers seldom would follow a weak leader.  I can tell you that besides bringing in more effective people on average, we did a lot of other things, like bring in new programs, better professional development, better safety and culture building programs, etc.  But certainly all these wouldn't have taken without a more effective and aligned team on campus.  Hope that answers your question.