Written by
Posts in category Equity / Discrimination
The Politics of Education: Charter Schools
You couldn’t expect a guy with a doctorate in the politics of education to let the education portion of Wednesday night’s presidential debate go unchecked, could you?
Apparently, both candidates support charter schools. No surprise from McCain; the Republican party tends to support most forms of school choice (that’s a gross generalization, but I’ll live with that for now). That Obama supports charter schools signals an interesting policy shift, assuming that Obama’s stance is representative of the Democraticy party as a whole (which it may very well not be). I’m personally pretty mixed on charter schools. On one hand, I think any policy or set of policies based in free market principles where perfect information on the part of consumers is assumed is highly problematic in the field of education. On the other hand, these days I’m for anything that attempts to disrupt the status quo in public education.
And, speaking of “perfect information,” both candidates at least implied that charter schools “work” or that they are “effective” in some way (as opposed to voucher programs, where there seemed to be some disagreement). Well, that’s less than perfect information. Consider this study conducted as part of NAEP’s pilot study of charter school performance in 2003. According to the executive summary for the report, “After adjusting for student characteristics, charter school mean scores in reading and mathematics were lower, on average, than those for public noncharter schools.”
I also bring your attention to more recent research conducted by colleagues and “social associates” (I’m not sure I can call them “friends,” but I have been out socially with them on multiple occasions) Sarah and Chris Lubienski. Based on their analyses of NAEP data, Sarah and Chris concluded that “charter schools, privately operated and publicly financed, did significantly worse than public schools in the fourth grade, once student populations were taken into account.”
(BTW, teachable moment…the next sentence in the NYT article is as follows: “In the eighth grade, it found, students in charters did slightly better than those in public schools, though the sample size was small and the difference was not statistically significant.” That’s a nonsensical statement. If the differences were not statistically significant, then nobody did better than anybody else; not even slightly better. So, the first part of the sentence cannot logically precede the second part. This bugs me!)
The body of research on charter schools and school choice policies more generally has become overly politicized. There are too many researchers with agendas dabbling in that field, and too many policy advocates who cherrypick a single study to support their argument. However, in my reasonably well-informed opinion, the two studies above are as “independent” as they come.
So, Senators Obama and McCain, I’m in favor of exploring any and all educational policy options, including choice-based alternatives. But, let’s please not mislead the American public.
Drill & Kill and Digital Equity
Continuing my sniffing through the NAEP Data Explorer, today I “explored” differences in digitally-infused pedagogy by race. One of the items on the background questionnaire of the 8th grade NAEP in 2007 was as follows: “When you are doing math for school or homework, how often do you use these different types of computer programs?” One of the listed programs was “A program to practice or drill on math facts (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division).” Looking at the results for that item disaggregated by race, we get the following (click on image to enlarge):
Overall, African-American students are much more likely to use computers to practice or drill on math facts than White students. Given the significant achievement gap that exists, these differences partly explain why, overall, the there is a negative correlation between using computers to practice or drill on math facts and math achievement. I can’t be entirely sure about the degree to which race confounds that overall relationship without access to the raw (restricted-use) NAEP data.
But, more importantly, is the figure above problematic?
Leadership Day 2008
Scott McLeod deemed today Leadership Day, and so it is! And so I go…
If you haven’t watched the video of Chris Lehmann’s presentation at NECC, there’s no question that it’s a must see. I’m sure I’ll have lots of occasions to use it as a pedagogical tool with my ed. leadership students, especially as a model of instructional leadership. The reviews of Chris’ preso have been through-the-roof high, and deservedly so. Will Richardson used Twitter to suggest that we need to clone Chris, and Bud Hunt (aka Bud the Teacher) replied that he had secretly taken a few of Chris’ hairs for exactly that purpose.
For those who don’t know, Chris is the principal of the Science Leadership Academy; a magnet high school in Philadelphia that he founded/started a few years ago. Because he is extraordinarily transparent (want to visit SLA; just ask!) and collaborative, and for at least one other reason I shouldn’t disclose, I’ve learned quite a bit about Chris and SLA. And, as best I can tell, we really do need to clone Chris; we can’t have enough principals like him.
THAT ALL SAID, here’s the question…what would happen if we suddenly made Chris the principal of Frederick Douglass High School (NOTE: the school doesn’t even have it’s own website) in Baltimore (the subject of a recent HBO documentary which has been written about by me and others)?
You see, Chris admittedly had the luxury of starting a brand new school according to his (and presumably others’) incredible vision. He got to self-select a whole faculty. The school’s magnet status means that the students that attend, at some level, want to be there. in fact, according to the school’s website, “[a]dmission to SLA is based on a combination of a student interview at the school with a presentation of completed work, strong TerraNova scores, As and Bs with the possible exception of one C, teacher or counselor recommendation and good attendance and punctuality.” I know many, many principals who would drop everything to be able to select an entire faculty and work with already accomplished students.
But, there’s another thing that separates Chris from the vast majority of his principal peers. Chris is an unrelenting progressivist and he has a true global, future-oriented vision. Just read his recent blog post about progressive pedagogy for 21st century schools.
I know that not all schools like Douglass High are destined to fail. I’ve seen and read parts of this book. And, I know about the Achievement Alliance’s efforts to document success stories. But, even there, if you read about the high school they spotlight, the school is unique in its geography and the “success” is having gone from 26% proficiency in one subject (ELA) to 42% proficiency over the course of 6 years. That’s steady, but slow, improvement; but 42% is not exactly superior.
I’ve also followed closely the research and documentation of the 90/90/90 schools (90% low income, 90% minority, 90% proficiency). Just about everything I’ve read about those schools (including this by Douglas Reeves) points to a blinding focus on standards, assessment, data-driven decision-making, etc. For better or worse, there’s NOTHING progressive about those schools.
So, I wonder what would happen if we put Chris Lehmann in the hardest-to-staff schools; schools consistently failing to make adequate yearly progress. I guess the question I’m asking is: Who wins? The extraordinary progressive leader or the system? Can a brilliant, extraordinary leader WITH A PROGRESSIVIST BENT truly reform a severely struggling school within the existing system of public education?
Personally, I think Chris, or someone like Chris, would do wonders in a school like Douglass High. But, unfortunately, I think that remains an open (empirical?) question. And, I’d love for us to be able to do that empirical work. I would love to document the experiences of bright, extraordinary, progressive leaders who have proven successful in more comfortable situations attempting to completely turn around a failing school. Please note, my interest is not how “good” someone like Chris is. I want to know what effect “the system” has on someone as “good” and particularly as progressive as Chris. If you know of any such experiences, let me know.
Reflections from NECC – Equity, Diversity, Social Justice
Something (perhaps some thingS) is (are) rubbing me the wrong way about NECC. I’ll reflect a bit more over time, but for today I want to write a bit about a related set of issues about which I am incredibly passionate. My ed. leadership professorial friends/colleagues and I joke about what we perceive as an over-emphasis on issues of “social justice” “equity” and “diversity” at the annual conferences we attend. Please understand that we all care deeply about those issues; it’s just that it’s gotten to the point where it seems like it’s all that gets discussed at a comprehensive conference. Well, after being at NECC for a few days, I long for some conversation about…”social justice” and “diversity” and “equity.” Hang around the blogger’s cafe for a bit and tell me how much diversity you notice. Sure, there are international folks and that’s awesome. But, racial diversity? Forget it.
I did a keyword search of the program and came up with the following results:
EQUITY – other than the Digital Equity Summit (which I’ve written about before), there are only two other instances of the word “equity” in the program. One is for a session about “[r]ole playing a seventh to ninth grade student, participants will complete an inquiry activity using technology for supporting diverse learners.” The other is about how the addition of interactive white boards have promoted classroom equity in one school district. This is a joke and a crime. Sorry. That’s how I feel.
DIVIDE (looking for references to the digital divide) – appears two whole times in the program. The first reference is for a session about the “digital divide” between what teachers and students can do with technology. Give me a break. The second reference is for a session I’m sorry I missed. The session was about research showing what works for disadvantaged students. Hooray for Dennis Harper, Generation Y with Trina Davis, Susanna Garza and Martha Peet.
JUSTICE (looking for references to social justice) – shows up twice but only because one workshop is being run twice. In what sounds like a really interesting session, participants are asked to “[e]xplore the merger of social justice and technology by creating a podcast on the Civil Rights Memorial Center and learning from student producers.” Nice.
DIVERSITY – Zero. Zilcho. NEVER appears in the program.
I’ve asked quite a few people I’ve spoken with either at the conference or out on the town if they watched Hard Times at Douglass High, the documentary that was all over HBO last week. Not a single person I asked had seen the film. How could that be? How could there be so much attention on books like Here Comes Everybody and Wisdom of the Crowds (the author gave the keynote) and virtually no attention to an important film like Hard Times (and I don’t mean the Ridgemont High version)?
I DARE YOU to watch Hard Times (see preview below) and then to walk through the exhibit hall at NECC. The conditions and consequences of poverty documented in the film stand in complete contrast to the glitz and excess of the exhibit hall.
Please people, how can we continue to talk about the pedagogical applications of Google Earth and how much we need to talk about how to do good presentations and, and, and? And how can we continue to soak in the excess and the free giveaways when so many young people don’t have basic necessities of life.
Recent Comments