Comments on: Charter News http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/05/charter-news.html Education News, Analysis, and Commentary Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:47:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: john http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/05/charter-news.html#comment-710 john Sat, 10 May 2008 17:00:00 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/wordpress/2008/05/charter-news.html#comment-710 I meant to say that high performing, high poverty schools do both, nurture and assess consequences in a credible manner. (Most high poverty schools, in my experience, aren't allowed to enforce their rules which then makes it impossible to provide a nurturing environment, much less retain teaching talent.)<br/><br/>I blame my bifocals, but I don't think I'll ever be able to edit myself on a computer screen. I meant to say that high performing, high poverty schools do both, nurture and assess consequences in a credible manner. (Most high poverty schools, in my experience, aren’t allowed to enforce their rules which then makes it impossible to provide a nurturing environment, much less retain teaching talent.)

I blame my bifocals, but I don’t think I’ll ever be able to edit myself on a computer screen.

]]> By: john thompson http://www.eduwonk.com/2008/05/charter-news.html#comment-708 john thompson Fri, 09 May 2008 21:56:00 +0000 http://www.eduwonk.com/wordpress/2008/05/charter-news.html#comment-708 The RAND study seemed to do a good job of acknowledging the "ambiguity about possible interpretations." It seemed to factor out the big bias of "creaming" but its sample was too small, apparently, to attempt to address the second major difference not being hamstrung by policies imposed by the central office that cripple efforts to improve schooling. The biggest set of dysfunctional policies revolve around the inability to assess disciplinary consequences.<br/><br/>Clearly, if charter high schools seem to be doing relatively better the prime suspect has to be related to the inability of neighborhood schools to create safe and orderly environments.<br/><br/>Even though I teach at a school that has been damaged by the nonstop creaming of students who are easier to teach, I still support charter schools. Just because my school is not allowed to enforce its Code of Conduct, why should I have ill will towards students who have been able to attend schools that are allowed to create a learning culture. We need both, policies that allow us to hold students and teachers to higher standards. But systemically, we can't do either without creating more high quality alternative school slots. And some of them are bound to be charters.<br/><br/>The neighborhood elementary school that used to be our prime feeder was consistently the second-lowest performing school in Oklahoma. It is now a charter, adopted by a hospital, that provides an excellent and humane education. None of its grads would come to our school, now. They head off to much higher performing schools - usually magnets. Some are the brothers and sisters of my students, so why should I complain?<br/><br/>In secondary schools the issue of discipline is much more critical and complex. But I don't want to sound draconian. High poverty schools do both, persuade adults to take a nurturing outreach and teach kids to be students AND they also have credibility in assessing consequences. They head off a lot of problems in adavance, but they have the political leverage necessary to assess consequences. Charter schools, by definition, have an abundant supply of alternative schools. They are called neighborhood schools.<br/><br/>All we ask is an equally sensible arrangement where neighborhood schools are allowed to establish their crediblitity. And hopefully we can follow the same dynamic. Once socie has invested enough in schools, we will create capacity that allows teachers to teach. THEN we can move more aggressively on teacher accountability. The RAND study seemed to do a good job of acknowledging the “ambiguity about possible interpretations.” It seemed to factor out the big bias of “creaming” but its sample was too small, apparently, to attempt to address the second major difference not being hamstrung by policies imposed by the central office that cripple efforts to improve schooling. The biggest set of dysfunctional policies revolve around the inability to assess disciplinary consequences.

Clearly, if charter high schools seem to be doing relatively better the prime suspect has to be related to the inability of neighborhood schools to create safe and orderly environments.

Even though I teach at a school that has been damaged by the nonstop creaming of students who are easier to teach, I still support charter schools. Just because my school is not allowed to enforce its Code of Conduct, why should I have ill will towards students who have been able to attend schools that are allowed to create a learning culture. We need both, policies that allow us to hold students and teachers to higher standards. But systemically, we can’t do either without creating more high quality alternative school slots. And some of them are bound to be charters.

The neighborhood elementary school that used to be our prime feeder was consistently the second-lowest performing school in Oklahoma. It is now a charter, adopted by a hospital, that provides an excellent and humane education. None of its grads would come to our school, now. They head off to much higher performing schools - usually magnets. Some are the brothers and sisters of my students, so why should I complain?

In secondary schools the issue of discipline is much more critical and complex. But I don’t want to sound draconian. High poverty schools do both, persuade adults to take a nurturing outreach and teach kids to be students AND they also have credibility in assessing consequences. They head off a lot of problems in adavance, but they have the political leverage necessary to assess consequences. Charter schools, by definition, have an abundant supply of alternative schools. They are called neighborhood schools.

All we ask is an equally sensible arrangement where neighborhood schools are allowed to establish their crediblitity. And hopefully we can follow the same dynamic. Once socie has invested enough in schools, we will create capacity that allows teachers to teach. THEN we can move more aggressively on teacher accountability.

]]>