|
Edited on Sat Jan-30-10 12:05 PM by 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.
|