A Charter School District with No Charters
(Update: here is a link to the original story I found on this district that mentions the Gates Foundation grant.)
Looking around here and there, I happened on this school district in Boulder, Colorado. Mapleton is a district of just under 6,000 students that had found itself floundering. In 2006, their superintendent held a series of public meetings to talk revamping the schools - all of them. With the help of the Gates Foundation, they created 17 new schools up from 7. They attract teachers who are excited about this new and more diverse (at least in teaching approaches) district. What do they have?
-a PK-6 Montessori
- a K-6 elementary with hands-on learning and same teacher for 2 years
- a traditional K-6
- a K-6 that is "gifted and talented learning for all"
- a K-12 school for IB
- another K-12
- a 7-12 arts school
- 9-12 college prep with optional 13th year to gain an AA degree
- an 18-20 young adult school to help those students finish high school and work towards college
None of these schools are charter and yet, they are not cookie-cutter schools. I was just dumbfounded by their offerings. I think many parents here would love it.
Are their scores way up? No and they started at a low level but their enrollment is up.
I wonder what Arne Duncan would say to this district about Race to the Top money.
Looking around here and there, I happened on this school district in Boulder, Colorado. Mapleton is a district of just under 6,000 students that had found itself floundering. In 2006, their superintendent held a series of public meetings to talk revamping the schools - all of them. With the help of the Gates Foundation, they created 17 new schools up from 7. They attract teachers who are excited about this new and more diverse (at least in teaching approaches) district. What do they have?
-a PK-6 Montessori
- a K-6 elementary with hands-on learning and same teacher for 2 years
- a traditional K-6
- a K-6 that is "gifted and talented learning for all"
- a K-12 school for IB
- another K-12
- a 7-12 arts school
- 9-12 college prep with optional 13th year to gain an AA degree
- an 18-20 young adult school to help those students finish high school and work towards college
None of these schools are charter and yet, they are not cookie-cutter schools. I was just dumbfounded by their offerings. I think many parents here would love it.
Are their scores way up? No and they started at a low level but their enrollment is up.
I wonder what Arne Duncan would say to this district about Race to the Top money.
Comments
Wow! What a district! Talk about diverse offerings! All sorts of unique programs...And union, too, offering a competitive wage.
Amazing.
I recommend that people visit the website Melissa links and check it out. Wowzer. Remind me again why we are closing alts and aligning pedagogy and materials? Seems to me that everywhere we look, publics, charters, everybody is at least touting their student/centered approach, their unique models, their range of offerings...(of course, buried in a fair number of charter mndels, particularly those that replace "safety net" or high-poverty schools, is that old bugaboo "direct instruction"...
In regard to Direct Instruction...
Pick up a copy of John Hattie's "Visible Learning" on pages 204 to 206 he outlines the 7 major steps of direct instruction.
Effect sizes:
Problem Solving teaching d=0.61
Direct Instruction d=0.59
Mastery Learning d=0.58
Worked Examples d=0.57
Seattle prefers in math and Science
Inquiry based teaching d=0.31
Problem-based learning d=0.15
and Differentiated Instruction. After several years of use there is no research on the efficacy of Differentiated Instruction.
I would like to see teachers treated as professionals rather than mindless drones delivering the pacing plan and then when that fails .... being told they failed to differentiate.
A teacher needs to be able to make judgments in how to meet the needs of students.
Thinking back on my look at Mapleton's website, I'm confused: they mention a HUGE matching grant from the state, I think it was something like 32 million, but their proposed budget for 2010 has only about 3 million identified...
So I not only don't see the Gates connection, but wonder where that 32 million in capital improvements (the grant) shows up...
I did note the word "imagine!" on top of their website, so went looking for a connection to Imagine Schools (charters) of course...didn't see one; it appears that they are non-charter. I think.
Sounds like Mapleton had a plan, stuck to it, and here they are. Seems like they also have the patience to work their new system and work through the kinks. Go Mapleton!
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/
2009/07/23/AR2009072302634.html)
"Under Race to the Top guidelines, states seeking funds will be pressed to implement four core interconnected reforms.
-- To reverse the pervasive dumbing-down of academic standards and assessments by states, Race to the Top winners need to work toward adopting common, internationally benchmarked K-12 standards that prepare students for success in college and careers.
-- To close the data gap -- which now handcuffs districts from tracking growth in student learning and improving classroom instruction -- states will need to monitor advances in student achievement and identify effective instructional practices.
-- To boost the quality of teachers and principals, especially in high-poverty schools and hard-to-staff subjects, states and districts should be able to identify effective teachers and principals -- and have strategies for rewarding and retaining more top-notch teachers and improving or replacing ones who aren't up to the job.
-- Finally, to turn around the lowest-performing schools, states and districts must be ready to institute far-reaching reforms, from replacing staff and leadership to changing the school culture.
Those are the four conditions, He goes on to say:
"...the program is also a competition through which states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support. For example, states that limit alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, or cap the number of charter schools, will be at a competitive disadvantage."
"Pervasive dumbing down of standards?" and he wants "common" standards? So teh feds decide curriculum now? Will we have a federal test? That's the only way to make those standards "common" in his further expansion on assessments...
And the "data gap..hinders districts? How does he think we know about the gap in the first place? We use data. (Of course, me being me I'd argue that the data we use, particularly the way it pidgeon-holes every kid and declares whole schools "failing" if just ONE category is not providing "data" (WASL scores) that are RISING for five years straight...
and merit pay: "rewarding and retaining more top-notch teachers "
and "replacing staff and leadership to changing the school culture"
So the four points speak to huge and fundamental changes to schools, enacted at the end of the blunt stick of federal funding. Certainly the feds have always used funding to enact changes, but this is beyons the ken.
When Duncan goes on to say, in commentary, that states that "cap the number of charter schools, will be at a competitive disadvantage." well, that pretty much is the same as saying, "no charters, no money," isn't it? States have to not only ALLOW charters (thirteen don't, including Washington) but they have to allow unlimited charters.
Talk about a huge shift in education: what used to be the milieu of the states and distracts is now under the gun of the feds.
Do we WANT a national curriculum? (After all, as we've discussed in this blog, curriculum IS standards: what skills and knowldege students should have.)
No we don't want that stuff for science. Science is about inquiry, not blab-schooling it by rote.
And we all know that is ridiculous.
Helen Schinske
I think charters are just like private schools--some work and some don't and neither is a guaranteed success for kids. The difference is if states that have charters step up with tough expected outcomes, you can close the failing ones quicker than failing public schools are closed today.
I think we can all agree Pubic schools have multiple problems. And since the system educates over 90% of our student population, it would behoove us to stop pissing around with a little change here and a little change there and actually do some radical heavy lifting to change public education.
The longer we wait, the worse it gets, the more people shut down because the problem is too big to solve. Uggh!
I'm not sure Direct Instruction does this...
I know I want my child to be exposed more to the Socratic method than to Direct Instruction...
Not only does it challenge him, it also gives him confidence that he CAN problem solve, that his brain works well and is something to be relied on, that he can extrapolate logic and intuition from one situation/scenario to another and get valid insights...
I think the problem that many people are protesting about regarding inquiry-base learning may not so much be a problem with the system of learning, as the quality of the tools used and the time and setting...
Its much easier to do direct instruction with a bunch of 30 or so youngsters in a room, learning things by rote with everyone on the same page at the same time and drilling via repetition, than it is to take hours, days, weeks even, to guide one youngster, let alone 30, through a process of meandering exploration to get to understanding...
I understand the economic, management and time constraints operating in a classroom, that would make Direct Instruction more appealing/seemingly more effective...
However, I would grieve the loss of adjunctive, extended learning that goes on through the inquiry-based and/or Socratic method...
But I guess in our industrial-complex education system, that doesnt matter.... narrow the focus, get through and churn them - cogs in the machine - out in the minimum time possible... brings to my mind the image of a horse - race horse of work horse - having blinkers put on by his masters to make sure that he isnt distracted by anything that will take him off track or slow him down...
Isnt that what our schools do to so many of our kids? Put blinkers on them so their focus narrows?
And no, I dont think charters will change that, offer anything better... in fact, most charters do that to an even greater degree, which is one of the reasons I have been so vociferously against them...
YOu write that "If there was a district/state that didn't have charters and used other methods to radically improve public education, they would certainly be strong candidates for the "race to the top" funds."
Contrast that with Duncan's statement:
"states that limit alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, or cap the number of charter schools, will be at a competitive disadvantage."
Seems to me like you're statement is optimism from this end that Duncan will cut loose funds sans charters, but my read of it, since he's at THAT end controlling the purse strings and making the calls, is that he won't fund non-charter states. It seems pretty clear: "a competitive disadvantage," given the rest of his ethos and designed to manipulate major educational policy from the federal side (the side with big bucks) Keep in mind where Duncan came from: Investment firm's educational foundation, to head of a charter in Illinois (that uses investment as an organizing theme), to sup't of Chicago and to the head of our nation's education department.
What does he want?
I think he wants not only to educate children but to allow the funneling of vast amounts of taxpayer dollars to charter operators and property managers.
Paranoid? Maybe. But I never thought our armed forces would be partly turned into profit-making government adjunts, either.
You seem awfully eager to concede that publics can't do, we need to outsource, when all sorts of publics are doing well, thank you, here in this city and nationwide.
You know my opinion: Bring in the community, support those students who are struggling even beyond the school walls, give teachers latitude while holding them accountable...And dump the freakin' NCLB, RFtT and other standardized (and often misrepresented) methods of assessing success.
Charters? Not with MY tax dollars. Public schools with public funds, accountable to me through my Board Director, my Board and it's policies, my Sup'y, my Ed Director, my Principal and my Teacher.
Direct Instruction (DI) is an explicit, scientifically-based model of effective instruction developed by Siegfried Engelmann in the 1960's. DI can be distinguished from other models of explicit instruction (such as direct instruction—di) by its focus on curriculum design and effective instructional delivery. Commercial DI curricular programs are typically published by Science Research Associates (SRA)
So, you see, the most common use of the words, "direct instruction", refers to a parcticular curriculum you buy... developed in the 60's... before most of us were even in school. Other forms listed in Wiki.. are even more heavily scripted... way more than something like the evil EDM. So, it's safe to say... if you're opposed to scripting, you're opposed to "direct instruction". If you view "teachers as professionals", you're opposed to "direct instruction". You can't have it both ways.
I guarantee you, if your child ever had "direct instruction" done to them, you'd be really happy to get EDM.
No, we can't all agree that the public school system educates over 90% of our student population. At least 35% of our school aged population is privately educated... and perhaps close to 50%. It's simple to see based on racial demographics. 70% of Seattle is white... only 40% of SPS is white. Where has a big chunk of this majority gone? Obviously... out of SPS! Around half of that 70% is... poof, gone!
And no, charters aren't really like "private schools" in so many ways.. it's pretty ludicrous to compare them. For starters.... well, they're free.
But, I think if we allow charters.. we have to make sure that they do not operate as private schools. They must operate to provide a public service, and provide something that the private schools do not offer. They must serve those who are difficult to serve, and they must strive to close the various achievement gaps we have... I definitely do not see a problem with having more offerings to solve these problems than we have now.
That said, the fugures you use about 70% of Seattle being white yet only 40% of the district is white...THERE'S an eyeopener.
wowzers.
I'm simply stating the obvious--our public system needs help. They are big, cumbersome and not serving all students (particularly low income students of color). They're for the most part afraid to innovate as an entire system. Yes, there are some shining examples emerging across the country, but how much of that innovative spirit do you think is going to spread to failing districts?
Ideally the public school system would continue to innovate and we wouldn't be having this conversation decade after decade. It takes a lot of hard work and guts to buck the trend and actually do what's best for kids instead of what's comfortable for adults. The work is happening in fits and starts, in the meantime cohorts of students are being undereducated every single year.
Reader, I meant 90% in the nation. My work and research is not centered on Seattle alone. Seattle is an anomaly really with 35% in private school. Actually it pretty embarassing for a city with our wealth and resources.
Unfortunately, we are closing or moving/consolidating our alternative schools fast than you can say "boo."
Marshall, AAA, Summit, Pathfinder moved, NOVA moved...Our Alternative Policy and Alternative Checklist labguish. It is being hinted that there will be a common set of stratagies and materials distributed throughout the district in one way or another.
The very figures you use, I assum, to declare us "failing" are themselves standardized: WASL reports.
Yes, our "minority" and "poor" students suffer a disproportionate amount of trouble. Much of it is inflicted outside of school. Yes, SOME teachers "fail" their students...why are they still teaching? Is it the educators' fault if management doesn't act? Would a less centralized management act any better? The jury is still out.
Yes, ANY student needs support, to varying degrees. Those degrees aren't measured by WASL scores or "race" or "class" :each need is unique.
Publics have NOT "failed decade after decade: They have, overall, done a good job, in the face of increasing societal ills, to try to teach each and every kid. Pretty amazing, really. Most in the world do NOT have this universal access.
Change the publics. Add, don't subtract alternatives and other innovative programs. It IS a shame that "Seattle is an anomaly really with 35% in private school...embarassing for a city with our wealth and resources."
To fix that embarressment, keep schools 100% public (maybe lease eh buildings to the city, as Charlie suggests: there's a good idea, perhaps) and get some of that wealth, and some of those people clamoring for diverse offerings, to insist that the district provide them. Relying on outside sources to do the job we, the public, have the responibility for is irresponsible, and in some cases has lead to profiteering and some really, really crappy schools that exclude, standardize, march to NCLB and otherwise practice bad education without accountability.
I know we have some good schools in our district, we have some good teachers and administrators, but we also have a system that is failing kids of color by leaps and bounds and the schools are about as segregated as they were in the 60s. I think there are several posts on this blog that show the demographics of our schools.
WASL scores are just one measure. There are many others that are not imperical (Low expectations, unwelcoming environment for parents of color, teachers who don't have a clue how to relate to kids, etc.) and it all adds up.
Anyway, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree. That's cool.
To me, this is a HUGE change in education: PUBLIC education should be just that - it's what the taxpayers pay for, it's what our state's constitution mandates...
So to me there's two three issues with opening the door (further) to "non-public" entities:
1) loss of accountability: if oe posits that our public boards aren't doing their job now, then how will removing some of the tools of accountability (policies and district oversight) guarentee BETTER performance? Some organizations might do better with non-public ed, some might do worse. But there would be FEWER avenues for accountability.
2) Public is public: switching to a "semi-public" or some other arrangement waters down our responsibility.
3) If the publics can't afford to do things, how can the non-public entities? We hear lots about how generous some of these organizations are, giving money to a school...will they give money to ALL schools, or just a few? In other words, if money is needed, where will it come from, public or private, for ALL schools? I don't think MS is going to say, well, it takes money to change things, so we're gonna give all districts some more. No, they'll help some schools, some districts, because they obviously can't afford to help all of them. (well, maybe they could...)My point is that there are tens of thousands of schools - why is outside money only going to a certain percentage?
3) ulterior motives: Aren Duncan's investment firm wants to produce more investors. They pay 1/3 the operating costs of a school in a public building. The students get "investment education." Well, fine, if one wants to train a bunch of investors, but is that what school is all about? And: HOw well have the investment firms been doing lately? Will they teach civic resposnsibilty? Ethics? Look at that article in the Seattle Times the other day: MS, Viacom, MTV. Comedy Central, Nickelodeon "team up" for education...Is this where we are headed? Sounds like the kids might just as well stay home and get taught through their computer screen...
Finally, you write that publics evidently have "Low expectations, unwelcoming environment for parents of color, teachers who don't have a clue how to relate to kids, etc.)" And this will change when we make them less public?
Furthermore, I feel that while some students DO face racism and classism, and low expectations etc, to continue to focus on THOSE student, naming them by cartegory, contributes to the categorization of these children, contributes to their ostricism in many cases. They're no longer kids, but rather numbers on bar graphs to be addressed accordning to their particular category.
What IS a "student of color" is a question that bears asking: Is it an African immigrant? The son of a white woman and a Kenyan father? The daughter of a Scots-Vietnamese and a Greek-Peruvian (and is that Peruvian grandparent indigineous or Spanish descent?
The whole race thing makes for some very dangerous assumptions when we are dealing with our children. Not to say that there isn't racism, but c'mon, the District (and state, and feds, I think) still conflate African American with African Immigrant in WASL categories! Unbelievable!
Willy Lynch is certainly NOT dead, though we all wish he were. But there ARE students of all sorts of mixed heritages doing spectacular things in every school. To deny this is to deny them.
"A second meaning of _Direct Instruction_ refers to a theory of instruction developed by Siegfried Engelmann, specific programs designed from his theory, and specific direct instruction delivery techniques espoused by his theory and programs. The first letter in each word, _Direct Instruction_, is capitalized when referring to Engelmann's theory, programs and methods."
Helen Schinske
Luckily, Save Our Schools is the place to get schooled.
twark, adds WV
(nice job tonight at the board meeting, Dora! Kudos!)
READER, what is the source of these statistics?