Given the state of state budgets across the country, I imagine that we're going to be seeing several more stories like this one over the next few months. For those of you who don't believe in clicking on links, the headline reads, "Larger Class Sizes Ahead as Teachers Collect Pink Slips: Effect on students may be minimal as the acaemic benefits of small class sizes remain unclear."
As you may be able to guess from reading that headline, the point of the article is that class sizes are likely to increase in Chicago, but that parents shouldn't be worried because class sizes don't affect student performance that much.
I'm going to duck the whole question of how much class size affects achievement versus other things like teacher quality. Instead, I want to focus on why this story, why now. The answer, I think, it pretty obvious.
Imagine that you're a cook in a restaurant and everyone wants saffron in their meals. (For the record, I don't really know what saffron is, but it sounds fancier than pepper.) However, you can't really afford saffron because of budget cutbacks. What do you do? Well, you might try persuading people that saffron really doesn't do that much for a meal anyway. In fact, salt is just as good maybe even better. That's kind of what's happening here.
Unable to provide the kinds of class sizes that will keep parents happy, the schools are launching a PR push to say that class sizes aren't that important. What's really important is that you have good teachers. I'm sure we'll be hearing soon about how great the Chicago teaching corps is.
I imagine we'll soon be seeing more stories from education departments around the country downplaying the importance of small class sizes. Whether they believe their own press or not is something I can't say for sure. But, for now at least, what else are they going to do?
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chicago. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
On Second Thought
Out in Chicago they've been taking a look at the educational reform strategies that are now being used to reform schools across the country. The strategy - which focuses heavily on closing failing schools, opening new ones, and charters - has been, well, not as encouraging as one might hope. To get right to the point, scores from the newly opened elementary schools are the same as the city average and the high schools tend to do worse than the city average. In other words, just opening new schools doesn't mean that they're going to automatically be better than what they are replacing. Good schools are good schools. New schools can go either way.
Meanwhile, out in Long Beach - which has just received the Broad Prize - they've achieved success by being the anti-Chicago. They have focused on data, community buy-in, and staff development. Also, instead of "flitting from reform to reform or looking for silver bullets", they have stuck with that approach for nearly 20 years. (Are you listening Joel Klein?) Now data, community buy-in, and staff development aren't exactly the sexy stuff of the Education Reformers, but if it works then why isn't the data set all over this. And if the portfolio method isn't so effective, you'd think they'd be turning against that.
The thing about all this reform is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. People are getting locked into their ideas of what works whether it does or not. I'm not saying that only one approach can be successful. I think the exact opposite is true, in fact. But we need to make sure we're actually looking at what works instead of just saying it works and taking action that doesn't help.
Meanwhile, out in Long Beach - which has just received the Broad Prize - they've achieved success by being the anti-Chicago. They have focused on data, community buy-in, and staff development. Also, instead of "flitting from reform to reform or looking for silver bullets", they have stuck with that approach for nearly 20 years. (Are you listening Joel Klein?) Now data, community buy-in, and staff development aren't exactly the sexy stuff of the Education Reformers, but if it works then why isn't the data set all over this. And if the portfolio method isn't so effective, you'd think they'd be turning against that.
The thing about all this reform is that the more things change, the more they stay the same. People are getting locked into their ideas of what works whether it does or not. I'm not saying that only one approach can be successful. I think the exact opposite is true, in fact. But we need to make sure we're actually looking at what works instead of just saying it works and taking action that doesn't help.
Friday, January 8, 2010
An Actual Turnaround
I've written before that I'm a pretty big believer in the Obama administration's focus on turning around the lowest performing schools in our country. As I've written, the whole point of the achievement gap is that a lot of schools serving more affluent areas are doing pretty well while a lot of schools serving the less affluent neighborhoods in our country are doing abysmally. That's why there's a gap. What I'm less a fan of is the administration's focus on turning schools around by simply closing them and opening a new school (or new charter school) in their place.
First, this strategy is premised on the idea that any new school will be better than the school it's replacing. Given the status of those schools, this isn't exactly a high bar to reach, but I'm not sure it's an entirely logical conclusion that absolutely anything would be better. I mean, don't districts ever open new underperforming schools?
That's why I like the idea of actually working to turn schools around rather than just close schools and opening a new one that we hope is moving in the opposite direction. You can imagine my happiness to see that a program in Chicago (which as a city has more than a few connections to the current powers-that-be in the White House) has been working with a group called Strategic Learning Initiatives and has been getting results.
SLI works within schools to turn them around rather than focusing on what the next school in that building will be doing. As their CEO says, "it’s less expensive, and often more effective, to invest in the people already working in the schools."
Ultimately, I don't think it's terribly realistic of us to think that we'll be able to abolish the entire system that we have and open something new and better in its place. I just don't think the manpower is there. So let's focus on improving the people we have and getting the best possible results out of them. Chicago is showing that it can be done. Is Arne Duncan listening?
First, this strategy is premised on the idea that any new school will be better than the school it's replacing. Given the status of those schools, this isn't exactly a high bar to reach, but I'm not sure it's an entirely logical conclusion that absolutely anything would be better. I mean, don't districts ever open new underperforming schools?
That's why I like the idea of actually working to turn schools around rather than just close schools and opening a new one that we hope is moving in the opposite direction. You can imagine my happiness to see that a program in Chicago (which as a city has more than a few connections to the current powers-that-be in the White House) has been working with a group called Strategic Learning Initiatives and has been getting results.
SLI works within schools to turn them around rather than focusing on what the next school in that building will be doing. As their CEO says, "it’s less expensive, and often more effective, to invest in the people already working in the schools."
Ultimately, I don't think it's terribly realistic of us to think that we'll be able to abolish the entire system that we have and open something new and better in its place. I just don't think the manpower is there. So let's focus on improving the people we have and getting the best possible results out of them. Chicago is showing that it can be done. Is Arne Duncan listening?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
What's the Problem?
Race, class, and school admissions. If that isn't the set-up for a fraught conversation, I don't know what is. I mention it because that's exactly what's going on in Chicago. A 2007 Supreme Court decision prevented the use of race in determining school decisions. That caused problems for the system in trying to comply wth a desegregation order. So, rather than use race as the determining criterion, CPS is looking at census tracts, neighborhood income levels, and other socio-economic indicators as the determinative factors. The goal being that by looking at these issues, the system will be able to reap a "racial dividend" and achieve essentially the same result.
Frankly, all of this makes sense to me. However, some of Chicago's alderman have other ideas and are calling the new system unjust and a way to get white students into selective schools. They may have a point given that the new methods seem to be somewhat less than ideal. For instance, the article reports that "some students will be competing against kids whose families make at least 10 times more than theirs do." So obviously the system needs some tinkering.
Assuming that things were working well, though, I think that this makes a whole lot of sense. I've always been a strong believer in the maxim that your solutions should address your problems. Otherwise, what's the point? So is the problem race or is the problem socio-economic disparities. Obviously, the two are pretty firmly linked in this country so it's a little tough to separate them out. However, since I have a hard time believing that different races automatically have different levels of academic achievement, I'm inclined to favor socio-economic factors. If that's the problem, then that's what our solutions should be targeting. Chicago seems to have started down that road, but they've got a ways to go still.
On an unrelated note, the Los Angeles Times just ran an editorial saying that while charters have a lot of promise, "they're no magic bullet." Couldn't agree more. Could we be seeing the beginning of a shift on popular perception of the schools? Obviously one editorial doesn't make a trend, but it's a start.
Frankly, all of this makes sense to me. However, some of Chicago's alderman have other ideas and are calling the new system unjust and a way to get white students into selective schools. They may have a point given that the new methods seem to be somewhat less than ideal. For instance, the article reports that "some students will be competing against kids whose families make at least 10 times more than theirs do." So obviously the system needs some tinkering.
Assuming that things were working well, though, I think that this makes a whole lot of sense. I've always been a strong believer in the maxim that your solutions should address your problems. Otherwise, what's the point? So is the problem race or is the problem socio-economic disparities. Obviously, the two are pretty firmly linked in this country so it's a little tough to separate them out. However, since I have a hard time believing that different races automatically have different levels of academic achievement, I'm inclined to favor socio-economic factors. If that's the problem, then that's what our solutions should be targeting. Chicago seems to have started down that road, but they've got a ways to go still.
On an unrelated note, the Los Angeles Times just ran an editorial saying that while charters have a lot of promise, "they're no magic bullet." Couldn't agree more. Could we be seeing the beginning of a shift on popular perception of the schools? Obviously one editorial doesn't make a trend, but it's a start.
Monday, October 5, 2009
A Lighted Tunnel
The head of the Chicago teacher's union wants the city to create a new school for chronically disruptive students. As she says, "Teachers can't teach and students can't learn in a constantly disruptive classroom.” Hard to argue with that. However, my initial reaction is completely divided.
On the one hand, from my time in the classroom, I can think of a few kids whose constant misbehavior dragged down the entire class. It was the instigators who would send the whole class off the rails. There were the kids who were throwing books out the window, overturning chairs during group work time, and punching other kids in class. Clearly, the classroom culture would have benefitted from their absence. Their presence made it nearly impossible for those who wanted to do the right thing to actually have that opportunity.
On the other hand, I'm very leery about a program that could essentially consign those kids to the outskirts of the education system with no hope of returning to the fold and bettering their own lives. Removal from a regular classroom may be warranted. Placement in a pre-prison system is not.
The only way that I see this kind of program working is if the kids who are removed from their regular classrooms are given a fundamentally different educational experience. We can't just put all the bad kids together in one room and give them the same experience we would if they were in their old rooms. That obviously wouldn't work. It would probably make things worse. But if we instituted a system of intensive remediation, character building, possibly therapy, and a host of other supports we might actually get somewhere. To her credit, this seems to be what the Chicago union has in mind.
This kind of program can work. But it can only work if there's a light at the end of the tunnel for these kids. Simply banishing them isn't the answer.
On the one hand, from my time in the classroom, I can think of a few kids whose constant misbehavior dragged down the entire class. It was the instigators who would send the whole class off the rails. There were the kids who were throwing books out the window, overturning chairs during group work time, and punching other kids in class. Clearly, the classroom culture would have benefitted from their absence. Their presence made it nearly impossible for those who wanted to do the right thing to actually have that opportunity.
On the other hand, I'm very leery about a program that could essentially consign those kids to the outskirts of the education system with no hope of returning to the fold and bettering their own lives. Removal from a regular classroom may be warranted. Placement in a pre-prison system is not.
The only way that I see this kind of program working is if the kids who are removed from their regular classrooms are given a fundamentally different educational experience. We can't just put all the bad kids together in one room and give them the same experience we would if they were in their old rooms. That obviously wouldn't work. It would probably make things worse. But if we instituted a system of intensive remediation, character building, possibly therapy, and a host of other supports we might actually get somewhere. To her credit, this seems to be what the Chicago union has in mind.
This kind of program can work. But it can only work if there's a light at the end of the tunnel for these kids. Simply banishing them isn't the answer.
Friday, May 1, 2009
What It All Means
A few final thoughts to complete my Gang Leader for a Day triptych.
The projects as described in the book are essentially a smaller, more concentrated version of the urban ghettos in which a huge percentage of our educational problems lie. Looking at them and the kinds of solutions that might work to help alleviate poverty, neglect, and the poor conditions in those projects can help point us in the right direction for how to solve the broader issues in the larger neighborhoods.
I want to turn again to the concept of the vaccuum because that seems to be the key to all this. Where there is a power vaccuum created by the withdrawal/removal of traditional authorities, alternative powers will insert themselves. This is part of the power of the gangs. Where there is a vaccuum in terms of economic possibilities, it will be filled. In the book we learn about drugs, prostitution, and the various other hustles that become the basis for the project economy.
Up and down the line, wherever there is an absence, it will be filled. A vaccuum does not last. Given this, it's pretty tough to try to educate children as if they're operating in a world that plays by the same rules and has the same opportunities as middle class neighborhoods.
The answer, then, is to plug the holes. It means increasing the presence of police and public safety officers while making clear that these people are here to help, not harass. (There's some interesting stuff about police harassment in the book too.) It means making sure that basic social services - health care, sanitation, etc - are provided at the same levels they are in more affluent areas. It also means major economic investment to create actual opportunities for people outside of the alternative, underground economy. Projects like the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, started by Robert Kennedy, are the kinds of things we need to be looking to expand and support.
We can talk about people needing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps all we want. But until they actually have some boots to start pulling on, it's not going to make much difference.
The projects as described in the book are essentially a smaller, more concentrated version of the urban ghettos in which a huge percentage of our educational problems lie. Looking at them and the kinds of solutions that might work to help alleviate poverty, neglect, and the poor conditions in those projects can help point us in the right direction for how to solve the broader issues in the larger neighborhoods.
I want to turn again to the concept of the vaccuum because that seems to be the key to all this. Where there is a power vaccuum created by the withdrawal/removal of traditional authorities, alternative powers will insert themselves. This is part of the power of the gangs. Where there is a vaccuum in terms of economic possibilities, it will be filled. In the book we learn about drugs, prostitution, and the various other hustles that become the basis for the project economy.
Up and down the line, wherever there is an absence, it will be filled. A vaccuum does not last. Given this, it's pretty tough to try to educate children as if they're operating in a world that plays by the same rules and has the same opportunities as middle class neighborhoods.
The answer, then, is to plug the holes. It means increasing the presence of police and public safety officers while making clear that these people are here to help, not harass. (There's some interesting stuff about police harassment in the book too.) It means making sure that basic social services - health care, sanitation, etc - are provided at the same levels they are in more affluent areas. It also means major economic investment to create actual opportunities for people outside of the alternative, underground economy. Projects like the Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, started by Robert Kennedy, are the kinds of things we need to be looking to expand and support.
We can talk about people needing to pull themselves up by their bootstraps all we want. But until they actually have some boots to start pulling on, it's not going to make much difference.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Filling the Vaccuum
I wrote on Monday about the book Gang Leader for a Day and how a power vaccuum in the projects creates an opportunity for gangs and powerful (though perhaps immoral) tenant leaders to step in and fill the void. This contributes to a further breakdown of the traditional power structure which creates more opportunities for these alternative groups to increase their power.
This is no small problem. Researchers from New York University have found that students who live in public housing fare worse in school than their counterparts who live outside of public housing, even when factors like race and economics are figured into the equation. Read the book and it's not hard to see why.
The question about how to fix it is obviously much more difficult than identifying the problem. In fact, it would probably take a master's level dissertation to really get to the heart of it. Here's my version in a paragraph.
Just like a castle can't have two kings, a housing project can't have two true authorities. Part of the reasons that gangs and gang life is so prevalent in the projects is that the people tolerate them, not so much because they approve of the crack trade (the book was researched in the 1990s), but because the gangs provide a level of stability by regulating the activities - both legal and illegal - that take place in the buildings. That regulation provides a kind of order that would otherwise be lacking. However, if that order were to come from police, the housing authority, etc. (the way it does in other, more affluent neighborhoods), the tolerance for gang activity declines. In doing so, the power of the gang declines which provides a greater foothold for the traditional power structures to assert themselves.
Simple enough on paper, at least. Of course, actually doing it is where the trouble begins.
This is no small problem. Researchers from New York University have found that students who live in public housing fare worse in school than their counterparts who live outside of public housing, even when factors like race and economics are figured into the equation. Read the book and it's not hard to see why.
The question about how to fix it is obviously much more difficult than identifying the problem. In fact, it would probably take a master's level dissertation to really get to the heart of it. Here's my version in a paragraph.
Just like a castle can't have two kings, a housing project can't have two true authorities. Part of the reasons that gangs and gang life is so prevalent in the projects is that the people tolerate them, not so much because they approve of the crack trade (the book was researched in the 1990s), but because the gangs provide a level of stability by regulating the activities - both legal and illegal - that take place in the buildings. That regulation provides a kind of order that would otherwise be lacking. However, if that order were to come from police, the housing authority, etc. (the way it does in other, more affluent neighborhoods), the tolerance for gang activity declines. In doing so, the power of the gang declines which provides a greater foothold for the traditional power structures to assert themselves.
Simple enough on paper, at least. Of course, actually doing it is where the trouble begins.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Life in the Projects
I just finished reading an incredible new book that I'm officially recommending to everyone I know who is interested in urban poverty. The book is called Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets. In the book, Sudhir Venkatesh describes the years he spent hanging out in the Chicago projects with gang members, crack dealers, prostitutes, and people just trying to get by. The book isn't filled with great writing, but it's better than it had to be given how interesting and compelling the story is. I'll be sharing some of my insights on the book throughout the week, but in the meantime, I'd really recommend checking it out.
The biggest point that struck me about the book is how the absence of traditional power structures affects all life in the project. Out in the suburbs where Venkatesh and I grew up, there are the traditional models of authority: parents, police, teachers, etc. For a variety of reasons, those figures are largely absent from life in the projects. Into their places slide alternative power structures like the gangs.
The gangs as they are presented in the book are not as purely bad as they might otherwise be assumed to be. Yes, they sell crack and engage in drive-bys. Yes, they encourage the various forms of illegality that seem to thrive in the projects. But they also act as the defacto landlord, police, and general regulators of life in the projects. Their presence acts as a stabilizing force in the projects. The irony is, of course, that it is the gang's illegal activities that act to destabilize things in the first place.
The main idea I'm trying to get across here is that nature abhors a vaccuum. Where there is a power vaccuum left by inefficient government or policing, something else will step in to fill those roles. That it has been gangs in these low-income ghetto communities speaks to the very clear need to ensure that the kinds of services taken for granted by more affluent citizens are at least available to those on the other end of the social spectrum.
The biggest point that struck me about the book is how the absence of traditional power structures affects all life in the project. Out in the suburbs where Venkatesh and I grew up, there are the traditional models of authority: parents, police, teachers, etc. For a variety of reasons, those figures are largely absent from life in the projects. Into their places slide alternative power structures like the gangs.
The gangs as they are presented in the book are not as purely bad as they might otherwise be assumed to be. Yes, they sell crack and engage in drive-bys. Yes, they encourage the various forms of illegality that seem to thrive in the projects. But they also act as the defacto landlord, police, and general regulators of life in the projects. Their presence acts as a stabilizing force in the projects. The irony is, of course, that it is the gang's illegal activities that act to destabilize things in the first place.
The main idea I'm trying to get across here is that nature abhors a vaccuum. Where there is a power vaccuum left by inefficient government or policing, something else will step in to fill those roles. That it has been gangs in these low-income ghetto communities speaks to the very clear need to ensure that the kinds of services taken for granted by more affluent citizens are at least available to those on the other end of the social spectrum.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
The Idealocratest of Them All
I've been writing for a while now that I think we should call the new breed of school reformers idealocrats (as originally suggested by Gotham Schools). I've written before about why I think it's a great description for this particular school movement, but I don't think I've ever really put my finger on why exactly I like it so much. Until now. Let me back up for a moment.
You may have heard that Arne Duncan is the new Secretary of Education in the Obama administration. That left a vacancy at his old job running the Chicago public school system. So Mayor Richard Daley appointed a replacement with a strong background ... in transportation. That's right, Ron Huberman, the new head of the Chicago system, has a good reputation as an administrator from his time running CTA (which I'm guessing is the Chicago public transit system). In doing so, Daley just crowned himself as perhaps the idealocratest of them all.
(As a side note, I really like this quote from the head of the Chicago teachers' union. I can't tell whether it's supposed to be funny or sad. "We were hoping the mayor would appoint someone with a strong background in education since we face so many challenges as an urban district. However, we will work with whomever the mayor sends ...")
Here's what makes this such an idealocrat thing to do. It assumes that knowledge of teaching/learning/pedagogy is not needed to run an education system. You don't need any knowledge to do it. All you need is to be a strong administrator because that's where the system is broken. The idealocrats are trying to create the ideal bureaucracy with clear lines of authority and an obvious system for measuring success. It's all focused on the bureaucratic systems, not the classrooms.
Think about it. Can you tell me where Joel Klein stands on math education? Is he in favor of traditional approaches or does he like the more progressive number-sense pedagogy? What about Michelle Rhee? Is she a phonics or whole language person? I could guess on each of these, but I don't know for sure. But you can bet that I can tell you where they stand on teacher tenure and high-stakes testing as a means of boosting accountability.
I think that there's a lot that needs to be done to improve the systems that are in place to ensure that our schools are working well. In that, I think the idealocrats may be on to something. But I think that more important than what happens in the central offices is what happens in the classrooms. I have trouble seeing how we can expect educational amateurs (no matter how gifted they are at administrating) to lead us to positive change in the actual process of educating kids.
You may have heard that Arne Duncan is the new Secretary of Education in the Obama administration. That left a vacancy at his old job running the Chicago public school system. So Mayor Richard Daley appointed a replacement with a strong background ... in transportation. That's right, Ron Huberman, the new head of the Chicago system, has a good reputation as an administrator from his time running CTA (which I'm guessing is the Chicago public transit system). In doing so, Daley just crowned himself as perhaps the idealocratest of them all.
(As a side note, I really like this quote from the head of the Chicago teachers' union. I can't tell whether it's supposed to be funny or sad. "We were hoping the mayor would appoint someone with a strong background in education since we face so many challenges as an urban district. However, we will work with whomever the mayor sends ...")
Here's what makes this such an idealocrat thing to do. It assumes that knowledge of teaching/learning/pedagogy is not needed to run an education system. You don't need any knowledge to do it. All you need is to be a strong administrator because that's where the system is broken. The idealocrats are trying to create the ideal bureaucracy with clear lines of authority and an obvious system for measuring success. It's all focused on the bureaucratic systems, not the classrooms.
Think about it. Can you tell me where Joel Klein stands on math education? Is he in favor of traditional approaches or does he like the more progressive number-sense pedagogy? What about Michelle Rhee? Is she a phonics or whole language person? I could guess on each of these, but I don't know for sure. But you can bet that I can tell you where they stand on teacher tenure and high-stakes testing as a means of boosting accountability.
I think that there's a lot that needs to be done to improve the systems that are in place to ensure that our schools are working well. In that, I think the idealocrats may be on to something. But I think that more important than what happens in the central offices is what happens in the classrooms. I have trouble seeing how we can expect educational amateurs (no matter how gifted they are at administrating) to lead us to positive change in the actual process of educating kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
