The Relay School of Education, borne out of Teacher U via collaboration between KIPP, Uncommon Schools, and Achievement First, is training young teachers in revolutionary ways, according to this NY Times article. Teachers in degree programs incorporate their students' academic progress into their graduate studies - students must reach a certain threshold of growth for teachers to earn their degree. Other education schools in the area, including CUNY, objected to its establishment. The schools has earned funding from the Robin Hood Foundation and hopes that the AmeriCorps stipends Teach For America teachers receive will make the program affordable.
Lin Goodwin of Teachers College and Jerrold Ross St. John's have concerns about the program. However, the school is an early adopter of what will become a state-wide practice - it will not be until 2013 that New York State requires all graduate students in education to demonstrate student growth to earn their credentials.
Showing posts with label charter schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label charter schools. Show all posts
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Bronx Charter School Illegally Reviewed Applicant Files to Determine Admission
Academic Leadership Charter School is under city investigation for allegedly reviewing the academic files of students applying for a seat in the school. Students in charter schools are supposed to be picked randomly by lottery without an examination of their prior records. Several former teachers and a number of parents told investigators stories of school officials reviewing files and weeding out weak performing applicants to deny them admission. Norma Figueroa-Hurwitz, the current principal, saw success while running Public School 83 and Sisulu-Walker Charter School.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Charter Schools Use City Funds to House Schools at NYCHA Locations
Space for schools in New York City is limited, so some charter schools are turning to to the New York City Housing Authority for help. While some schools have run into challenges as they try to share space with traditional public schools, others like the Harlem Children's Zone have paid seven figure sums to the NYCHA to develop unused space for new schools.
One of the biggest beneficiaries of this setup is the NYCHA itself. Struggling for funds, it is now able to convert some of its holdings into cash and benefit residents. Still, some have argued that the charters that are setting up new schools do not need additional space, and are funding their building projects with city-supported funds that are not available to traditional public schools. Critics accuse the Bloomberg administration of playing politics with school funds, and ignoring the many public schools where overcrowding is a problem.
One of the biggest beneficiaries of this setup is the NYCHA itself. Struggling for funds, it is now able to convert some of its holdings into cash and benefit residents. Still, some have argued that the charters that are setting up new schools do not need additional space, and are funding their building projects with city-supported funds that are not available to traditional public schools. Critics accuse the Bloomberg administration of playing politics with school funds, and ignoring the many public schools where overcrowding is a problem.
Friday, July 15, 2011
LA Officials Vote Against Two Charter Schools
The LA Times reports that two charter schools may close because a principal accused of cheating was working for an organization hired by the schools, despite an order that no such individuals be permitted to work for Crescendo or Celebrity charter.
In March, there were allegations that the executive director and founder of Crescendo, John Allen, ordered teachers and principals to use actual test questions to prep students. Two teachers claim they were suspended after bringing the incident to light.
Incidents like these demonstrate the high pressure on schools to increase test scores. Instead of teaching effectively and trusting that students will learn enough from their teachers to show growth on exams, schools try to wring every possible test point out of students - and then some. Test taking is an important skill - in my old district, students who wanted to enter our district's college prep high school or enter a local scholarship program that offered generous financial aid for college had to take a certain test. In helping students through the process of demonstrating their knowledge on those tests, I made sure their test results accurately reflected their knowledge. But increasing test scores isn't, and shouldn't be, the sole goal of any teacher's class. The goal should be to promote learning and critical thinking skills; the score increases will be incidental.
Schools often make decisions about which students should get remediation or be placed in certain groups based on test scores. Depriving a student the right of a fair assessment of their abilities can prevent them from getting the services they need to be successful. It also makes it impossible to accurately gauge the effectiveness of subsequent teachers, because there is little basis for honest comparison. And finally, these practices reflect a lack of faith in the teachers at a given school. If a principal (or other administrator, or other teacher) feels that they need to engage in these practices to demonstrate learning in their school, I wouldn't want to work there as a teacher or send my child there as a parent.
In March, there were allegations that the executive director and founder of Crescendo, John Allen, ordered teachers and principals to use actual test questions to prep students. Two teachers claim they were suspended after bringing the incident to light.
Incidents like these demonstrate the high pressure on schools to increase test scores. Instead of teaching effectively and trusting that students will learn enough from their teachers to show growth on exams, schools try to wring every possible test point out of students - and then some. Test taking is an important skill - in my old district, students who wanted to enter our district's college prep high school or enter a local scholarship program that offered generous financial aid for college had to take a certain test. In helping students through the process of demonstrating their knowledge on those tests, I made sure their test results accurately reflected their knowledge. But increasing test scores isn't, and shouldn't be, the sole goal of any teacher's class. The goal should be to promote learning and critical thinking skills; the score increases will be incidental.
Schools often make decisions about which students should get remediation or be placed in certain groups based on test scores. Depriving a student the right of a fair assessment of their abilities can prevent them from getting the services they need to be successful. It also makes it impossible to accurately gauge the effectiveness of subsequent teachers, because there is little basis for honest comparison. And finally, these practices reflect a lack of faith in the teachers at a given school. If a principal (or other administrator, or other teacher) feels that they need to engage in these practices to demonstrate learning in their school, I wouldn't want to work there as a teacher or send my child there as a parent.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
KIPP Leadership
Per the Washington Post, KIPP founders Levin and Feinberg are transitioning to focus on big picture issues in education. Levin will spend some time working with the Relay School of Education, a partnership created by KIPP, Achievement First, and Uncommon Schools. The creation of an education school focused on urban education and populated by staff members from some of the city's successful charter schools will be an interesting development. I'm generally skeptical about most education programs, but I'll try to keep tabs on the Relay School to see if it benefits teachers and students. The article outlines KIPP's aggressive expansion plans and fundraising targets, which have been revised since the financial crisis.
Teacher Attrition
After teachers at Opportunity Charter School wanted to unionize, they were berated by their school's leader. Now, the union organizers are out of a job. Thirteen pro-union teachers, including five who were part of a group that organized the union vote, were let go. As charter school employees, their employment is at will and based on annual contracts. Attrition at the school - both students and teachers - has been rising.
There are a number of directions to take in a discussion on this article, but I want to talk about teacher attrition. (I don't mean to ignore the situation at Opportunity Charter. There are likely legal questions to be raised, and as I'm not a lawyer, I'll refrain from adding my footsteps to what will be well-walked ground.) Teacher attrition figures are included in city reports on individual schools, and colleagues of mine report that their schools actively try to recruit teachers who seem inclined to stay beyond a few years. That's logical - it costs money to recruit new employees, and it takes time for new teachers to get up to speed in an unfamiliar system. Experienced, effective teachers make meaningful contributions from Day 1 of the school year (and over the summer, as they tie the ending year into the beginning one). I recall from my own experience beginning at my school that the first few weeks overload the senses and that it takes time to ramp up and become a contributor in an existing framework.
Naturally, high attrition rates suggest that something is amiss. If a school is functioning well, fewer teachers will want to leave (though some may be let go for performance reasons). If it isn't, the teachers who can get out will get out. And teachers aren't generally leaving for financial reasons; a 2005 report indicates that teachers are leaving because they lack planning time, have too heavy a workload, and are frustrated with student behavior. Some unsurprising findings regarding attrition and transfers:
1. Attrition is 50% higher in poor schools than wealthy ones.
2. "The best and brightest teachers are often the first to leave."
3. Beginning teachers leave more frequently than experienced ones (perhaps because they are assigned lower performing students).
4. New teachers who are mentored by an experienced teacher have more effective classrooms and lower attrition rates.
5. Experienced teachers who mentor new teachers actually improve their own classrooms due to the nature of their work as mentors.
6. Teacher attrition costs over $2 billion annually.
If I'm designing a school where I want to keep my best teachers from leaving, I take a few lessons from this. I pair younger teachers with either full-time mentors (who have experience and successful classrooms) or master teachers. I provide ample feedback that is focused on identifying areas for growth and the means to improve, and encourage new teachers to observe other teachers in action to see examples. I provide more than sufficient planning time for teachers and streamline their schedules so that they teach 1-2 courses throughout the day instead of 3-5 different topics. I make sure that I recruit people with the drive to push their students and the willingness to take feedback, and I may tend to favor hires with classroom experience.
I also want to apply this to Teach For America. As an alumnus of Teach For America, I'm invested in the organization and want to help it continue to do good things for students and improve its practices. Teach For America generally recruits staff members after their corps experience, and I think they would be well advised to try to recruit more candidates with 3-7 years of experience. I know the have a pipeline of talent with two years of experience who are able and willing to join staff, but the study I linked to above has quantified what I have believed about the importance of mentors. With experienced mentors, corps members would be better able to lead their classrooms and will be more likely to stay in the profession. During my first year teacher, I had a great mentor teacher and a fantastic science teacher who taught just a few doors down from me. I used them so much and I know that the insight they had due to their experience had a big impact on my year and my students' year. We need more great teachers like them working with new teachers.
There are a number of directions to take in a discussion on this article, but I want to talk about teacher attrition. (I don't mean to ignore the situation at Opportunity Charter. There are likely legal questions to be raised, and as I'm not a lawyer, I'll refrain from adding my footsteps to what will be well-walked ground.) Teacher attrition figures are included in city reports on individual schools, and colleagues of mine report that their schools actively try to recruit teachers who seem inclined to stay beyond a few years. That's logical - it costs money to recruit new employees, and it takes time for new teachers to get up to speed in an unfamiliar system. Experienced, effective teachers make meaningful contributions from Day 1 of the school year (and over the summer, as they tie the ending year into the beginning one). I recall from my own experience beginning at my school that the first few weeks overload the senses and that it takes time to ramp up and become a contributor in an existing framework.
Naturally, high attrition rates suggest that something is amiss. If a school is functioning well, fewer teachers will want to leave (though some may be let go for performance reasons). If it isn't, the teachers who can get out will get out. And teachers aren't generally leaving for financial reasons; a 2005 report indicates that teachers are leaving because they lack planning time, have too heavy a workload, and are frustrated with student behavior. Some unsurprising findings regarding attrition and transfers:
1. Attrition is 50% higher in poor schools than wealthy ones.
2. "The best and brightest teachers are often the first to leave."
3. Beginning teachers leave more frequently than experienced ones (perhaps because they are assigned lower performing students).
4. New teachers who are mentored by an experienced teacher have more effective classrooms and lower attrition rates.
5. Experienced teachers who mentor new teachers actually improve their own classrooms due to the nature of their work as mentors.
6. Teacher attrition costs over $2 billion annually.
If I'm designing a school where I want to keep my best teachers from leaving, I take a few lessons from this. I pair younger teachers with either full-time mentors (who have experience and successful classrooms) or master teachers. I provide ample feedback that is focused on identifying areas for growth and the means to improve, and encourage new teachers to observe other teachers in action to see examples. I provide more than sufficient planning time for teachers and streamline their schedules so that they teach 1-2 courses throughout the day instead of 3-5 different topics. I make sure that I recruit people with the drive to push their students and the willingness to take feedback, and I may tend to favor hires with classroom experience.
I also want to apply this to Teach For America. As an alumnus of Teach For America, I'm invested in the organization and want to help it continue to do good things for students and improve its practices. Teach For America generally recruits staff members after their corps experience, and I think they would be well advised to try to recruit more candidates with 3-7 years of experience. I know the have a pipeline of talent with two years of experience who are able and willing to join staff, but the study I linked to above has quantified what I have believed about the importance of mentors. With experienced mentors, corps members would be better able to lead their classrooms and will be more likely to stay in the profession. During my first year teacher, I had a great mentor teacher and a fantastic science teacher who taught just a few doors down from me. I used them so much and I know that the insight they had due to their experience had a big impact on my year and my students' year. We need more great teachers like them working with new teachers.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Innovation Schools Emerge in Massachusetts
In Boston, "innovation schools" are catching on. Innovation schools are governed by school districts, but have control of staffing and instructional decisions. The schools are expected to compete with charter schools for students, and keep students who would otherwise go to a charter school (and their government funds) in the district. The teacher's union supports the move but doubts there is a difference in the quality of education provided by charter, innovation, and traditional schools.
With a longer school day and hiring authority, innovation schools seem like they should be a meaningful option. Reviewing the data that come from the different types of schools across Boston will have interesting policy implications.
With a longer school day and hiring authority, innovation schools seem like they should be a meaningful option. Reviewing the data that come from the different types of schools across Boston will have interesting policy implications.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Harlem Success Academy 3
The Times reports on a charter school allegedly counseling out a young student whose behavior was a problem in class.
After reading the article, I would really like to see the message the principal sent to the parent that the parent "took as a veiled message to leave." With all of the email quotes in the article, you would think at least a few lines from that message would be included. Readers should be able to judge for themselves the tone of the email (which may make the author's point more compelling). And to be perfectly honest, I'm just interested in seeing what one of those messages actually looks like.
The second page explains, using data, how charter schools serve fewer special education students and English language learners than traditional schools. Based on percentages, Success 3 (the charter being discussed) has approximately half the percentage of special education and ELL students a comparable traditional public school has. Which is certainly interesting, but those figures themselves can mean a variety of things. While the article implies students in those categories are counseled out, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that fewer of those students actually enrolled in the charter. Many of my students at a previous school were ELL students, and I know the unique challenges in working with that population. I know of schools where there are no school officials who can communicate with parents in their native language, which means they have no way to communicate with those parents. Needless to say, few of those children end up at such schools. In a major city, the language barrier shouldn't shut children out of schools. Nor should a lack of understanding of school options or a fear of drawing attention to one's family (which is often the case when someone in the family is undocumented).
It seems odd that the student discussed in the article left his school so quickly. I support the mindset present at the top of the article's second page, where it's emphasized that both behavioral and academic skills are retaught to students. Helping a student learn how to fit into a school's behavior system sets them up for success. It can often be a long, tiresome process with each individual student. And it seems like the school he was enrolled in worked to find him a new school rather quickly. A school that was truly having success should be able to explain to parents the process of reteaching behavioral expectations and point to successes throughout their school. And assuming, for the sake of argument, that a school did try to separate from students who weren't a fit, it should be an absolute last option to explore if and only if all other options have been pursued and given sufficient time to take effect.
Lastly, a few readers have reached out to me via comment or email. I hope to follow up with a few of them this week. If you have a blog, link me to it so I can read it and add it to the list of pages I keep up with. You can also follow me on Twitter at NYCteacher99.
After reading the article, I would really like to see the message the principal sent to the parent that the parent "took as a veiled message to leave." With all of the email quotes in the article, you would think at least a few lines from that message would be included. Readers should be able to judge for themselves the tone of the email (which may make the author's point more compelling). And to be perfectly honest, I'm just interested in seeing what one of those messages actually looks like.
The second page explains, using data, how charter schools serve fewer special education students and English language learners than traditional schools. Based on percentages, Success 3 (the charter being discussed) has approximately half the percentage of special education and ELL students a comparable traditional public school has. Which is certainly interesting, but those figures themselves can mean a variety of things. While the article implies students in those categories are counseled out, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that fewer of those students actually enrolled in the charter. Many of my students at a previous school were ELL students, and I know the unique challenges in working with that population. I know of schools where there are no school officials who can communicate with parents in their native language, which means they have no way to communicate with those parents. Needless to say, few of those children end up at such schools. In a major city, the language barrier shouldn't shut children out of schools. Nor should a lack of understanding of school options or a fear of drawing attention to one's family (which is often the case when someone in the family is undocumented).
It seems odd that the student discussed in the article left his school so quickly. I support the mindset present at the top of the article's second page, where it's emphasized that both behavioral and academic skills are retaught to students. Helping a student learn how to fit into a school's behavior system sets them up for success. It can often be a long, tiresome process with each individual student. And it seems like the school he was enrolled in worked to find him a new school rather quickly. A school that was truly having success should be able to explain to parents the process of reteaching behavioral expectations and point to successes throughout their school. And assuming, for the sake of argument, that a school did try to separate from students who weren't a fit, it should be an absolute last option to explore if and only if all other options have been pursued and given sufficient time to take effect.
Lastly, a few readers have reached out to me via comment or email. I hope to follow up with a few of them this week. If you have a blog, link me to it so I can read it and add it to the list of pages I keep up with. You can also follow me on Twitter at NYCteacher99.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Charter School Attrition
There's some interesting data here that takes a look at high schools beyond reported graduation rates. I'll admit that I'm not an expert on calculating graduation rates, and the subject seems fairly complex. But what the data indicate is that a school can claim 100% of seniors have graduated and claim that legitimately without that being the whole story. But beneath the surface, it might be that the graduating class of 50 was actually a class of 100 when they were freshmen. There are many reasons a student who entered as a freshman might not be there as a senior, and I don't want to speculate. But this is aligned with anecdotes I've heard from friends of mine who teach at charter schools. These teachers are concerned that students who most need successful schools are the ones being left behind because they are removed from the school for a variety of infractions.
On one hand this may show that there are students who are graduating from these schools and are getting a good education in a structured environment. And if students are kicked out for failing to meet expectations, other students may be more likely to meet those expectations because they know there are consequences. I don't take issue with a school's ability to discipline students as appropriate.
However, it goes without saying that a school operating under this model should see increasing test scores regardless of learning. If problem students, who are more likely to struggle academically, are leaving at the end of each year, successful students will make up a growing percentage of the school's population.
So? I don't know. It means that graduation rates or proficiency rates, which are currently widely discussed in the media, should be viewed warily. We should look for raw numbers. Beyond that, look to compare apples to apples by studying the 9th and 10th grade results (for example) of students who spent both years in a given school. That gives a more meaningful snapshot of the school's ability to teach students.
I want to go back to a question I asked previously. How do schools reach the last 1% of students, who have serious problems with investment, behavior, and academic skills? I've been thinking about alternative schools, because I knew a teacher who taught in one. This teacher was randomly chosen, as were the others, to teach in this school. They were given no additional resources. Their administration had no particular experience in working with an alternative population. It was, in this teacher's opinion, a holding area for students no other school put up with any longer. So, from what I've seen (I have visited this school myself), alternative schools aren't hugely helpful. Do any readers have experience in alternative schools? Share anecdotes, positive and negative, if you're comfortable.
On one hand this may show that there are students who are graduating from these schools and are getting a good education in a structured environment. And if students are kicked out for failing to meet expectations, other students may be more likely to meet those expectations because they know there are consequences. I don't take issue with a school's ability to discipline students as appropriate.
However, it goes without saying that a school operating under this model should see increasing test scores regardless of learning. If problem students, who are more likely to struggle academically, are leaving at the end of each year, successful students will make up a growing percentage of the school's population.
So? I don't know. It means that graduation rates or proficiency rates, which are currently widely discussed in the media, should be viewed warily. We should look for raw numbers. Beyond that, look to compare apples to apples by studying the 9th and 10th grade results (for example) of students who spent both years in a given school. That gives a more meaningful snapshot of the school's ability to teach students.
I want to go back to a question I asked previously. How do schools reach the last 1% of students, who have serious problems with investment, behavior, and academic skills? I've been thinking about alternative schools, because I knew a teacher who taught in one. This teacher was randomly chosen, as were the others, to teach in this school. They were given no additional resources. Their administration had no particular experience in working with an alternative population. It was, in this teacher's opinion, a holding area for students no other school put up with any longer. So, from what I've seen (I have visited this school myself), alternative schools aren't hugely helpful. Do any readers have experience in alternative schools? Share anecdotes, positive and negative, if you're comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)