Learn About: 21st Century | Charter Schools | Homework
Home / Edifier


The EDifier

August 26, 2010

What parents think of their public schools, then and now

Filed under: Public education,Report Summary — Tags: , , — Jim Hull @ 3:34 pm

I have been looking over the results from the 2010 Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll that were released yesterday, and there were some trends I found quite intriguing. For example, although the public is not sold on No Child Left Behind (NCLB), with nearly half having an unfavorable view of NCLB, the reason why is unclear. Maybe they have read that NCLB is ruining education as we know it by making schools into test prep factories. Or maybe they were reading others’ opinions that NCLB was designed so the public would lose faith in its public schools.

However, the answers to some of the poll’s questions provide a different picture. First off, no, the public has not lost faith in our public schools. As a matter of fact, parents have actually given their children’s schools higher grades for the first time since 2000, two years before NCLB was signed into law. In 2000, 70 percent of parents gave the school their oldest child attended an A or B, while in 2010 that jumped to 77 percent. So it does not appear that parents are losing faith in their public schools. Furthermore, the poll also shows that parents don’t believe their students are just becoming test-takers at the expense of actually learning. As a matter of fact, more parents in 2010 (63 percent) believe their schools have “caused their child to become eager learners” than parents in 1998 (50 percent). So it doesn’t appear that NCLB is making our students into test-taking robots either.

This isn’t a defense of NCLB. The legislation has a lot of shortcomings that need to be addressed, and soon. But while discussions take place on what changes should be made, we need to know exactly what the problems are. The hyperbole that NCLB has ruined public schools is overstated, and so is the rhetoric that NCLB needs no alteration.

While policymakers are figuring out how to change the law, let’s hope they use data to inform their decisions and not assumptions based on anecdotes. Without basing changes on facts, they will just wind up leaving more students behind. – Jim Hull





March 19, 2010

How to turn around a turnaround school

Filed under: Achievement Gaps,Dropouts,High school — Tags: , — pkarwasinski @ 7:33 am

The push is on to turn around the nation’s lowest-performing schools. As a matter of fact, the feds are offering $3.5 billion –that’s right, billion — in Title I school improvement money with the understanding that those receiving the money will use one of four turnaround models to fix their schools.

Here at the Center, we took a look at Sam Houston High School, which was ordered by the state of Texas to close and implement a complete make-over. Here’s what we found out.

The newly reconstituted Sam Houston High School for Science, Math, and Technology opened its doors on August 2008 with a new principal and staff. And in just this short time the school has shown dramatic improvement. Here are some of the lessons the school learned as it went from being a “drop-out factory” to one that has made remarkable strides in achievement in its first year of reconstruction:

  • Commitment, experience, and high expectations of management and staff is crucial
  • New management and staff can create the kind of culture students need to succeed
  • Teacher mentoring and support are still necessary
  • It helps when new leaders bring along seasoned staff
  • Developing strong partnerships gives the school leverage
  • Developing relationships with students, parents, and the community is key to success
  • Change cannot happen without support from the district and other resources

About 88 percent of Sam Houston’s students are eligible for free- and reduced-price lunch. Almost 93 percent are Hispanic, though only 16 percent are classified as limited English proficient. Nevertheless, one of the things the new Sam Houston did was make all students apply to at least three colleges. “These kids have been beat up for so long, that they don’t think they can do it. Then when they get the [acceptance] letter, they start to believe that that they can,”  says the school’s principal Jane Crump. 

All students deserve access to good schools and a chance to succeed at life after school, and this school finally took the necessary steps to give its students what they need. To learn more about Sam Houston’s victories, read the Center’s success story, Good management and high expectations make a difference at this turn-around school.  ~ Pamela Karwasinski





March 18, 2010

Research the blueprint

Filed under: 21st century education,Graduation rates,Growth Models,High school,Pay for Performance,teachers — Tags: , , , , , , , — Jim Hull @ 7:28 am

The time has finally come. Earlier this week President Obama sent his “blueprint” to revise the No Child Left Behind Act up to Capital Hill. The major shift in accountability is the proposal to move from expecting students to be “proficient” by 2014 to the expectation students will be “college- and career-ready” by 2020.

Furthermore, the blueprint proposes schools be evaluated beyond the percent of students passing a test in a single year by allowing schools to be judged on the amount of growth their students have made over time as well as how many students earned a high school diploma. However, it isn’t clear if schools would receive credit for those students who take more than four years to graduate high school.

The blueprint also focused on teachers by significantly reworking  NCLB’s teacher quality provisions.  Instead of evaluating teachers based on qualifications, the blueprint would require states to develop an evaluation system to identify effective teachers. There is also a provision to provide incentives for states and districts to pay teachers based on their performance.

The blueprint is quite general, so it is far too early to determine if the proposed new federal accountability system will better, worse, or just different from NCLB. However, during these months as Congress and administration start putting the details together, check out the research behind many of their ideas so you can be an informed advocate for an accountability system that will help ensure more students are prepared for the 21st Century. Just click on the links above to get a quick summary of what the research says about these important educational areas. –Jim Hull





December 18, 2009

Holiday break: That crazy time of year!

Filed under: school organization — Tags: , , , — pkarwasinski @ 1:22 pm

It’s that time of year again. Holiday time! A time when most schools give kids a winter break of at least one week. Although having family together for this festive time of year is great, is it the best thing academically for kids?

The findings are mixed. Year-round schools do have a positive relationship to learning, especially in reading and math. But the research on year-round schools is scant.

How about increasing instructional time, or making the school day longer? Again, there is a benefit for learning, but only when the extra time is focused on academic activities.

I’m sure, with busy holiday schedules, now is not the time to explore school schedules. But after the holiday, when you’re champing at the bit to get your kids back in school, why not explore Making time: What research says about re-organizing school schedules?

Give yourself the gift of finding out what your options are!

–Pamela Karwasinski





September 11, 2009

Charting charter schools

Filed under: Report Summary,school organization — Tags: , — Patte Barth @ 8:42 am

Charter-mania is getting a boost from the Obama administration.  Among other priorities, the proposed Race to the Top grants call on states to increase “the supply of high-quality charter schools.”  This adds the administration to the growing legion of policymakers who promote charter schools as a major reform strategy. Why? Out of 98,000 public schools in the U.S., about 4,000 , or less than 5%, operate as public charters. A handful of these, like the KIPP academies, have recieved a lot of attention for producing phenomenal results with traditionally underperforming student populations.  But what about the other charter schools?

The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) put out a report this summer that should be required reading for everyone planning to draft charter school policy, start a charter school, or send their child to one. Through their statistical magic, CREDO researchers were able to compare the effect of public charter schools in 16 states to similar traditional public schools in order to gauge how the charter students may have fared had they attended their regular public school instead. They found that, overall, the impact of charter schools was somewhat less than similar traditional schools on students’ academic growth. The graph below shows the range of performance. Compared to traditional schools, 17% of charters performed better than similar traditional schools; 46% performed about the same; and 37% performed worse. The report also points to some interesting trends. For example, English language learners and children from low-income families tend to do better in charter schools, while other groups don’t do as well.

Clearly, there is much we can learn from the charters that have taken the risks and are succeeding beyond expectations. But we have to recognize that risk can also breed failure.  The challenge for charter school policy is to find ways to encourage innovation while minimizing the price students pay should the experiment fail. As the CREDO authors put it:

The charter school movement to date has concentrated its formidable resources and energy on removing barriers to charter school entry into the market. It is time to concentrate equally on removing the barriers to exit.

 Slide1





« Newer Posts — Older Posts »
RSS Feed