Thomas B Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence

Do we need a new charter revolution?

yes Kathleen Porter-Magee / October 10, 2012

When charter schools first emerged twenty years ago, they represented a revolution, ushering in a new era that put educational choice, innovation, and autonomy front and center in the effort to improve our schools. While charters have always been very diverse in characteristics and outcomes, it wasn’t long before a particular kind of gap-closing, “No Excuses” charter grabbed the lion’s share of public attention. But in this rush to crown and invest in a few “winners,” have we turned our back on the push for innovation that was meant to be at the core of the charter experiment?

It’s become increasingly obvious that charters have hit a wall in their quest to put their students on the path to college.

Of course, the top charter management organizations got this level of attention the old fashioned way: they earned it. The best CMOs—like KIPP, Uncommon Schools, and Achievement First—have done amazing work. The teachers work long hours and do—often quite literally—whatever it takes to give students the kinds of opportunities they’ve had.

But, while charters have made important strides, it’s become increasingly obvious that they’ve also hit a wall in their quest to put their students on the path to college. While the best among them have been able to get more and more students to hit proficiency targets, there are no charter schools—to my knowledge—that have figured out how, at scale, to prepare all students for the rigors of college and careers. Yet,

» Continued

Do we need a new charter revolution?

Systems over substance: Why top-down teacher evaluation reforms are unlikely to boost student achievement

yes Kathleen Porter-Magee / September 18, 2012

Thanks in part to the requirements of the Federal Race to the Top program, since 2010 states and districts across the country have adopted teacher evaluation systems that use student achievement as part of the assessment of individual teachers’ performance. Given the amount of energy and political capital the education-reform community has put into developing, negotiating, and implementing these plans, you would think it’s a sure fire way to boost student achievement. Unfortunately, the top-down nature of these changes may very well be undercutting any chance they have to make a real difference for kids.

Top-down systems that bypass or undermine school leaders rarely produce excellence in the classroom.

The problem is not about the details of these evaluation systems—although clearly some are better than others—but rather who should be in the driver’s seat in making the decisions about how to hire, fire, and evaluate teachers. And the reality is that teacher-evaluation reforms are unlikely to succeed for reasons education reformers should know well: Top-down systems that bypass or undermine school leaders rarely produce excellence in the classroom.

It wasn’t that long ago that education reform was driven forward by a commitment to freeing determined principals who had a vision for excellence from the constraints that prevented them from developing the teams and practices they needed to drive school-wide change. Today, by contrast, reformers seem to have lost faith in the transformative power of school leadership and are now pushing teacher-quality reforms directly

» Continued

Systems over substance: Why top-down teacher evaluation reforms are unlikely to boost student achievement

Failure is (and must be) an option

yes Kathleen Porter-Magee / May 19, 2012

“There are no secrets to success. It is the result of preparation, hard work, and learning from failure.”

—Colin Powell

There isn’t a Common Core supporter in the nation who hasn’t qualified her enthusiasm for what the standards can do with “if they are implemented properly.” On the other hand, I’m not sure there’s a Common Core opponent who isn’t standing in the wings, waiting for implementation to fail.

It’s only by allowing the chance for failure that standards can have any real meaning.

This is often the point in a new initiative when supporters feel most vulnerable and start scrambling to figure out how to avoid high profile failures. But, if we’ve going to succeed in this venture, we shouldn’t be trying to avoid failure, we should be looking to shine a spotlight on it and embrace it as a key element of change. It’s only by allowing the chance for failure that standards can have any real meaning.

This is something that KIPP understands intimately. KIPP has become perhaps the most well-known charter model not just because it was the first CMO to achieve national scale, but also because it’s been consistently the most successful. There are KIPP schools around the country that beat the odds and that do amazing things for the students in their care.

Of course, there are also KIPP schools that haven’t lived up to the promise of the best among them. Schools that opened to

» Continued

Failure is (and must be) an option

Noble Charter Schools: A teacher's perspective

yes Kathleen Porter-Magee Amanda Young / February 28, 2012

Noble Charter Schools in Chicago have gotten a heap of negative attention over the past several weeks for a discipline policy that some call a “dehumanizing system that looks a lot more like reform school than a college prep.” In short, the school issues demerits to students who commit infractions, and students who earn four demerits in two weeks are given detention and charged $5. Critics claim that such policies amount to “nickel and diming” poor families who are already struggling to make ends meet. (Last week, Fordham’s own Adam Emerson pointed out that Noble is hardly alone—there are many Catholic schools, for instance, that levy similar fines for student misbehavior.)

Of course, there are different ways to structure discipline policies, and what works for one school won’t necessarily work for another. But what’s missing from this discussion is the context necessary to understand how the policy is used and its impact on the culture, students, and families.

Below is the response from Amanda Young, a learning specialist who works at a Noble Charter School in Chicago, and who is shocked and dismayed by the attention Noble’s discipline policy has received. She believes that, taken together, Noble’s policies are designed to support students and create a culture that helps them succeed. And it’s hard to argue with the success they’ve had so far. As Emerson noted in his post last week, “State achievement test data show that Noble beats the public school test score average. Families have lined up for entry and the school has a long waiting list, despite—or maybe because

» Continued

Noble Charter Schools: A teacher's perspective