Can we afford new small schools?
An organization that promotes small schools as the solution to the achievement gap, the Coalition for Essential Schools (CES, variously described as based in Oakland, Providence and Chicago), is trying to open a charter high school in the Bayview. They are connected with an attempt to establish a "small schools policy" in SFUSD, presumably calling for more. I'm posting a series of commentaries on this issue by me and CES supporters.
Posted on the sfschools listserve by me, Jan. 17, 2007:
I have to comment more on the Small Schools Task Force presentation at last night's BOE Committee of the Whole meeting. It's just too weird not to discuss further, if this is going to have major impact on SFUSD policy.
Again, a disclaimer: My own son attends a small high school. We definitely appreciate the advantages. I certainly feel that small schools are an ideal setting for some kids.
But. Last night's presentation set off the BS detectors, and I think that needs to be aired.
The gist of the Task Force's presentation was: There's an achievement gap and it would be nice if we could close it with small schools — plus some vague "studies show..." claims.
The central claim — that small schools will reduce or eliminate the achievement gap — wasn't backed up with sound, relevant statistics or other facts. So there was a lot of puffy sales talk. The title of the presentation was "Closing the Achievement Gap with Small Schools by Design," but it didn't — apparently couldn't — actually state that Small Schools by Design ARE closing the achievement gap. Apparently, they're not.
The elephant in the room when you have this discussion in SFUSD is that, as discussed, almost all of our highest-performing, most popular and oversubscribed middle and high school are our largest schools. So the entire presentation tiptoed around that elephant. Meanwhile, the achievement records for SFUSD's existing small schools do not overall show them closing the achievement gap — meaning raising
African-American and Latino test scores — either. So the Task Force also couldn't make that claim. That didn't leave them with very much to say except to explain how the task force operated and produced its report.
The lead presenter was a teacher at San Francisco Community who called on Task Force members to speak. The first one she called was United Educators of San Francisco VP Linda Plack, who voiced surprise at being called first — and it became clear why, because Linda's presentation was very lukewarm toward the notion. Some quotes: "School reform takes many guises ... one size does not fit all... major questions remain in several areas ... other approaches are alive and thriving even if they do without the same floodlight of attention (as small schools)."
Other presenters pointedly seemed to avoid any discussion of small schools' actual achievement. One committed parent volunteer who I believe is a mathematician stuck determinedly to the warm-n-fuzzy and stayed away from facts and numbers.
I and others have complained in the past that the Small Schools by Design advocates bash other schools in promoting their cause. That did not happen last night, to their credit.
The only one who was still in full "it's a miracle!" mode was Greg Peters, principal of struggling Leadership Charter High School, who declared confidently (direct quote): "Small schools save the lives of students and save their educational careers." He claimed, without having to back himself up, that small schools would bring back students to the district and stem the enrollment drop. That's not very
supportable, especially because the small schools are supposed to be targeting low-income AA and L students, who are not the demographic generally leaving the district (for privates and the burbs). He said that the true small school is not just small but "focused on equity" I assume this means that only Official Small Schools (TM) count.
I got the impression that other speakers were distancing themselves from Peters' magical thinking and were a bit sheepish about the inability to back up the "it's a miracle!" with any facts.
The summary of the Task Force report did cite three studies/examples. They're mixed.
The "Wasley" report. It's also known as the Bank Street study.
Problems with it are that it was done in a very different district (Chicago Public Schools) with a very different demographic makeup. In Chicago, low-income African-Americans apparently have been concentrated in really huge schools. But that's not the case in SFUSD. The study was done 9 years ago and reported 7 years go, so it's old, and it uses a very small sampling. It's also very pro-charter — and most significantly it's not impartial, since it was commissioned and paid for by advocates of small schools and charters.
The Boston Pilot Schools. This is the only one that looks relevant and comprehensible. But the project has been around for 12 years now, and according to this news report, it hasn't helped to eliminate the achievement gap in Boston.
A "Howley" report. OK, I'm not equipped with the full Task Force report, so I admittedly can't cite what it actually said about Howley. There's a pair of researchers, Aimee and Craig Howley at Ohio University, whose main characteristic appears to be the inability to write a comprehensible sentence. It may be that they've found the entire solution to the achievement gap, but we don't know it because nobody can understand them. Sample:
So what's the problem with all this? Creating Small Learning Communities in existing schools seems like a worthy project. Several schools, including Balboa, are up and running with this now. School of the Arts de facto works that way because of the separate artistic disciplines. But setting up new small schools would be inherently disruptive — do we close other schools to do it? — and they do cost more to operate. That's not a project we can afford to embark on based on hype and warm
fuzziness.
It was a bit disconcerting that BOE member Jill Wynns was told to stifle it when she
started asking a lot of questions about the report. Well, we also can't afford to
embark on this project without asking a lot of questions.
Meanwhile, there's some kind of snag on which I'm currently unclear in the Coalition for Essential Schools' plan to open their Bayview charter school next fall. They have been describing it as a done deal; their website lists the school as already in existence. It sounds like the snag may be over union work rules. So they're mounting a nationwide campaign to get their supporters to pepper the SFUSD BOE with e-mails.
Here's a commentary from CES on a national listserve:
— Caroline
Posted on the sfschools listserve by me, Jan. 17, 2007:
I have to comment more on the Small Schools Task Force presentation at last night's BOE Committee of the Whole meeting. It's just too weird not to discuss further, if this is going to have major impact on SFUSD policy.
Again, a disclaimer: My own son attends a small high school. We definitely appreciate the advantages. I certainly feel that small schools are an ideal setting for some kids.
But. Last night's presentation set off the BS detectors, and I think that needs to be aired.
The gist of the Task Force's presentation was: There's an achievement gap and it would be nice if we could close it with small schools — plus some vague "studies show..." claims.
The central claim — that small schools will reduce or eliminate the achievement gap — wasn't backed up with sound, relevant statistics or other facts. So there was a lot of puffy sales talk. The title of the presentation was "Closing the Achievement Gap with Small Schools by Design," but it didn't — apparently couldn't — actually state that Small Schools by Design ARE closing the achievement gap. Apparently, they're not.
The elephant in the room when you have this discussion in SFUSD is that, as discussed, almost all of our highest-performing, most popular and oversubscribed middle and high school are our largest schools. So the entire presentation tiptoed around that elephant. Meanwhile, the achievement records for SFUSD's existing small schools do not overall show them closing the achievement gap — meaning raising
African-American and Latino test scores — either. So the Task Force also couldn't make that claim. That didn't leave them with very much to say except to explain how the task force operated and produced its report.
The lead presenter was a teacher at San Francisco Community who called on Task Force members to speak. The first one she called was United Educators of San Francisco VP Linda Plack, who voiced surprise at being called first — and it became clear why, because Linda's presentation was very lukewarm toward the notion. Some quotes: "School reform takes many guises ... one size does not fit all... major questions remain in several areas ... other approaches are alive and thriving even if they do without the same floodlight of attention (as small schools)."
Other presenters pointedly seemed to avoid any discussion of small schools' actual achievement. One committed parent volunteer who I believe is a mathematician stuck determinedly to the warm-n-fuzzy and stayed away from facts and numbers.
I and others have complained in the past that the Small Schools by Design advocates bash other schools in promoting their cause. That did not happen last night, to their credit.
The only one who was still in full "it's a miracle!" mode was Greg Peters, principal of struggling Leadership Charter High School, who declared confidently (direct quote): "Small schools save the lives of students and save their educational careers." He claimed, without having to back himself up, that small schools would bring back students to the district and stem the enrollment drop. That's not very
supportable, especially because the small schools are supposed to be targeting low-income AA and L students, who are not the demographic generally leaving the district (for privates and the burbs). He said that the true small school is not just small but "focused on equity" I assume this means that only Official Small Schools (TM) count.
I got the impression that other speakers were distancing themselves from Peters' magical thinking and were a bit sheepish about the inability to back up the "it's a miracle!" with any facts.
The summary of the Task Force report did cite three studies/examples. They're mixed.
The "Wasley" report. It's also known as the Bank Street study.
Problems with it are that it was done in a very different district (Chicago Public Schools) with a very different demographic makeup. In Chicago, low-income African-Americans apparently have been concentrated in really huge schools. But that's not the case in SFUSD. The study was done 9 years ago and reported 7 years go, so it's old, and it uses a very small sampling. It's also very pro-charter — and most significantly it's not impartial, since it was commissioned and paid for by advocates of small schools and charters.
The Boston Pilot Schools. This is the only one that looks relevant and comprehensible. But the project has been around for 12 years now, and according to this news report, it hasn't helped to eliminate the achievement gap in Boston.
A "Howley" report. OK, I'm not equipped with the full Task Force report, so I admittedly can't cite what it actually said about Howley. There's a pair of researchers, Aimee and Craig Howley at Ohio University, whose main characteristic appears to be the inability to write a comprehensible sentence. It may be that they've found the entire solution to the achievement gap, but we don't know it because nobody can understand them. Sample:
"This paper provides a basis for making sense of the apparent divergence in policies governing schooling structures in rural and urban places. Its interpretation examines the way educational reformers work to valorize a(I keep meaning to go look up "valorize." Maybe that's the key to it all. Valorize our schools and eliminate the achievement gap!)
multidimensional set of practices constituting "small school reform." "
So what's the problem with all this? Creating Small Learning Communities in existing schools seems like a worthy project. Several schools, including Balboa, are up and running with this now. School of the Arts de facto works that way because of the separate artistic disciplines. But setting up new small schools would be inherently disruptive — do we close other schools to do it? — and they do cost more to operate. That's not a project we can afford to embark on based on hype and warm
fuzziness.
It was a bit disconcerting that BOE member Jill Wynns was told to stifle it when she
started asking a lot of questions about the report. Well, we also can't afford to
embark on this project without asking a lot of questions.
Meanwhile, there's some kind of snag on which I'm currently unclear in the Coalition for Essential Schools' plan to open their Bayview charter school next fall. They have been describing it as a done deal; their website lists the school as already in existence. It sounds like the snag may be over union work rules. So they're mounting a nationwide campaign to get their supporters to pepper the SFUSD BOE with e-mails.
Here's a commentary from CES on a national listserve:
We appreciate everyone's support for San Francisco's Small School Policy and CES's effort to open a small school there that will meet the needs of that City's underserved southeast neighborhoods. This policy has been five years in the making and thanks to the dogged determination of School Board members Eric Mar and Mark Sanchez, now backed up by a new majority on the School Board, it appears thisIt shows some chutzpah for CES to claim to be oppressed by powerful forces, since it has funding from the Gates Foundation and, in its effort to open a charter, the full weight of the Bush Administration, the California Department of Education and the right-wing think tanks behind it. It's not clear what forces could be described as "powerful" in contrast to those players. (If only I had the technology to break through this post with a lightning bolt and a mighty voice booming "Tremble, charter supporters!")
policy is on its way to approval. The proposed policy represents some real advances in this work and is the product of a broad collaboration of stakeholders including faculty, parents, unions and foundations and excellent support from the Superintendent's senior staff.
It is not a done deal, however, and your emails can help. There are some strong sources of resistance that want to preserve the status quo. These forces like to point out that San Francisco has the highest scoring urban high schools on the California State tests, but they are far less willing to acknowledge that these same test results show San Francisco has by the far the largest achievement gap of any
urban district in California. This situation is the result of San Francisco's efforts, more successful than most urban districts, to keep middle class students from fleeing. And yet, there are those that don't want to upset this powerful constituency by redirecting resources in the name of equity, to create small schools that meet the needs of underserved populations.
CES has been working for 20 months, with students, parents and community leaders from one such San Francisco neighborhood to create a new school. These stakeholders aren't willing to wait much longer for the District to do something for their long neglected
neighborhood. CES is determined to support their efforts to see this school opened in the fall, one way or another. These folks from the Bayview community are driven by the urgent needs of their children and intend to advocate solely for these children. They'll leave it to others to worry about other powerful and ably represented
constituencies. We are, however, confident that the new leadership on San Francisco's Board of Education is ready to move and find creative ways to address the needs of these families and the many others like them in San Francisco.
— Caroline
Labels: SFUSD Politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home