The new Edison: how they'd teach

This is another on our series of posts about the Edison Schools Design Sketch for "E2," the makeover that Edison apparently hopes will help it reach the success that has previously been elusive.

Edison Schools' overall academic achievement has been pretty weak. Naturally, Edison wants to fix that. Here's something the company hasn't announced before: "We currently have many teachers who are very low skilled themselves." So, E2 would pay teachers more (see previous blog posts about how other economies would theoretically allow them to do that — unpaid student labor, large swaths of the day in minimally supervised "independent learning). The Design Sketch claims: " We would stake out a courageous and much-admired position if we called a stop to the obvious fallacy that uneducated adults can develop high-achieving students."

It's kind of hard for me to see why such a no-brainer would be a courageous and much-admired position, but that's why I'm not running an EMO.

The document contains lots of detail about the proposed curriculum. Among points that stand out to the layperson are the parts clearly aimed at winning favorable media coverage or staving off criticism.

Edison Schools use a style of reading curriculum (as do many others) called Direct Instruction (DI), which is based on a lot of rote drilling and chanting of phonetic principles and looks excruciatingly boring and joy-killing to anyone who loves reading. E2 proposes to add a program called the 100 Book Challenge from American Reading Company, which "would ... inoculate us against frequently heard objections to DI."

At high school level, E2 wants to teach rhetoric and oratory — and make sure the press knows about it.

"Rhetoric" and "oratory" are anachronisms in schooling, but our courageous revival of the disciplines would serve us and our students well — and be congratulated in the media.

As previously noted, Edison is pretty ticked that KIPP has seduced away its funders, reputation and ability to bewitch the press. But it plans to deal with that by being KIPP. The Design Sketch provides a nice clear summary of KIPP's culture.

The notion that all children require the same curriculum and education is one of the least challenged myths in American education. It's politically correct silliness, no more true than that children from urban poverty require the same health care services as affluent suburban children. ... One possibility is not to compromise in "tuning" the culture to the demographic we serve. It may be necessary to adjust the model slightly for middle-class and suburban settings. That is, the goals and vision will be the same, but we will choose behavior plans, reward systems, etc., appropriate to the circumstances and needs of the students.
...
KIPP's culture is suited to its population of students from economically and socially
disadvantaged families. KIPP recognizes that children from poverty differ not in the values their parents hold — low-income parents have "middle-class" aspirations for their children — but in the skills and habits with which they are equipped to realize these aspirations. When children first arrive at school in the fifth grade, they are taught to "dress for success," walk down the halls briskly, sit properly in their chairs without delay, stand up to greet someone, and look directly at a person when conversing. They are also taught how to organze their classroom materials. Students chant the school's rules, which include the acronym SLANT: Sit up, Listen, Ask and answer questions, Nod your head so people know you are listening and understanding, Track your speaker by keeping your eyes on the person. All the students chant: "We SLANT at all times/We listen carefully at all times/We follow the teachers' instructions/We answer when given the signal/We stay focused to save time/We will always be nice and work hard."

These are social habits that we take for granted, but which are often absent in disadvantaged students, and are essential to creating a focused, disciplined culture that values achievement. ...

The E2 curriculum wil include explicit instruction in motivation and habits of school success. As part of the E2 development, we would craft an aray of rituals, slogans, and practices that support a compelling school culture that reshapes how students see themselves and their futures. This culture must be powerful enough to compete wth the culture of the streets. It should contain many of the same elements as the KlPP culture. .

E1 (the old Edison) featured an extra-long school year, as does KIPP. But E2 doesn't intend to spend the money on that.

While E1' s extended school year in principal [sic] greatly increased time on task over a child' s education. the longer year proved expensive and incompatible with district policies and many families' preferences. ...

Unlike E1, the new schools would operate on a regular school year of 180 days, but most schools (funding permitting) would also operate summer schools. Enrollment in summer school would be available to all students on a fee or grant-funded basis and would be mandatory for low-achieving students.

More on E2 in an upcoming post, featuring its marketing ideas and plans to win the hearts of the local press and community leaders.