|
Interview
with Educator and BCP Board Member
Milt Thompson
Milt
Thompson is Director of Title I/Bilingual/Summer
School and P-5 and a facilitator of
the Kenosha School District Strategic
Plan in Wisconsin. His career has included
working for Federal Programs in schools
(Title I, Title VII), principal at
a K-5 school, charter school director,
special education teacher and history
teacher. He was recently elected to
the BCP Board of Directors.
What initially made you want
to work with Direct Instruction?
Primarily because I was in a school
that had low student achievement, I
wanted the most effective and efficient
method for teaching children how to
read. When you have a child that lacks
basic skills you have to upgrade their
skills quickly so that you can then
build on top of those skills.
As I looked at the various tools available,
I found that Direct Instruction (DI)
had the most research behind it. DI
was being used in enough schools that
I could actually have some idea of
its effectiveness.
What would you say are Direct
Instruction’s strengths?
DI’s strength is that it does
what it purports to do very well. For
the most part DI is a learning‑to‑read
and the beginning of a reading‑to‑learn
program.
I’ve looked at various reading
programs over the last ten years and
some say they have the whole package;
but they’re weak in phonics,
fluency or comprehension. DI does a
very good job of teaching beginning
phonics, fluency and beginning comprehension.
What about Direct Instruction’s
weaknesses?
The weaknesses are negligible. I think
that they’ve revised some of
the past weaknesses, such as the appearance
of the program. If you wanted public
schools to use DI, it was always a
tough sell because it didn’t
look pretty. In the public schools,
where you have a lot of whole language
people, you need bells and whistles
in order to gain an entrance for a
program as effective as DI.
What do you think of the criticism
from people like Jonathan Kozol that
directive approaches to education
condition children to be automatons
and stifle creativity?
I don’t
agree with that because many of us
in our forties and fifties were taught
in schools using a very directive
approach; yet, we’re
the people that are creating the business
and other occupations that people find
themselves working at.
For the
most part, we’re pretty
good problem solvers. Apparently, the
fact that my math teacher made me sit
there and learn math facts rote or
that I had to memorize 30 spelling
words a week hasn’t stifled my
creativity.
If you look at brain research, the
brain will sort of free-spin on something
that it doesn’t have mastery
of and it will also concentrate on
the lower level functions.
For example, take Trigonometry or
Geometry. If a student doesn’t
know what 7 times 7 is and they’re
confronted with a geometric problem
that involves computation, their brain
will be occupied by the very rudimentary
function of multiplication. Without
a mastery of basic skills and basic
processes our minds tend to stay at
that level and we don’t move
on to higher level thinking.
Let’s turn to Core Knowledge.
What initially made you want to work
with Core Knowledge?
As someone who works with disadvantaged
African-Americans and Hispanics, I
want the most direct path toward college,
content, and attainment. The knowledge
one needs to go to college is not hidden
in a treasure chest buried somewhere.
Many middle class families and upper
class families structure and manipulate
their child’s education in line
with what they perceive to be the knowledge
that gets you into college and beyond.
When I first saw Core Knowledge I
realized that it had a high correlation
to the kinds of knowledge that the
ACT, SAT, GRE, and other college entrance
exams require. To me, it was a shortcut
for poor kids to have a curriculum
that would give them the background
they needed to do well in secondary
and post-secondary education.
Would you say there any other
strengths or weaknesses that stand
out about Core Knowledge?
A weakness is that Core Knowledge
is a framework rather than a curriculum.
For any school that wants to pick it
up, they’ve got their work cut
out for them. One of the blessings
of the Baltimore Curriculum Project
is they came up with Core Knowledge
lesson plans that schools could use.
If all you have are the curricular
guides from the Core Knowledge Foundation,
they put a lot of pressure on the teacher
to develop their own lesson plans.
What do you see as the biggest
challenges to reforming underperforming
high-poverty schools?
The culture of the school. Once you
have a failing system or a failing
school, the hard work is to try to
build not only high expectations, but
a culture that supports high expectations
where the staff honestly believes that
students can succeed.
All adults in the building must be
convinced that: 1. all kids can learn;
2. the tools that you put in their
hands will facilitate that learning;
and 3. the administration also has
the understanding, confidence and leadership
to structure an environment – whether
its student management, facilities
management or time management – that
will bring about student success. When
you add all of these factors together,
that is school culture.
Some educators say that even
with the appropriate curriculum,
support, and leadership, a high-poverty
school in a high-poverty neighborhood
will improve for a while and then
plateau. Then the only way to move
beyond that plateau is through extended
teaching time and summer programs.
But even then the demographics are
going to create a glass ceiling.
They are partially right. If you watch
the schools that succeed, they get
to a point using a certain curriculum
and then you have to have something
that’s over the top.
I once
visited a school in Chicago founded
by Marva Collins.[1] Kids in seventh
grade would read Plato’s
Republic or other philosophical texts.
They would discuss complex subjects
and Ms. Collins and her teachers would
lead the students in these discussions.
This school’s approach was so
far over the top that some of her students
ended up going to the most prestigious
private schools in Illinois. Some of
these children from extremely disadvantaged
backgrounds went on to become doctors
and other professionals.
Ms. Collins
turbocharged most of what we do in
using educational models. In other
words, it’s not enough
to develop a good school. You have
to develop an outstanding school; almost
a preparatory school in order to get
off that plateau. You have to be teaching
high school literature in 7th and 8th
grade. You need to simulate the culture
and some of the methodologies of high‑achieving
schools like the Calvert School [2] or other private schools.
What do you see as the most
serious barrier to student achievement
in underperforming, high-poverty
schools? I’ve heard some educators
attribute low-achievement to lack
of parental involvement.
There are schools out there that are
doing exceptional jobs despite lack
of parent support. For some families,
you will have to create in this generation
the parental support of the next generation.
My Dad had a third grade education.
My mother had a high school education.
They showed up at PTA meetings and
other school events. Somehow you’ve
got to teach people that education
has a value. It’s funny - by
my parents not having a high level
of education, they valued it.
In the
book No Excuses, [3] which
highlights the 21 high-poverty high-achievement
schools in the U.S., there were people
interviewed who said they don’t
even attempt to increase parent involvement.
They figure that they can control what
goes on within the four walls and that’s
what they do.
Places
like KIPP Academy [4] are an example
of that philosophy. They’ve
increased their school day and added
Saturday classes. They’ve created
a school culture where they’ve
pretty much said “we don’t
care what the outside factors are.
We can control the inside and that
is what we’re going to do.”
In the end, do you think poverty
is insurmountable?
I don’t think so. Dr. Ruby Payne
has a very practical approach to looking
at poverty and how a low-income student’s
frame of reference for instruction
is a little different. One has to understand
the aspects of poverty that impact
students so you that can overcome them.
I’ve been in schools that are
100% free and reduced lunch and schools
that are 10%. There is a world of difference.
Not in the innate worth of the children,
their capacity, or any of those factors.
But when it comes to the kinds of instructional
strategies you would have to use in
those two environments – they
are completely different.
In a book by Dr. Payne called Removing
the Mask: Giftedness in Poverty [5] she
says that if you use a verbal test
primarily with kids from poor backgrounds,
they are not going to show any degree
of giftedness. Studies show that
these students have less vocabulary
and less ways to express their ideas.
As a result, most of our intelligence
tests and tests that identify talent
and giftedness will not show any
degree of brilliance in students
from poor backgrounds.
You have to have an understanding
of the environments from which kids
come. You have to find a teaching pedagogy
that works despite that environment.
You have to buy into the idea that
what goes on with those students during
the school day is what makes an impact.
Then you hope that when these students
become college graduates and professionals,
that they will be involved as parents
in their children’s education.
Of the options that exist
under No Child Left Behind for restructuring
schools, what do you see as the most
viable options for individual schools
and school districts as a whole.
If the school system was unable to
create effective schools in the first
place, then you have to question whether
or not the school system will be able
restructure the schools to become more
effective.
The answer in some places is that
you can’t trust the fox to reform
the henhouse. That’s what intrigues
me about the Baltimore Curriculum Project.
I think that BCP is on the right road.
You don’t create new schools.
You restructure the schools that were
in place, but you have an outside agency
that can help.
If the administrator is ineffective,
move the administrator out. If the
staff needs to be restructured, you
hire new people. You have to have the
authority to do that.
BCP is stepping in and doing that.
I think that’s the most effective
way of restructuring schools. If a
school system has a large number of
failing schools and over time has shown
that it cannot reform itself; I guess
you have no choice but to have an outside
agency involved in the restructuring
and management of those schools.
Look at New Orleans. New Orleans is
a lousy school system, for the most
part. The state of Louisiana is looking
to take over the school system. They’re
going to create charters run by outside
agencies. That’s an example of
a system so bad that there’s
no possibility of them knowing how
to restructure to create effective
schools.
In a generation if there was another
Katrina, there would be more people
who were too poor to get out of the
way of a hurricane. People who would
be trapped because they would not have
the educational level that triggers
the economics that provides those options.
I’ve noticed that more
and more states are taking over failing
schools and converting them to charter
schools. Do you think it is more
effective for a state to takeover
a failing school and contract out
school operations or for a nonprofit
to approach a school and help the
school become a charter school before
the state assumes control?
You would hope that the nonprofit
goes in before the state takes over
because of the politics involved. We
have a tradition in this country of
local control of education. The feeling
that an outsider is controlling the
educational process creates a lot of
resentment. It creates almost a saboteur
mentality to whatever that outside
agency is. The state government shows
up and meets people that are dragging
their feet and trying as hard as they
know how not to comply. It
creates a very ineffective, adversarial
working relationship.
I think it is better if the state
is the messenger that says “Look,
Edison is coming in. You can work with
them and you can have some say and
some decision making in the restructuring;
but, if you will not work with them,
then they will run your school.” I
think that is a more palatable message.
It at least treats people like adults
and tells them change is coming and
here’s how you can participate
in the change; but, if this doesn’t
work then we do the change for you.
- Marva Collins Seminars,
Inc. <http://www.marvacollins.com/>
- Calvert School
<http://www.calvertschool.org/>
- Casey, S. (2000). No Excuses: Lessons
from 21 High-Performing, High-Poverty
Schools. Heritage Foundation.
- KIPP: Knowledge
is Power Program <http://www.kipp.org/>
- Slocumb, P. & Payne, R. (2000).
Removing the Mask: Giftedness in
Poverty. aha! Process, Inc. <http://www.ahaprocess.com/store/Books.html>
Charter
Schools as a Restructuring Strategy
The
State's recently derailed takeover
of 11 Baltimore City schools has
brought the issue of school restructuring
under No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
to the fore in Maryland. As part
of the State's plan, seven middle
schools would have been restructured. "The
Baltimore City Public School System
[had] the choice of engaging a third
party to manage [each] school or
re-opening [each] school as a public
charter school, with the new management
beginning the 2007-2008 school year." [1]
In
the context of this recent debate
on reforming Baltimore’s schools,
it makes sense to review the provisions
of federal and state law regarding
school restructuring and consider
the value of various restructuring
options.
AYP
and School Restructuring
NLCB
requires each state to define the
level of academic performance that
schools and school districts must
achieve within a time frame set by
the law. This benchmark is known
as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).
If
a school fails to meet AYP for
:
- Two consecutive years: The
school is identified as needing improvement.
A 2-year turnaround plan is developed
by school officials. Students are
offered the opportunity to transfer
to another school.
- Three Years: Additional
services such as tutoring or remedial
classes are provided to low-income
students.
- Four Years: The
district must implement corrective
actions, such as replacing staff
or implementing a new curriculum.
- Five Years: The
school district must begin plans
for school restructuring.
Approximately
400 schools in 14 states had failed
to meet AYP for five years by the
2004-2005 school year. In addition, "about
750 schools in 31 states were a year
shy of the five-year benchmark, and
more than 1,000 schools in 40 states
were just two years away." [2]
Schools
may be restructured in one of five
ways, within the constraints of
state law:
- Close
and reopen the school as a public
charter school.
- Replace all or most of the school
staff.
- Turn over school operations to
a private company.
- Turn over school operations to
the State educational agency.
- "Any other major restructuring
of the school’s governance
arrangement that makes fundamental
reforms, such as significant changes
in the school’s staffing and
governance" [3]
As
the list of restructuring schools
grows, more and more states are considering
the close-and-reopen option.
There are approximately 3,661 charter
schools in the U.S. and roughly 361
of these charter schools were converted
from existing district schools. [4]
This number includes voluntary and
forced conversions.
State
Takeover of Schools
Increasingly,
states are assuming control of schools
and reopening them as charters. For
example,
- In
2005 Cole Middle School in Denver,
Colorado was taken over by the
state and converted into a charter
school. The state board chose to
contract with KIPP as the education
provider for the school.
- In
2003 the Louisiana state board
of education took over 26 failing
schools. In 2004 one of these failing
schools, Capdau Middle, became
a charter school.
In
some cases, a struggling school may
convert into a charter in order
to avoid state takeover. In 2002
the Sacramento, California school
board reopened Sacramento High School
as a charter school in partnership
with St. Hope Corporation to prevent
state takeover and possible closure.
[5]
Advantages
of the
Close-and-Reopen
Option
Closing
underperforming schools and reopening
them as charter schools, known as
the "close-and-reopen" option,
is one of the more comprehensive methods
for school improvement under No Child
Left Behind. This option addresses
multiple aspects of school reform
including curriculum, personnel,
governance and school culture.
Under
the close-and-reopen option, some or
all of the staff and school leaders
can be replaced and an outside operator
brought in to manage the school.
The process of rehiring staff can
be helpful in changing school
culture or successfully implementing
new reforms.
For
example, if existing staff members
are asked to reapply for their jobs,
the new school operator has the opportunity
to hire only effective staff members.
New staff members may also be required
to committ to a new curriculum or
new instructional requirements such
as an extended school day.
The
autonomy provided by charter status
allows schools to cater to the specific
needs of struggling students with
extended teaching time, tutoring
and customized programs. This autonomy
provides a means for implementing
effective research-based curricula
that include all the necessary supports
such as professional development
and teacher coaching. Charter schools
also provide the opportunity for
new community engagement and input.
Other Restructuring Options
Other
restructuring options often offer piecemeal
approaches that may succeed at moving
around the deck chairs but fail
to affect real reform:
- Replace
school staff -
Schools may replace some staff members,
but leave ineffective curricula and
programs in place. This approach
may leave the newly selected principal
and staff without the autonomy
necessary to make substantial
changes in instructional approaches
such as class size/organization,
length of school day, and professional
development for teachers.
- Turn
over school operations to a private
company - This
option diverts
resources from traditional
public schools to privately-operated
companies. For example,
in Maryland "the State has redirected
more than $10 million in public
funding earmarked for City schools
to fund retained revenue and
overhead at Edison Schools, Inc."
[6]
According to a 2005 report by the
Abell Foundation, the academic achievement
of Edison-operated schools in Baltimore
is "solid, but exceeded by comparable
BCPSS." In other words, the State
is paying more for similar or inferior
results. [7]
- Turn
over school operations to the
State educational agency.
- The "research
shows that reconstitutions and
state takeovers have a mixed record
of effectiveness in significantly
improving chronically low-performing
schools."
[8]
- Other "major
restructuring of the school’s
governance..." -
Schools may define "other
major restructuring" in ways
that do not address a school's fundamental
problems. [9]
Challenges
for the Close-and-Reopen Option
The
close-and-reopen option can lead
to parent and community
resentment and the perception that
the process is a "hostile takeover
by an external entity." [10]
It is "critical
for the district or state to involve
students, parents and the community
members in this process from an early
stage." [11]
One way to avoid this problem and maintain
greater input from the school community
is for school systems to encourage
struggling schools to convert to charters
before the critical fifth year.
Whether
schools elect to convert to charters
or the school system forces their
closure and reopening as a charter,
these changes alone will not improve
struggling schools. High-performing
schools require a strong mission,
committed staff, appropriate professional
development, an effective research-based
curriculum, progress monitoring,
a safe environment, and motivated
leadership.
Charter
schools are one of the most viable
restructuring options under NCLB.
But it must be understood that a
charter school is just a framework
into which effective, research-based "instructional
[methods] and management programs
may be introduced."
[12]
- State
Department of Education. Proposed
State Actions in Baltimore City Public
Schools, March 2006. http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/
- Ziebarth,
T. & Wohlstetter, P. (2005).
Charters as a “School Turnaround” Strategy
in Hopes, Fears, & Reality:
A Balanced Look at American Charter
Schools in 2005. Robin J. Lake & Paul
T. Hill (Eds.) <http://www.crpe.org/ncsrp/pubs/2005_report/HopesandFears2005_report.>
- No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN.
8, 2002 115 STAT. 1485 <http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf>
- Based
on BCP research conducted from
February - March 2006. We contacted
charter school offices and associations
around the U.S. to gather this
data.
- News10 net. (10
December 2002). Charter Plan May
Save Sacramento High from State Takeover. <http://www.news10.net/storyfull.asp?id=3180>
- The Abell Foundation. (September/October
2005). Going Public With School Privatization:
State’s contract with Edison
Schools, Inc. is in its fifth year.
A new report examines the arrangement
and raises the question: Is it a
good deal for the Baltimore City
Public Schools? The Abell Report,
18 (3), 1. <http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/arn905.pdf>
- The Abell Foundation. (September/October
2005). Going Public With School Privatization:
State’s contract with Edison
Schools, Inc. is in its fifth year.
A new report examines the arrangement
and raises the question: Is it a
good deal for the Baltimore City
Public Schools? The Abell Report,
18 (3), 7. <http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/arn905.pdf>
- Education
Commission of the States. (2004).
Closing Low-performing Schools and
Reopening Them as Charter Schools:
The Role of the State, 1-2. <http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/54/25/5425.pdf>
- Education
Commission of the States. (2004).
Closing Low-performing Schools and
Reopening Them as Charter Schools:
The Role of the State, 2. <http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/54/25/5425.pdf>
- Rhim,
L. (2004). Restructuring Schools
in Baltimore: An Analysis of State
and District Efforts. Education
Commission of the States, 24. <http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/53/24/5324.doc>
- Education
Commission of the States. (2004).
Closing Low-performing Schools and
Reopening Them as Charter Schools:
The Role of the State, 6. <http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/54/25/5425.pdf>
- Arkin,
M. & Kowal, J. (2005). Reopening
as a Charter School. Naperville,
IL: Learning Point Associates,
27. <http://www.ncrel.org/csri/resources/ncrel/knowledgeissues/Reopening.htm>
|
