I had posted on July 6th of this year about Locke High School and Green Dot.
At Locke High School in LA, they kicked out the teacher union. It was not easy.
I had submitted a post about this topic on July 6th.
On July 23rd, the LA Times wrote an article worth reading. While you're doing that, take a look at their website. Not bad.
There hasn't been a fight yet, says Michael McElveen, another senior. Two weeks without a fight is a good sign at Locke, his pals admit, even if it is usually quieter in summer. The students also agree that the uniform has its advantages -- you don't have to waste time and money on the fashions of the day.
Zeus Cubias, who has taught at Locke for 14 years after graduating from the school and going on to UC Santa Barbara, says the early indicators are encouraging. There were skeptics who said the uniforms alone would doom the experiment. Not only has there been compliance, but only a couple of the boys seem to feel bold enough to test the ban on sagging pants.
But will higher pockets mean higher grades?
"Part of it is setting the right tone," says Cubias. Right off the bat, you step onto campus knowing there's control, discipline and high expectations, and the reality is that's something most kids wanted.
"We had to step up our game, too," Cubias says. "I'm wearing a tie every day now."
Cubias is one of the Locke teachers who originally felt insulted by Green Dot chief Steve Barr's claim that he could do a better job than L.A. Unified. Cubias spoke up about it, telling Barr he and other teachers had made strides despite great challenges.
It is much too early to get excited, but I like everything they are doing. While we're finding ways to increase taxes, the people of LA may have found a much better solution.
Here in Champaign we are hearing reports that because of Conscent Decree compliance, certain disruptive students are sent to hallway. Why? Because sending them to the principles principal's office would demonstrate that schools are reprimanding certain students a a non-proportionate manner.
A few weeks ago I talked to a Central High School student who got "shanked" during a fight. She literally got stabbed by a makeshift weapon by another girl. I didn't read about that in the newspapers. Maybe it was just another day in the hallways?
Rather than make do in the current system, maybe we should drop the system.
Rather than have all these discussions about how to make do in the current system, maybe we should start talking about scrapping the system.
It sounds radical, but by the time the suggestion starts to sound reasonable we might have ourselves an example of something that works. If you can transform an urban LA school district, it would probably work anywhere. God, I hope it works! If anyone else has any positive reports on any education progress, can you please share?
Principal's office. Just remember, the principal is your pal.
Thanks. : )
Yes if you get sent to the hallway that does not count as as DR (discipline referral) you can spend the whole class in the hallway........................
This is what happens when the lawyers and extreme activist run the schools. Educating students becomes a secondary consideration to making the lawyers happy. Don't blame the teachers, they are stuck at the mercy of this sad situation.
So, the teachers' union is the reason for the discipline problems in schools? Again, more worker villification from B...
-----
Anon, what would you know about logic and facts, would you like to try to apply some and respond to my comment maybe? - Run4cvrlib on 2008-10-16 @ 11:00pm
I liked this quote from the article.
With the help of private donations, class sizes will be kept at about 28 instead of 40. Teachers will have more say on curriculum and teaching methods, and the Green Dot model is thin on administration.
In many ways, it's the antithesis of L.A. Unified, the listing Battleship Bureaucracy, with its staggering dropout rate and glacial pace when it comes to change.
For those of you who feel like our local schools need more money I suggest: donorschoose.org
All those sales tax proponents put your money where your mouth is. I can’t remember what the estimate was per family that the sales tax would increase. $300?$250?
Check out the needs in our county and help out. Just a few people who make that donation directly to the classroom and avoid the bureaucracy will make a huge difference. Send your money to the class room not to a system heavy with administration.
Corben:
The link to Donors Choose was a great suggestion. I have used it -- it is a very direct and rewarding way to fund specific needs and projects in the schools of one's choice. Donors don't have to commit big dollars, either: For many of the projects, even $5 and $10 donations add up quickly enough to meet their needs.
"So, the teachers' union is the reason for the discipline problems in schools?"
http://reason.tv/video/show/60.html
Green Dot does not have teachers unions. They still have poor kids. They still have an administration. They still have parents. They still have bad parents. They do not have teachers unions. They have a results-oriented culture that seems to be producing postive results. There seems to be a common denominator among things that work and things that don't.
What if Green Dot works? Why wouldn't we implement this tomorrow in Champaign? I would vote yes on the sales tax to support that system. I'll never support a tax increase and dump money into our current broken system. The donorschoose.org is very creative and I like where they are going with that idea.
I don't mean to offend the teachers. It was the teachers who sided with Green Dot and voted to do what was best for the kids. It took courage and I'm impressed beyond belief. Some who sided with Green Dot still left because of tenure. It would take that kind of courage here. Hopefully we will not have to wait until it hits rock bottom like it did in Watts - LA.
Green Dot's own website says:
"Working with the Teachers Union to Drive Change
A key constituent in Green Dot’s organization is the teachers union. Green Dot is the only non-district public school operator in California that has unionized teachers. Green Dot’s teachers have organized as the Asociacion de Maestros Unidos (AMU), a CTA/NEA affiliate. Key reforms embodied in the AMU contract include: teachers have explicit say in school policy and curriculum; no tenure or seniority preference; a professional work day rather than defined minutes; and flexibility to adjust the contract in critical areas over time. Green Dot was able to achieve these reforms by establishing a relationship of mutual trust with the teachers union and committing to pay its teachers above the average of comparable schools’ pay scales. In doing so, Green Dot and AMU share a unique relationship in the world of labor relations, one that is characterized by collaboration and a mutual interest in improving public education."
It might be a slightly DIFFERENT teacher's union, but they seem to have one.
(Never heard of this place until now, so just looked them up on the internet.)
If it works best and can be adapted to a variety of environments effectively, of course it should be implemented.
However, I'll tell you what doesn't work. Fad educational trends not backed up with complex feasibility and data analysis studies.
We also don't need fear mongering or vilification of teachers.
We all agree that education can and must be improved. We should empower all involved with accurate data facts about the possible options and not hard sell them any approach with incomplete or cooked data.
On a different note, I haven't had a good experience with DonorsChoose--the prices from their corporate partners are inflated and so the donors tend to get overcharged. The packets are sometimes incomplete or late, and there's a little too much charity over empathy.
Several respected colleagues have nothing but the best stuff to say about them, so that's just one opinion.
On a different note, I haven't had a good experience with DonorsChoose--the prices from their corporate partners are inflated and so the donors tend to get overcharged.
Ah, I was unaware of the corporate partners. Is there another avenue that you are aware of, to get needed materials to classrooms?
However, I'll tell you what doesn't work. Fad educational trends not backed up with complex feasibility and data analysis studies.
This is absurd. Whether a "fad" practice, or a non fad practice will work has nothing to do with whether a feasibility study or data analysis says it will work. Now, the study might help you figure out ahead of time whether it will work, but the study in no way ensures its success or failure. In fact, there are volumes of studies that were proven wrong and many practices that have been implemented without studies that have been shown effective.
I don't really have an opinion on this. But I hate the idea that we somehow have to pay consultants each time someone has a decent idea. Aren't educators smart enough to figure this out on their own?
Now, the study might help you figure out ahead of time whether it will work, but the study in no way ensures its success or failure. In fact, there are volumes of studies that were proven wrong and many practices that have been implemented without studies that have been shown effective.
And don't forget that you can't have much data to analyze unless you implement the program.
"And don't forget that you can't have much data to analyze unless you implement the program."
Locke has agreed to be the guinea pig. Let's see how it works out. Until then, we shouldn't commit any more taxpayer dollars to a system which has proven ineffective. Considering that Chicago Public Schools only produce 6 out of 100 with bachelors degrees, I've seen all the stats I need.
I don't really have an opinion on this. But I hate the idea that we somehow have to pay consultants each time someone has a decent idea. Aren't educators smart enough to figure this out on their own?
Who said anything about paying consulants? I also abhor the idea.
Who said anything about paying consulants? I also abhor the idea.
Fad educational trends not backed up with complex feasibility and data analysis studies.
Sorry for assuming that "complex feasibility and data analysis studies" were going to be done by consultants. Sounds like your idea is not. Are they going to be done for free too?
Sorry for assuming that "complex feasibility and data analysis studies" were going to be done by consultants. Sounds like your idea is not. Are they going to be done for free too?
In the educational world, consultants get paid to produce favorable data. Academics do better research at no cost to the district.
I'm still not sure what administrators are supposed to be doing. I'm aware of the research on these various policy initiatives and just some random classroom teacher. Can't we expect administrators to use some of their massive teams to collect a little data and compare it to what should be a deep understanding of the existing research?
wonderful, Xian. We can agree on the administrators and consultants. :)
"We all agree that education can and must be improved. We should empower all involved with accurate data facts about the possible options and not hard sell them any approach with incomplete or cooked data."
http://www.greendot.org/results
I just love the idea of a results-oriented culture.
Green Dot does not have teachers unions. They still have poor kids. They still have an administration. They still have parents. They still have bad parents. They do not have teachers unions. They have a results-oriented culture that seems to be producing postive results. There seems to be a common denominator among things that work and things that don't.
A few things you are completely wrong about and failed to mention about Green Dot that I thought I would share:
So, for those keeping score at home, the common denominators between the schools are: They still have teacher unions. They still have poor kids. They still have administration. They still have parents. Hmm.
The differences: They HAVE involved parents. They HAVE more funding available. They HAVE smaller class sizes. They HAVE staff and professionals available to make "extensive intervention" to help their students succeed. They HAVE plenty of after-school programs to keep the kids engaged. Hmm.
I'm sure xian can attest that if he had 35 hours a year of involvement from each of his parents, or a smaller class size and smaller building size, or much more funding available, or a team of professionals committed to helping his students succeed outside of instruction time, his students would have significant gains too.
This is a great model, yes, and all things that teachers have been asking to have for years -- more funding, more support, smaller class sizes, parental participation -- but do you really expect that we will get this? And I don't see why it can't be a public school with all of these things. Seems to me that the only difference is these schools prove that if you take the same people (teachers, administration, and unions) and actually give them what they're asking for (money, smaller classes, parental involvement, and more support services), they can succeed. But that comes at a cost, and will the citizens be willing to pay for it?
I only question what happens when the parents of these students do not do their required 35 hours. Is the student removed from the school? What are the consequences for not living up to the standards of the school? Are they sent back to the public school? That might explain their graduation rate and test scores, but that's just a complete guess and not founded in any evidence.
Your attempt to prove that the unions are holding back student success has failed. So I guess that makes it
- Unions: 2
- B is for Business: 0
-----
Anon, what would you know about logic and facts, would you like to try to apply some and respond to my comment maybe? - Run4cvrlib on 2008-10-16 @ 11:00pm
$9400 per student would be a reduction in funding for CPS. How much money it will take per child before people don't claim more funding is needed? $15,000? $20,000?
$9400 per student would be a reduction in funding for CPS. How much money it will take per child before people don't claim more funding is needed? $15,000? $20,000?
Edit: Removed snarky dadaism.
More funding would be nice, but the problem is top down intiatives that divert money away from classroom instruction. We can look past our disagreements to acknowledge that it takes more than $100/year to provide classroom resources, right? We can acknowledge that it doesn't make much sense to pour hundreds of millions into new school initiatives while most of the kids are in schools in which the board refuses to even fund sufficient positions so that there can be a full-time teacher in every classroom.
I don't blame people for being skeptical for cries for more funding. We do need more funding, but I'm not going to ask for it until we kick those who are mismanaging our funds out. If we appropriated more funds, I'd never get to see it reach my kids.
Technically this is a union. I could support this. It sounds like Green Dot can fire bad teachers. Amen.
"Dot’s teachers have organized as the Asociacion de Maestros Unidos (AMU), a CTA/NEA affiliate. Key reforms embodied in the AMU contract include: teachers have explicit say in school policy and curriculum; no tenure or seniority preference; a professional work day rather than defined minutes; and flexibility to adjust the contract in critical areas over time. Green Dot was able to achieve these reforms by establishing a relationship of mutual trust with the teachers union and committing to pay its teachers above the average of comparable schools’ pay scales. In doing so, Green Dot and AMU share a unique relationship in the world of labor relations, one that is characterized by collaboration and a mutual interest in improving public education."
"9400 per student would be a reduction in funding for CPS. How much money it will take per child before people don't claim more funding is needed? $15,000? $20,000?"
Hee. I have to trust this because I don't know the numbers. I'll even go as far and say that we'll have even more money per students because people like would be investing more in a system that goes to the students. I'm sure we all agree on that. How much does St. John's pay per student vs. CPS?
Your attempt to prove that the unions are holding back student success has failed. So I guess that makes it
- Unions: 2
- B is for Business: 0
You can put any score you want. You can't fire bad teachers. You can't give bonuses to teachers unless they all get them. Crap. One stupid thing is countered with another stupid thing and you end up with a system that can't work. That is consistent in every union-burdened entity. Let's pay everyone the same. Let's not focus on results and let's keep debating what those results should be. Let's tenure people so it makes it more difficult to fire bad teachers. You have to bring administrators to administer this stupid culture and it's one stupid patch after another stupid patch.
"This is a great model, yes, and all things that teachers have been asking to have for years -- more funding, more support, smaller class sizes, parental participation -- but do you really expect that we will get this? And I don't see why it can't be a public school with all of these things."
If you look at the outline of the rational union above, it simply appears they conceded to all the things that us rational folks have been asking for years. How about that.
"I only question what happens when the parents of these students do not do their required 35 hours. Is the student removed from the school? What are the consequences for not living up to the standards of the school? Are they sent back to the public school? That might explain their graduation rate and test scores, but that's just a complete guess and not founded in any evidence."
Whatever they do it seems to work. The difference is that Green Dot gives the impression that they are accountable for the results and don't blame it on society in order to deflect accountabily.
Why can't it be public?
We can elect burocrats to run our schools or we can hire outside experts. The beauty of this is that Green Dot is doing this in Watts and is not doing this in some rich suburb. It would be a shame if we tried to do something like this and then interject the burocracy that has failed public institutions throughout history.
You can put any score you want. You can't fire bad teachers. You can't give bonuses to teachers unless they all get them. Crap. One stupid thing is countered with another stupid thing and you end up with a system that can't work. That is consistent in every union-burdened entity. Let's pay everyone the same. Let's not focus on results and let's keep debating what those results should be. Let's tenure people so it makes it more difficult to fire bad teachers. You have to bring administrators to administer this stupid culture and it's one stupid patch after another stupid patch.
Let's see...in CPS, they have cut thousands of teachers over the last three years--tenure or no tenure. I am sitting here staring at my bonus check for this year for being named one of the top teachers in the district.
The one major district in the state disproves your absolutist statement. Perhaps if you spent some time actually studying educational policy instead of reading propaganda statements, you might know what was going on in education.
Finally, let's consider what Green Dot is doing. They are not educating all of the kids in Watts. They are selecting a small group of kids in Watts who fit the wider demographic data, but happen to have the most involved parents. This doesn't prove anything other than that they are good at cherry-picking kids and data.
This is poor analysis on your part. If I set up a tenured, mainstream public school, except added selective enrollment--still controlling for poverty numbers and ethnic background--I could easily produce a school that out tested every other school. There are schools similiar to this already in Chicago. Would you be touting that as a model for all? If so, you'd be wrong. But I doubt you would because it wouldn't serve your anti-union agenda.
To those unconvinced, let's look at a final statistic--40 percent of all CPS teachers leave the system entirely by the fifth year. (The new isolated programs are also unsuccessful--they retain at 90% for the first THREE years, but that's accounted for by the fact that residents have to return the entire pay for the program if they leave before three years and that the programs select a very small pool out of a large number of applicants. Instead of looking for ways to fire bad teachers--which is a real, but statistically smaller problem, the data suggests that we need to look for ways to train and retain the teachers we have. We certainly don't need to do what the charters are doing--lure away the best teachers and the students with the most parental involvement and supplement them with a few young teachers and burn them out. If we look at the New Orleans model, this leads to higher attrition rates and high incidence of mental health issues among the "baby teachers" as Councilwoman Willard-Lewis calls them.
A link on the disastrous impact of low teacher retention: In Chicago, I'd say a large chunk of the poor teacher retention is tough working conditions because of a historically weak union.
http://www.nctaf.org/resources/demonstration_projects/turnover/documents/CTTExecutiveSummaryfinal.pdf
Otherwise, we are banking on there being some magical storehouse of great teachers that will emerge once we fire the bad ones.
This is founded on the wide misconception pushed by ideologues like Stossel that teaching requires no actual skills. It's a nice self-serving worldview to denegrate working educators, but it will not save any kids.
Now, as to reforms that will work, here's a cross-post that outlines a concrete plan of reform by a brilliant classroom teachers (Someone called me a brilliant classroom teacher! Oh, crap, it was me...):
1. The first part of the engine is to develop some vague idea of what the educational system is supposed to do. The forces of content-based education are still relatively strong, but I think we've actually passed the threshold where a belief in the importance of teaching citizenship and civic engagement skills and the respecting of the variety of values that students and their families are going to bring to the system has surpassed the majority mark.
2. The second part is to develop a group of metrics that actually give context based assessments of the learning occurring in each building. Maybe Nate Silver should get on this now that he has some time. These would probably be some of the most complex metrics the world has ever seen, and they are particularly challenging precisely because of the reason the current reforms are failing--they would actually have to consult and integrate the myriad communities to account for their diverse strengths and values.
3. These metrics would have to be used diagnostically rather than punitively as is current. Teachers should love the metric as it would empower them to be the teachers they want to be rather than fear it as in the status quo. It should also assess all other stakeholders' (yay! a business word!) role, but once again for critical, collaborative improvement not to pass blame. To illustrate concretely, if the metric shows that a particular area is underperforming due to faculty's inability to connect to students and the resultant disruptions leading to an inability to have productive, consistent instruction, that would lead to the response of, "How do we systemically train our teachers? Do we have teachers doing this well? Can we give them resources to share their expertise with the other teachers?" rather than "The teachers are failing the kids because they suck! #### the teachers' union!"
4. Of course, these addresses a missing step. You would actually need to organize a massive pool of effective, diverse materials to help instructors work toward the common instructional goals. This would have to start in educational colleges, which should probably be much more rigorous with far longer residencies rather than 10 week-and-done student teaching. Teachers should be paid as well as doctors, but we should be expected to train as well.
This might seem antithetical to my early complaint about the lack of teacher retention--if we are having trouble recruiting and keeping good teachers, won't making the certification process more rigorous exacerbate the program.
I believe the answer is no. I think the attrition rate is due to a complex grouping of factors including the punitive tactics referred to in the first couple of points, the lack of respect for the profession in general, but also due to the overwhelming nature of the first years.
There is a tremendous disconnect between what is actually going on in most classrooms and what is discussed in most Colleges of Ed. When many of us go back for our higher degrees it's a running joke that we are being taught for semesters by the people who couldn't actually survive a day or hour in our classrooms.
I'm not just theorizing here. My experience is that effective peer mentoring is the number one way to not only ensure retention, but push first-year teachers toward super-teacher status.
The current culture of the profession due to Board mismanagement is often one of cynicism and defeatism. When you are under trained and overwhelmed, you tend to latch onto the nearest person and their philosophy, so that cynicism quickly replicates itself.
However, given the actual choice, I find the engaged super teacher model is much more enticing to new teachers if they have a mentor.
Sadly, teachers who are willing and able to do so for free in addition to their already overwhelming schedule are few and far between. I think this is more of a comment on the lack of prioritization of this systemically and lack of resources rather than a problem with teachers.
There's a lot more to address, but at this stage, it gets so far from the reality that I tend to lose steam and start thinking about my wake up time for tomorrow.
I will say that each of these steps must have extreme student involvement, especially on the high school level. In fact, even the mentoring is most effective if some of it is assigned to upperclassmen in the building. After all, they certainly know the environment and how to navigate it better than most of the new teachers.
As to how to do this in practice, I spend most of my time beyond the classroom working with my kids to try to answer this question. I told them earlier this year that it appears that we are likely to lose and I'm not telling them because I want to demoralize them, but to be honest with them because I didn't want them to devote so much extra time under false pretenses.
The leadership got up and said, "What we are doing is right, so if it doesn't save our school, we believe it will save someone else's school..."
If only our civic leaders cared as much for our kids that they are supposed to be responsible for as our kids care for kids they have never met before.
So the main thing we do right now is try to tell the story. The story of how kids are killed everyday and the Board responds by cutting counselors at the school because there are less children to serve.
But we are also working on the steps above. After all, much of what pushes these atrocious reforms through is that the anger at the historical problems with education is real and justified. So it's not enough to demonstrate how the reform is bankrupt, we must also provide a solid alternative that actually does what the current reform claims to do.
Dot’s teachers have organized as the Asociacion de Maestros Unidos (AMU), a CTA/NEA affiliate. Key reforms embodied in the AMU contract include: teachers have explicit say in school policy and curriculum; no tenure or seniority preference; a professional work day rather than defined minutes;
This means no tenure or seniority preference, I don't think it means no tenure. There is a big difference there.
I think the DC Superintendent of schools is trying to get rid of tenure. I am not sure how that effort is going. It seems kind of irrelevant to me. The data doesn't show that the problem in schools is too many bad teachers. The data continually shows that class size and socio-economics are the biggest indicators for student success. If you find a school with a large, low socio-economic population (like Urbana) that made AYP any time in the last two years (like Urbana) then you have found an exemplary school. And usually you will find smaller class sizes (like Urbana) and more personalized instruction (like Urbana). And that will often lead to success.
Tenure is irrelevant. Urbana has bad teachers. Not many, but there are definitely a few. Would it be better if they retired or moved on? Probably. But that is not the crucial issue in student success. Bad teachers can work well within a good system. And good systems can make bad teachers into good ones. Focusing on labor unions and tenure is not critical and it is not productive. There are too many other areas where positive results can be achieved quickly.
"They are not educating all of the kids in Watts. They are selecting a small group of kids in Watts who fit the wider demographic data, but happen to have the most involved parents. This doesn't prove anything other than that they are good at cherry-picking kids and data."
4. Green Dot's schools have high levels of success. Can it be that you choose students who are the "cream of the crop" to make your performance numbers more impressive?
Under law, charter schools are prohibited from pre-selecting students. If charters have more applicants than seats, each charter school must hold a lottery to randomly select students. Every year, Green Dot schools choose their incoming freshmen through a lottery process. Each school has 140 open spots. All students who are not chosen in the first 140 are added to a waitlist.
Green Dot Public Schools does extensive organizing to get a representative sample of students from the surrounding communities. In fact, Green Dot actually gets a higher proportion of students who request free and reduced lunch (an indicator of people living on or below the poverty line) than LAUSD. The majority of our parents have only completed high school- which is the same demographic of parent education as LAUSD.
"I am sitting here staring at my bonus check for this year for being named one of the top teachers in the district."
What were the criteria? Wasn't it you (Xian) who argued that it is extremely difficult to come up with a fair and accurate performance evaluation process?
"Focusing on labor unions and tenure is not critical and it is not productive. There are too many other areas where positive results can be achieved quickly."
Success can never exist in a culture of failure.
What were the criteria? Wasn't it you (Xian) who argued that it is extremely difficult to come up with a fair and accurate performance evaluation process?
Yes, and you are deflecting from my point. After all, you can ace a standardized test and think it is a poor indicator too. But if you promise to not hand wave away my point, I'd be happy to answer. The criteria were based on the instructor's ability to extend their classrooms into the community in innovative ways. Based on our trip to New Orleans, and nearly 100 community actions beyond the hours of the working day, the cultivation of student leaders and their own actions and strategic plans, and the integrations of such initiatives into the classroom, I was lucky enough to be chosen. I say lucky because it's really just a reflection on the amazing work and dedication of my kids and the other teachers who support and teach me--you know, the ones being fired for promoting "a culture of failure".
Have you ever considered that it might be the system that is pushing the charters at the same time as intentionally hurting my kids by constantly cutting positions and resources to schools wrapped in neighborhood tragedy that is driving the culture of failure? Kids can only be abused so much before that get angry and stop believing in the idealistic value of education. I fight that switch over everyday, but admidst such abuse by the people pushing these initiatives, it's not easy.
Under law, charter schools are prohibited from pre-selecting students. If charters have more applicants than seats, each charter school must hold a lottery to randomly select students. Every year, Green Dot schools choose their incoming freshmen through a lottery process. Each school has 140 open spots. All students who are not chosen in the first 140 are added to a waitlist.
Use your powers of critical deduction--after all you are quoting from a promotional website. You might as well be saying, "Well, the Coke commercial said that drink Coke makes me more sexually attractive". There are a number of ways that Charters--even those without testing or extensive selective enrollment policies--cull students that require less resources to educate and then take the full resources from the district.
Much of public education depends on having both ends of the spectrum. If you are left with the kids who require the most resources and no more resources, it's a lot more challenging. Green dot doesn't use the same tricks as the Chicago Charters do. Check out Arne's latest report (if you can find it--it's intentionally buried on the CPS data website) the Chicago Charters have lower rates of every challenging area--including the complete irradication of ELL students.
As I said, Green Dot doesn't do the same, and therefore their performance numbers are more impressive that the disasters that are most charter schools. But they still require parents to actively help their students apply to the program--something that most of my students do not have the opportunity to do.
Is the goal of your group to disparage students and cull a few to create nice data to perpetuate what you are doing or is it to educate all students? If it's really the latter, you might want to choose new company. The charter school movement is figuratively trying to get from Champaign to Chicago via Alabama.
"After all, you can ace a standardized test and think it is a poor indicator too."
I'd like kids to be able to well on standardized tests first and then have debates on hypotheticals.
"I was lucky enough to be chosen. I say lucky because it's really just a reflection on the amazing work and dedication of my kids and the other teachers who support and teach me--you know, the ones being fired for promoting "a culture of failure"."
Congratulations on being chosen. Union systems promote failure after failure. Whether you want to blame the teachers or admins, they will fail. Green Dot (technically) has a union, but it eliminates the mechanisms forced by teachers unions and imposed a culture of accountability that has been fought tooth and nail. Unions have systematically created systems that make accountabily more difficult for one reason after another reason after another reason. Green Dot imposed a culture of accountability and it is working. I'm sure they will have some challenges, but so far it's impressive.
"But they still require parents to actively help their students apply to the program--something that most of my students do not have the opportunity to do."
I do not accept that the quality of parents in Watts are better/worse than anywhere else.
I do not accept that the quality of parents in Watts are better/worse than anywhere else.
I do not accept the fact that you can't read for comprehension. Can you really not understand that not all students have the same amount of parental support and it's collossally easy to design a non-test based process to ensure that your 3, or 12 or 140 students are picked from a poor that has much more involved parents than most people in the population.
Can you really not understand that not all students have the same amount of parental support and it's collossally easy to design a non-test based process to ensure that your 3, or 12 or 140 students are picked from a poor that has much more involved parents than most people in the population.
Xian, it's extremely simple. Look at what B posted - they create a waitlist, so they assume people will drop out of the selected class. With the mandatory parental involvement, I'm sure the crappy parents drop their kids out right away, leaving only the involved parents behind.
At Green Dot, it is an expecatation of the parent and not a binding contract. This culture (according to the green dot reps I spoke to) has sparked parent involvement and created positive energy. So your theory that this can't be done because of the parent factor is not valid. Since an application needs to be submitted, it is assumed there is a certain level of involvement by the parents. In one of the worst high schools in south central LA, the biggest problem is the wait list.
Take a look at the following. Do you still think they are cherry-picking?
Similar Student Populations Green Dot has been able to achieve all these successes with students who have very similar backgrounds to those at comparable schools in the same neighborhoods, with respect to ethnicity, income, proficiency levels in English, etc.:
So your theory that this can't be done because of the parent factor is not valid.
How so? What invalidates it? Oh, that's right, you reinforce our theory with your next sentence - "a certain level of involvement by the parents." Thanks!
If it's so easy to motivate parents, why isn't this the norm across the country?
Take a look at the following. Do you still think they are cherry-picking?
How would that data prove/disprove cherry-picking? Which of those demographics act as a proxy for parental involvement? That's right - none of them.
How about this statistic - 100% of Green Dot students have parents that went above-and-beyond the expectation for parental involvement by voluntarily submitting an application for a superior education, agreeing to volunteer 35 hours of there free time, thereby agreeing that the education of their children is important.
I'll let you get back to arguing that unions always cause the destruction of businesses in one thread, while holding up a business with a strong union as a success in another.
"If it's so easy to motivate parents, why isn't this the norm across the country"
At Green Dot, they have wait lists at (just last year) one of the worst high schools in South Central LA. System-wide they show higher % of students on subsidized lunch, lower parent education levels, lower entry test scores vs. area public schools. At Locke, they are excited about their schools. If Champaign is any indication of the rest of the country, we are not very excited about our school system.
"How about this statistic - 100% of Green Dot students have parents that went above-and-beyond the expectation for parental involvement by voluntarily submitting an application for a superior education, agreeing to volunteer 35 hours of there free time, thereby agreeing that the education of their children is important."
Only if we had our own green dot where we could inspire that type of parent enthusiam.
Why do you argue they have a strong union at Green Dot?
At Green Dot they have wait lists at schools when there is no history to support having wait lists. All this shows is that they have managed to fool people long and hope and low on research into buying their brand by cooking data.
I have no doubt that like in sport, having a change in administration could have short term gains. But the more you present things from their perspective, the more I am convinced that this is a voodoo education snakeoil scheme that cherry picks tiny populations of kids and will crash.
I just don't see the planning to demonstrate a thoughtful long-term community oriented plan.
1. Cherry pick the most involved parents
2. Spend more money than public schools
3. ????
4. Profit
Is not a good model.
I DO the exact thing at the school I teach, and get much better results in civic engagement and learning than Green Dot schools. The difference is that I still teach as many of the other (often parentless, homeless) 1,500 students the best I can without throwing them out and padding my data.