"I had a creative idea. How about we convert all but 2 of the RAS elementary schools to Magnets? And the only way students can get and stay in is by having Parents that are willing to prove their academic support of the child. This way we can co-locate all the unsupported kids in the 2 "community" schools. Thoughts?"Currently RAS has 9 Elementary schools. (Forest, Lakeview, Meadow Lake, Neill, Noble, Northport, Spanish Immersion {RSIS}, Sonnesyn, and Zachary Lane) Only Zachary Lane and RSIS are currently meeting AYP. And this Fall RAS will open the new STEAM school.
My rationale is that if we take a rule from the Charter and Private school rule book, we could make the education experience more effective and controlled for the majority of RAS students. And quite likely only 2 schools would be failing AYP when we were done. Imagine if 7 of the schools had admission and continued enrollment requirements that the students and parents both had to meet. And if they slipped from the path, they would be expelled back to the "community" schools.
Now I know that there are probably laws against this sort of thing, but it is an interesting concept. I mean it seems in line with the Conservative's parent choice concept, it gives the Liberal and the Public school folk a way to succeed with the majority that are willing to work hard and perform, and finally it identifies the non-conformists early, and it may enable them to obtain the specialized help they need. And it really is just an extension and sharpening of our current reality.
Of course the cost per student in the "Community" schools will be quite high, but there won't be too many kids there. By the way, I just guessed at 2 of 9 in our district, this may vary by community... Thoughts?
21 comments:
John,
This is an interesting approach to a problem. The law might get in the way??
Do you think that this model would LOWER OVERALL cost of GOVERNMENT EDUCATION and increase performance?? If this is a model to reduce the cost of education, get the laws changed to allow for district interested in reducing costs and increasing performance??!!
Consider a few polit programs in the district??
I would suggest presenting the model to RAS Administration and School Board??!!
I would like to clarify your proposal and don't feel like rereading carefully. Are you suggesting that initially enrollment to the magnet schools would be open to all students? Would this just take a signed parental agreement and would enrollment be open to kids whose skills are lagging? I think it would be a good idea for a district to assess new kindergarten students pre-enrollment. Would proof of support be monitored primarily through homework completion?
I think we have already had far too much experimentation with our kids, but if we could get the answers to the underlying questions without the potential high costs and crippling educational malpractice, it would certainly be a worthwhile exercise. The questions I would want answered are:
At what level of effort or support or whatever would you set the breakpoint between "lucky" and "unlucky" kids? How do we know that the difference isn't caused by the school, rather than the student?
If we have nine schools of the same size, how many of them (including fractions) are required to house all the "unlucky kids"? Do we change the breakpoint to make the schools come out even?
Is there any reason to believe that RAS or any other public school district could teach any better if they only had "lucky kids" in the school? What would be different?
Having designated some kids as too unlucky to learn, why bother to send them to school at all; they're simply going to fail anyway, right? Or are you going to employ some magic spell or educational philosophy that will cause unlucky kids to learn, yet mysteriously has never been tried in the public schools?
And suppose you do succeed with these unlucky kids– non-public schools often do – what will you do with them then? If you move them over with the lucky kids without the magic beans handed out at the unlucky schools, how can they continue to succeed? And if the "new and improved" teaching methods used for the lucky kids work for these formerly-unlucky kids, why did we split them up in the first place?
J Ewing
Interesting idea, John. I've often thought (and mentioned around here occasionally)that magnets are a brillian solution to families who want more choices for their kids. Not every family will be that engaged, but those that are involved gain so much from the focus. As culture and industry becomes more specialized, it makes some sense that education also become more intentional.
A couple thoughts: I suspect some sort of special ed/EBD/ADD/ASDspectrum school would evolve from your community schools or as one of your magnets. It would be wildly expensive per pupil.
The idea of a magnet school for all is already somewhat in effect in St. Paul Public Schools. I believe the majority of their elementaries offer a speciality, and my friends who live in the district like the variety of offerings for their kids. Here's the list: http://apply.spps.org/SPPS_schools.html
--Annie
SPPS Schools
I figured this made sense because it allows the majority of Public schools to operate by the same rules as the non-public schools.
I have yet to see any data that shows there is any school model that is successful with unsupported kids that misbehave or don't try. The Privates and Charters fire the kids and parents that don't meet their strict requirements. They use filtering to enable their success.
As for how the Public would filter, I assume the magnets would do the same thing as the Privates and Charters. The Parents and Students would apply and sign agreements, then the school administration's personnel would judge there performance and expel them if they failed to live up to them.
Hopefully Parents and Students would be incented to stay out of the "community schools". Because they would certainly be a interesting and likely disruptive student body.
Hmmm, seems to me you are positing another chicken and egg situation. The private schools that succeed do so, it seems, by EXPECTING strong academic performance, no disruptions and parental support, and then they get it. Public schools, especially the failing ones, blame students and parents and not enough money, basically expecting (see, I told you so, they would say) their challenging students to fail, and that is what they get. I just refuse to believe that you can call a kid a loser, force him into a school for losers where you know he will lose, and expect anything else. How you justify that waste of human potential I'll never know.
But if you expect kids to succeed, throw away the rule book to help them succeed, and not accept failure, you will be surprised by how many kids will turn around and "get it." You won't need two schools to house the truly bad eggs; a couple of classrooms, with bars on the windows, will suffice.
J. Ewing
As for a cost reduction benefit, I do not think there would be much there. We would have the same number of kids and I agree that the "Community Schools" would likely be very very expensive.
On the other hand the Magnets should be able to have similar or larger class sizes than today and be more effective. Dealing with a few class clowns would be much simpler than dealing with kids that will toss desks or threaten teachers.
Also, the students would complete their studying and homework, parents would be at conferences, parents would respond and address the concerns that Teachers raise, etc. This has to be worth some money, and fewer good Parents/students should run from Districts.
I am not sure where English Language Learners and some Special Ed students would fit in this system. I mean it is unlikely that they would meet the minimum academic standards initially or possibly ever...
I assume they would need to start in the "Community School" and work really hard to catch up with their class so they can change schools. This seems the best way to ensure the optimal learning environment for the students in the "Magnet" school.
And the EBD kids would most likely end up in the "Community" school since it will be unlikely that they will be able to honor the contract.
Your proposal provides a basis for meaningful discussion, but otherwise would be a rather bad idea. Do we want a system like baseball, with players moving between major and minor league teams? Those kids on the bubble could move one way or the other for reasons not related to their specific performance, like when one building is overcrowded.
Count me out. I want something that helps everybody, as simply as possibly, which includes closing the public schools if need be, via vouchers.
Speed,
That is the most interesting thing about my proposal, it has the same pros and cons as vouchers and open enrollment. The good students with engaged parents are free to go to the good schools with the good student/parent body. While the poor students with the disengaged parents end up in the school that can not turn them away.
It is also similar to my Orono or Wayzata discussions. People that can afford to live in that community are likely to value education, and impress that value on their children. While others that do not meet the "successful" stereotype likely can not afford to live there.
With this in mind, why would it be acceptable to let Privates and Charters pick and choose their student/parent bodies if we had vouchers... Whereas allowing Public Schools to do so seems a bit odd or unfair?
"...my proposal, it has the same pros and cons as vouchers and open enrollment. "
I think that is fundamentally wrong. Vouchers and open enrollment are about giving ALL parents a choice. Your proposal offers, as I read it, NO parents a choice. And I find it disturbing that you are so willing to associate poverty, which now offers parents a lack of choice in educating their children, as THE determinant as to why their children should not be educated.
J. Ewing
As far as I can tell, ALL folk are welcome in the "Magnet" schools as long as they are willing to be responsible parents and the students are willing to work hard, perform and behave.
It seems like the same rules that the "non-public" schools apply, whether people pay with cash, state funds or vouchers.
By the way, remember that I see student/parent body as only one factor in improving overall results. There are other factors that would need to be addressed to ensure the "magnet" schools only had excellent and engaged Teachers and Staff.
Our education goals should drive testing policy and accountability. Getting good AYP results should not be a goal of educational policy.
It's the easiest thing in the world to drive up test scores. But doing that won't make our schools better.
--Hiram
"It's the easiest thing in the world to drive up test scores."
I am sure Gayle and Aldo would like to have your ideas on improving the scores....
I don't have any objection to "teaching to the test." At least the kids would be learning /something/.
"...remember that I see student/parent body as only one factor in improving overall results."
I'm sorry, but that was not clear. Yes, if we permitted schools to be chosen by parents because they offered a "good" education rather than a juvenile detention experience, I think results would improve markedly all around. The trick, as you point out, is how to get the neighborhood schools that already exist-- the public schools-- to offer that "good" education. The most important factor, as you say and according to extensive multivariate analysis, is a "good" teacher, yet we don't even bother to test, rate, coach or correct our teachers. If we don't get the big things even close to right, how do we get all of the lesser factors corrected? Just calling a school "magnet" isn't magic.
J. Ewing
But filtering the student and parent body is magic, it seems to work amazingly well everytime. Across Public, Private and Charter schools.
Blake, Breck, Providence, etc have the best demographics and the best results.
Wayzata, Orono, Edina, etc are the next tier and their scores show it.
RAS, Osseo, etc have schools with different demographics and their scores reflect it.
And though I think there is likely some difference in educational quality across all these. I am pretty sure the primary difference lies on the other side of the Teacher's desk. At least in the RAS district.
However, as Speed said "I want something that helps everybody". So whatever the solution is it has to address the Unlucky kids as well as the Lucky kids. We can't just make it easier for the Lucky kids to walk and leave Unlucky kids and communities behind.
Therefore my 2 & 7 model probably won't work any better than privatization. Both leave the Unlucky kids stuck in a pool with other similar kids. Too bad, it looked so good in some ways.
I wouldn't give up on the idea yet. I know of some public school districts that have successfully created "alternative schools," where they assign students who are too difficult-- disruptive or learning-challenged (and it's a shame to lump those two together)-- to keep in the regular classroom. Different teaching techniques can be employed in these classes than would work in classes of "lucky" kids, and results thereby improved for both groups. My objection to your proposal was that it sounded as if the assignments would be by demographic info rather than actual student behavior. And I still contend that, until you can ensure that the school is reaching every kid possible with true educational opportunity, you shouldn't be shunting them off elsewhere. Right now you have absolutely no way of even knowing if we have good teachers and an effective instructional methodology, let alone proper attitudes, in place.
J. Ewing
I think ours is called Highview. Unfortunately it looks like it does not start until 9th grade.
And I will not argue that the Public Schools and Unions should totally revamp the evaluation, compensation and correction systems. They are definitely set up for the senior adult employees and not the students.
Now here is humorous and somewhat related dirty joke that fits. So stop reading if you are sensitive.
A Union boss goes to a brothel and asks the madame if I pay $100, how much will my escort receive? She says the house gets $80 and the escort gets $20. Seeing this as unfair he goes to another brothel, where he asks the same question. This madame says the escort receives $80 and the house receives $20. He says that seems fair and ask for the company of an incredibly attractive younger red head that he sees. Where upon the madame points to an ~80 yr old woman and informs him his request was impossible because they have a seniority system....
I am sure Gayle and Aldo would like to have your ideas on improving the scores.
Simply drive out low performers.
--Hiram
hiram, no doubt your scheme would work, though it lacks compassion and, perhaps, a true appreciation of the problem. That is, how do you know that the "low performers" aren't just the ones with bad teachers? Until "the system" is set up to deliver the most education it can to the most students it can, which public schools don't even come close to doing, it isn't right to abuse the kids by further denying them their "right" to an education.
J. Ewing
That is, how do you know that the "low performers" aren't just the ones with bad teachers?
What difference does that make? In any event, the irony is that the low performers for various reasons, probably have the best teachers. There are good teachers, bad teachers, and a whole lot of teachers in the middle. But I don't think the quality of teaching whatever that means and however it is assessed, has much impact at all on overall student performance.
--Hiram
"But I don't think the quality of teaching whatever that means and however it is assessed, has much impact at all on overall student performance. "
Then we are paying teachers far too much. Let's just get a bunch of high-school dropouts to do the job. We can pay them a lot less than college grads and way more than they can earn without that worthless diploma, solving two problems at once.
Post a Comment