Branford Eagle

Sections

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

A Tale of Two School Districts

by Laura Kiernan Troidle | May 27, 2010 12:06 pm

(5) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Schools

(Opinion) The poet and philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. We may be repeating the course of a legendary school district in New York City, District #2.

One commenter to the Branford Eagle site recently recommended a book by the highly respected education historian, Diane Ravitch. The book, “The Death and Life of the Great American School System”, details her experience with education reform, citing many examples throughout our nation, concluding that we need a content rich curriculum with well versed teachers, an understanding of the value and limitations of testing, and a community-driven education philosophy. Her book takes on her previous faith in the federal program, No Child Left Behind, and persuasively documents the concerns with the business model of education.

One issue she discusses is in the third chapter of her book, ‘The Transformation of District 2’. It is amazing how this tale parallels the recent history of Branford.

District #2 includes the largely affluent southern tip of Manhattan all the way up to the Upper East Side with areas of poverty such as Chinatown and the Lower East Side. Anthony Alvarado was appointed as its superintendent in 1987. One of the first things he did was to introduce Balanced Literacy, a whole language program. Students were asked to decipher words in context and share reading experiences, often by sitting on a carpet as a group. Students were asked to make text-to-self connections from text and predict events as reading strategies. Balanced Literacy also promoted classroom libraries.

As I was reading Ravitch’s description, I recalled a request from Branford reading specialists in the schools seeking gently used carpets for reading groups. And we have given over $1500 just this year from book fair earnings to the teachers to build on their classroom libraries.

Balanced Literacy was not embraced by all. Its omission of phonics, grammar and spelling lessons were felt to be deficits. However, Alvarado wanted Balanced Literacy implemented in the exact manner it was intended. He hired consultants to provide professional development (explicit coaching) to the teachers even telling the teacher where to stand in the classroom. Teachers were forbidden to substitute or improvise or face transfer to another district.

Hmm. Entirely new teaching methodologies, top-down mandates, no room for teacher judgment…..I think I may have mentioned this once or twice before.

Here is the kicker. Not only did District #2 introduce Balanced Literacy, but it started using a new math program, TERC Investigations. Parents complained of its inquiry-based approach from the outset. In fact, NYCHOLD, which stands for Honest, Open, Logical, Decisions in Mathematical Education Reform, was founded by a parent (Elizabeth Carson) and a New York University mathematician (Dr. Bras Braams), to bring about a dialogue to reflect the experience of many across our nation concerned with mathematical education.

Wow. We have TERC Investigations in Branford. And, this program was expected to be taught as a sole curriculum with no supplementation—until recently, that is. As in District 2, coaches were brought in to instruct the teachers how to teach the program. And, coaches with inquiry-based math only agendas provided demonstrations to parents to show them how to do this alternative math. In fact, on May 19th at the full BOE meeting, Mary Muri, a former CT State Department of Education math consultant, presented her opinion of inquiry-based learning.. She used plastic colored squares to demonstrate how the area of a shape can increase without increasing the perimeter. She mentioned it is not necessary to develop a mastery of skills before moving on to new topics. She stated hands on learning was better. And, she said that people over age 40 have a hard time accepting this alternative approach because we just don’t understand.

Ravitch points out that the parents and experts raising logical concerns in District #2 were ignored. The parents, representing the role of community in schools, were put on the sidelines.

Ignored? Imagine that. Where on earth were the questions from the BOE at this meeting? After all, the BOE has been fed papers, information and questions from its citizens casting doubt on an inquiry-based only approach to math education. The BOE has been reminded that top-down mandates do not work. Yet, the BOE sat there, unified, at this meeting on May 19th. No plans to have a consultant with a different view were suggested. The situation was rather like having a Toyota car salesperson come speak about why everyone should own a Camry, rather than a BMW.

However, District #2 has been applauded by many and used as an example across our nation as the model district achieving great improvement. Soon many felt that the penicillin for school reform had been identified. Just follow this top-down mandate, Balanced Literacy, inquiry-based math instruction approach and soon, you too, can have education success.

But, one study from District #2 stood out and was unappreciated by many. This study showed that the poorest students in the district showed no educational gains within this structure. This report additionally found out there was no link with the amount of time spent with explicit coaching and better scores. Affluent families reported significant tutor usage, too. Report after report hailed the success of District #2, which was to serve as the framework for Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein’s New York public school system.

In fact, to date there are many news stories bragging of the success of District #2. Mayor Bloomberg, the czar of the New York City school system, has received praise from educators across our nation, including Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan. However, when you take a closer look at the New York City data, it appears there is much more to the story.

San Diego, too, tried to mimic the achievement of District #2. Alan Bersin, formerly a federal prosecutor also with a strong business sense, was hired as superintendent and teamed up with Alvarado to bring the success of New York to the west coast. Together, they talked accountability and central control. Soon after, 15 principals were abruptly fired. Then, curriculum coaches were placed in schools, reportedly as spies for the superintendent. Most teachers learned quickly to go with the flow and not ask questions or else face being fired or transferred. Thus, teachers came down with a variety of stress-related illnesses. Teachers were terrified to speak up. In the end, the results expected from the District #2 model, the magic bullet, were not there.

The heavy top-down directives did not work.

They do not seem to be working in Branford either. The BOE wonders where the teachers are. Why are they not speaking up? Where are all of the parents? It must be a few silly parents. Trouble makers.

Ultimately, Bersin was replaced by Carl Cohn. Cohn noted that the ‘my way or the highway’ approach “ignored the fundamental principal of trust among those who make schooling effective: students, teachers, principals and administrators”. He realized that the teachers on the front lines needed to be built up rather than repeatedly stomped upon. In fact, San Diego is just starting to show signs of improvement.

Let us hope our new superintendent has the insight of Cohn rather than the control of Bersin or Mayor Bloomberg.

Whether or not test scores improve in San Diego, New York, Timbukto or Branford is not the issue. Ms. Ravitch questions, “Can teachers successfully educate children to think for themselves if teachers are not treated as professionals who think for themselves?”

There are many issues with education reform. Ravitch, as an education historian, has a better appreciation for this than any of us. She notes that first and foremost, there exists no quick fix for education reform. She mentions the merit of the 1983 report, “A Nation at Risk,” written by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. This report says that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our future as a Nation” and we “have lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling”.

We, too, have lost sight. We are loosing our sense of community. We are emphasizing accountability to tests, rather than to our children. We hesitate to question authority. We are grasping on to the status quo. We need a new vision.

###

Comments

posted by: Allan Brison on May 27, 2010 1:29pm

Thanks to the Independent and to Laura Troidle for this excellent review of Diane Ravitch’s superb book.

posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on June 1, 2010 1:06pm

If Ravitch didn’t blindly support teachers through their unions, and ignore the profound positive impact of high-performing charter schools, or dismiss the positive power of vouchers, her conclusions on effective education might carry more weight.

As important as understanding what works and what doesn’t in the classroom is deciding how our schools ought to be governed. Ravitch believes in total government control over schools and seems to accept everything bad that comes with that, including corrupt political Boards of Ed. and the destructive influence of the NEA, the AFT, and their locals. Once a champion of NCLB, she now rejects charter schools as an important part of the reform picture. She has never sufficiently offered any explanations for her converted positions on public school governance.

Back in the 80s and 90s there were loud chants to defeat “outcome based education”. Now we have another version of the same chant as the protectors of the status quo rail against “high-stake testing”.

As far as tests go, Branford and inner city New Haven are two different cases. In Branford, I suppose you could more easily make the argument against the emphasis placed on high stakes testing as it can detract from the overall educational experience. I agree to a point.

But in New Haven, where many people have been ill-served by the education establishment, and now whose children score below basic proficiency, CMTs and CAPTs serve as a very important barometer of whether knowledge and skills are being effectively taught by teachers.

We are also starting to recognize that there is actually a science behind effective instruction as discussed in this recent NYT magazine article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html?pagewanted=1

The bottom line is that you can’t transfer love of learning if your students cannot read a paragraph, compose a proper sentence, or add two three-digit numbers together.

And have you ever noticed who tends to make these arguments against more rigor in the classroom? College-educated people like Ravitch. How ironic it is that the same people who now comfortably occupy cushy tenured positions, are protected from the real economy, and who have graduated from competitive colleges and graduate programs only after having attended rigorous prep schools and studied for…..HIGH STAKES TESTS like the SATs, now are against basic standards of learning and accountabilities for teachers.

And they want to actually discourage acquisition of basic skills for people who are under-educated and poverty stricken because it doesn’t fit into their idealistic vision of how the world should work?

Maybe they would be willing to experiment with their own children - or resign from their posts at Stanford or Columbia and work part-time as a Walmart greeter or a McDonalds cashier and THEN argue against the inclusion of basic standards in education and accountabilities within the teaching profession.

posted by: Laura Troidle on June 1, 2010 4:50pm

Correction:

NYCHOLD was founded by Elizabeth Carson and Christine Larson. Dr. Bras Braams is a physicist and is a co-web editor with Ms. Carson.

posted by: Allan Brison on June 1, 2010 7:42pm

FIX,

Many of your contentions concerning Ravitch are dead wrong. She has, for example, explained in great detail why she initially fell for No Child Left Behind and why she now feels different. Her explanations as to why charter schools should not be a major part of the mix are thorough and, to me, convincing.

Nor is the assertion that she believes in “total government control” for governance accurate.

As to testing, one could argue that “High Stakes Testing” might be appropriate for a 16-year old taking SAT’s in applying to college; but not be appropriate for a 9-year old in primary school.

As to the “cushy” positions that many charter critics have, one could well argue that many charter advocates are also well-heeled. Juan Gonzalez, for example, has reported on Democracy Now! that many charter administrators and principals have salaries in the 500,000 dollar range.

Not a bad haul, especially as compared to what their counterparts make in the public school system.

I would encourage anybody interested in this important topic to pick up Diane Ravitch’s book and look it over for themselves, rather than taking anything FIX or I might say at face value.

You could also log on to www.democracynow.org, do a search on the home page for “Ravitch” or “charter” and listen and watch the stories and interviews that Amy and Juan have done with Diane Ravitch.

posted by: FIX THE SCHOOLS on June 2, 2010 12:17pm

Allan,

As far as I know, Ravitch does not believe that any form of privately-managed schooling is appropriate in the public education sphere writ large. That is government control.

The problem with testing at 16 is that its too late at that point. You cannot remediate someone’s skills when they are a sophomore in high school. (Not even Ravitch is saying that we ought not to test in all grades.)

As for charter admin pay, if they deliver the results then they can pay themselves whatever they want. That’s the thing about choice. If a city in CT. wants to hire a high performing charter school to run some schools and results are roughly the same and all that separates the competing charter proposals is cost, then guess who wins the bid?

As for comparing charter admin. pay to the regular district you remind me of one of my favorite quotes from Babe Ruth. When he was told that President Hoover made less than the $80k that he was demanding, Ruth said “I had a better year than he did”.

And lastly, Gonzalez is not an objective reporter. He is a columnist with very strong opinions, and who has strong philosophical notions about public schooling. There is nothing wrong with that but if you think he is an objective reporter then Fox is fair and balanced.

New Haven Independent Login Form