Join the conversation

AGAIN!!

You knock charter schools every chance you get even though charters give hope to inner city kids trapped in failing public schools. Alter should get a big fat bonus for his article because he is pushing the best thing bar none in urban education. We should multiply charters by a thousand.

Anonymous--How do I knock charter schools? Some of them do indeed give great hope to inner city kids. I acknowledge that. They can be incubators of reform. But I only ask for a bit of honesty. KIPP isn't THE answer. It just isn't. And if you can figure out how to multiply a successful charter model by 1000, please let me know. We'll become famous.

Claus,

Even if you dock Alter's pay, what would his per hour compensation be? How many hours, or how many minutes (or seconds) did he put into researching his assertions?

I think he needs a 90 day plan. Or maybe he needs a two year peer review plan like is described in The Grand Bargain.

His editor needs a 90 day plan.

Good point, John. As for the number of hours he required to do his work, I'm guessing it's fairly small. It doesn't take long to read talking points.

The worst part of this is that he's not doing the charter school cause any favors. The educated lay people reading his stuff will assume that charters offer a clear way forward for all cities and all kids. That's not even remotely true, as Tom Toch ably demonstrated in the most recent edition of Ed Week. And Toch is by no means averse to reform.

A very intelligent and well-intentioned friend of mine recently declared that we should just replace all traditional public schools with chargers, because charters have solved the problems of urban education. He's getting his ideas from people like Alter who do not present the issues in an honest and thoughtful way.

Some charters are truly inspiring, and they offer strong lessons for school reform. But Alter would do well to acknowledge principled concerns about untrammeled expansion on a short timeline.

Alter's thinking invariably reflects memes that are popular among the Washington-Manhattan media set. It's why he's successful in that environment--he tells the people who make the decisions in that world what they want to hear. (It's the main reason he's so popular with Keith Olbermann, who notoriously refuses to book anyone willing to disagree with him.) This set promotes charter schools for reasons that have nothing to do with merit or lack thereof. One goal they have is to see public subsidies for private schools, and charters are seen as a bridge. They are also quite corporatist in their thinking, and a key expression of that ideology is contempt for unions. Teachers' unions are among the last politically effective ones still out there, so they come in for special abuse.

Big-media pundits aren't employed because of merit. If that were the case, virtually everyone writing for the Washington Post's op-ed page would have been fired long ago. (The majority of the New York Times' columnists would be gone, too.) They're there because of position and connections, with the key connection being either mommy or daddy. Would anyone know or care who Chris Wallace, William Kristol, John Podhoretz, Jonah Goldberg, Tucker Carlson, Mika Brzezinski, or Evan Thomas was if it hadn't been for their parents? I turned on the TV last week to see Luke Russert, of all people, participating in an ostensibly serious roundtable on politics. If your parents aren't pulling strings for you, there aren't many options beyond sucking up and reinforcing what the bosses think. Alter is a master of the latter. You should read his advocacy of torture in the aftermath of 9/11.

Thanks, eliot926. I think it's true that some otherwise astute writers have been seduced by the economists. I really don't object to arguments for performance pay and charter schools. But the suggestion that these reforms alone, universally applied, and without any acknowledgement of the big, big implementation challenges they present drives me crazy. National columnists should know better.

And I hadn't really considered the nepotism angle. Is there a Papa Alter?

Claus is right--I should be judged by my performance. That's why I find it so peculiar that opponents of reform don't want teachers to be judged on theirs. Why should teachers be treated any differently than other professionals when it comes to accountability for performance?
(BTW, I'm a longtime supporter of helping teachers--a founding board member of donorschoose.org, which is dedicated to ending the shameful status quo, where teachers often have to buy their own supplies).
Re charters: Of course there are some bad ones; in Arizona and other states where they expanded too quickly, there are many bad ones. But in many states, reform advocates trying to start good charter schools have been stymied by caps. How can you in good conscience defend them? You know as well as I do that the caps are simply the product of unions trying to defend the old ways of doing business. (I'm a big supporter of unionism in general, btw, especially the SEIU).There's an easy way to prevent lousy charter schools--stricter enforcement of the standards for chartering them in the first place and a greater willingness to shut them down when they don't work. I never said that KIPP alone was the answer. But there are plenty of KIPP-like schools that deserve a chance.
With the president's support, the pool of reformers is growing. Come on in, guys. The water's warm.
P.S.: No, I didn't get my job through my parents. Those arguments are beneath you.

Jonathan,

Thank you for your comment. I should start with an apology. The nepotism comment was indeed beneath me. I've long called for greater civility in debates on school reform, and I certainly violated that principle. The desire to be "snarky" in a blog can certainly cloud the judgment, but I should know better.

I should also say that we do not have an opinion on caps. I work with far too diverse a coaltion to venture a position on that issue.

What prompted my overheated response to your piece was growing frustration at the way charter schools are being portrayed in the media. I have often praised the top charters in these pages. It would be great to expand their impact so that they can reach more kids. And it would be great to use them as laboratories for innovation, as Al Shanker suggested years ago. That is indeed happening in some places.

But too many in the media are promising, often through sins of omission, more than charter schools are likely to deliver in terms of system-wide improvement. The good ones are awfully difficult to scale up, and the research on charters nationwide is mixed. At least one recent national Stanford study suggested that charter schools on the whole were a bit more likely to perform worse--not better--than traditional public schools that serve similar students. Charter school advocates have since questioned that study and offered accounts of charter school success in specific cities. In any event, it's fair to say that the systemic impact of charters remains in question.

You're quite right to support much better charter school authorizing laws, though I'm not sure that has been as easy as you suggest. But my bigger concern is the difficulty of scaling up the really good models fast. No authorizing law can solve that problem. On this point, see Tom Toch's thoughtful piece in Education Week. Tom has certainly earned his chops as reform advocate.

My bigger concern these days is the media's and policy community's almost exclusive focus on governance and incentives. Many reforms that get far closer to the classroom get all but ignored. Staff development in public schools has been pretty bad, all in all, but we have strong standards for doing it much better. How do we create the conditions for improving staff development, which could have a big, big payoff? The standards movement fell far short of its promise in large part because it stopped at standards. How do we create better curriculum, and accompanying tools for teachers, to improve instruction? Many countries that perform better than we do in international assessments have impressive models for teacher collaboration. How do we help teachers collaborate more effectively? There are many more questions we should be asking in the mainstream press, but I fear the public is becoming seduced by the notion that big governance fixes, like the multiplication of charters, will do the trick in and of themselves.

Again, apologies for the tone of my previous remarks.

My apologies as well, given that I started the nepotism discussion. My defense is that it came up as part of a broader point about merit being not being terribly relevant to one's success in the national media. I should also note that if one reads my original comment, one will see that I distinguish Alter from the nepotism crowd. However, I was wrong to play along with speculation about it afterwards.

Mr. Alter,

You must be aware of the New Yorker article's statements on Value Added Models for evaluations. Are you aware of ANY sources for those statements other than The New Teacher Project (founded by Michelle Rhee)? Are you aware that Jacob Weisberg's quotes in that article went far far beyond anything published by the TNTP like the Widget Effect, and not even the few social scientists who favor the TNTP approach to evaluations would deny that Weisberg's quotes were false? Are you aware that the statments in the Widget Effect are being repudiated by the vast majority of scholars in the field? Did you check the only footnote cited for their extraodinary statements? Do you realize that the sources they cited argue against the TNTP's claims? You may be aware of the work of the McKinsey Group but are you aware they also only had one footnote (that I can recall) to support their extraordinary claim that schools alone can overcome generational poverty? Do you realize their sole evidence was that Hispanics in Ohio outscore Whites in x number of states, but members of the small longstanding Hispanic community have a per family income of about double the income of Whites in those states? Do you realize that the TNTP data on teachers teaching in the NYC ATR and the number removed from teaching under the Toledo Plan are false, and they've said they would adjust those false figures but they still haven't done so? (the purpose of the Toldeo Plan is to remove ineffective teachers without litigation and the TNTP know that but refused to acknowledge that it removes 8% of teachers per year.)

Yes there are plenty of KIPP-like schools that deserve a chance, but rarely is that the issue. The issue is that KIPP can never, under circumstances of today, expand beyond a very small niche. I don't criticize KIPP or charters, but they don't have to follow the polcies that are mandated from up high. Whenver you open a KIPP, that just creams off more of the most motivated, and charters get to dump their most troubled kids on neighborhood schools, that creates a greater critical mass of troubled kids in neighborhood schools.

Do you believe that teachers voluntarily follow the longstanding policies that prevent us from raising academic and behavioral standards? So why would we turn our fates over to the administrations that created those policies?

Do you relize how different you'd see things if you spent one semester in a hardcore neighborhood secondary school like mine? Do you think we like going to the funerals, the jails, and the hospitals? Don't you think we get tired of the blood-drenched floors? Do you think we'd impose these policies that allow the chronic disorder and violence on ourselves?

I have nothing but respect for the teaching profession in general and especially for teachers like you who work in the inner city. I have not taught there myself but I've been in enough such schools over the years to know what you're up against. I agree that scalability for the KIPP model is tough, though they now have 70 schools in challenging neighborhoods and are denting the problem. If you add the four of five other successful charter models, you get up to a reasonable percentage of districts like Newark and New Orleans. Resenting their success is so, so old. It's kind of pathetic, actually. You should be trying to figure out what they do in the most successful charters and non-charters and adapting it to your own public schools. (By the way, quit saying charters aren't public. They are). That's what Green Dot non-charters are doing in LA and they're not alone. Claus is right that the media should also focus on successful non-charter models. There are plenty of them.
I've covered American presidents for many years and never agree with them completely. That would certainly apply to President Obama and, say, the banks. But please read his speech in Madison on November 4 on education. It is superb. He is on the right side of history on firewalls, charters etc. You can nitpick about this TNTP study or that quote from the New Yorker; you're wasting your time. The old order is starting to crumble and it's about damn time. Figure out what successful schools are doing right--longer school days, no-excuses attitude etc.--and adapt them. That doesn't mean you have to adapt them entirely and burn out your teachers, but for God's sake stop being jealous of success. It just makes you look ridicuous.

"You can nitpick about this TNTP study or ..." In other words, you are refusing to do your homework before you write.

Doing a little homework for you I found this in LA this week about charters rebelling against admitting kids from the neighbrohoods.

"But many charter operators are rebelling against a provision in the initiative that requires them to give
"enrollment preference to students within each school's attendance boundaries.

Charter schools usually admit students through a lottery regardless of where in the district they live, a requirement under state law. There are exceptions, though, the most notable one being Locke High School in Watts, which was taken over by Green Dot Public Schools last year under an agreement that it would educate the students within Locke's boundaries. But the California Charter Schools Assn. finds the district's attendance-boundary requirement untenable, and some charter operators are threatening to abandon the initiative altogether."

Mr. Alter,

Thank you for rejecting the silly notion that caps on charter schools can have any effect on oversight, accountability and quality. State governments are extraordinarily capable, ethical and vigilant. They are models of efficiency, and their record of overseeing charter schools is near perfect. They could handle a rapid increase in the number of charter schools they oversee quite easily.

Making this especially easy is the fact that charter school operators are universally regarded as ethical. It is not as if there has been fiscal mismanagement or theft in Philadelphia's charter schools, an adult posing as an adolescent student in Arizona, accusations of self-dealing in a chain operating in Missouri and Indiana. And even if these things did occur, they would be exceptions to the rule, a bump in the road to reform, nothing to see here -- move along, move along.

I'm also glad you've accepted Claus' merit pay proposal. The formula is clear. Since your job is to inform the public, we're going to measure your readers' knowledge. Then, a year from now, we're going to measure it again. If they're smarter, you'll get a substantial bonus. If not, we'll put you on a 90-day plan of review, support, and, if your readers don't get smarter, we'll have to regretfully let you go. Sorry, but it's all about the readers, not the writers.

Jonathan,

I would agree that we shouldn't begrudge the best charter schools their success. KIPP schools and their most accomplished brethren have done admirable work, and I'm sure many of their graduates would be among their staunchest supporters.

But when it comes to systemic solutions to urban schools, it's hard to get around the fact that there are big scale-up problems right now. The attrition rates at KIPP schools have been troubling. A study of Boston's highly-touted charters recently revealed that fewer than half of the students never made it to graduation. About half of the students returned to regular public schools, presumably because they found the charters' standards too high. When traditional public schools lose their students, should they push them down to the less demanding school down the road?

And let's not forget that many charters still enroll lower shares of English language learners and special education students than traditional public schools do. By the New York City Department of Education's own reckoning, for example, just over 4 percent of charter students aren't proficient in English. Compare that to nearly 15 percent for the district as a whole. The numbers for special education students are pretty dramatic as well--though not as dramatic. And let's not forget that NYC is nothing if not supportive of charters.

Are these arguments for closing high-profile charters or preventing others from opening? Not really. But I still contend that the media are presenting charter schools as a magic pill, and that can do more harm than good. The occasional comment that charters are "a mixed bag" isn't enough. Charters are still as likely to be bad as they are to be good--some would say more likely--so the question of how to create many more charters quickly is by no means easy. Even the top CMO's have to be careful not to dilute their model as they expand, especially if they expand quickly.

So I guess I worry about the implication that only charters and performance pay these days seem to rate among the "real" reforms discussed in the media. As I mentioned above, there are so many other real reforms that get little attention and support nationally.

I spent the morning at Viers Mill Elementary school, for example, the school President Obama visited a couple of weeks ago. That was a downright moving experience. High proportions of kids receiving free and reduced-price lunch. High proportions of kids with special needs. And the school is absolutely buzzing with excitement and activity--and order! I would send my own child there in a heartbeat. The children are learning to very high standards--almost all of them are proficient in the Maryland State Assessment. That was certainly not the case six years ago.

How did they achieve this feat? Through new incentive structures, performance pay, or conversion to a charter? Through mass firings of teachers? No. The teachers and administration did this work together by learning how to collaborate much better, creating structures to help teachers address students' individual needs. Their district gave them a strong curriculum to help them align their efforts much better and gauge their internal progress much better. And the change in their school did not occur overnight. (Does that make them "incrementalists?")

So yes, we can learn from charters, but we can--and should--also learn from the highest performing traditional public schools. Those strategies are scalable--though replication won't be easy. That kind of work deserves national attention and stimulus! But we hear so little about schools like Viers Mill.

I suggest you pay Viers Mill a visit. They'll knock your socks off.

An interesting essay on the topic: Merit Pay Problematic, Money Is Not the Ultimate Motivator for Teachers - A former supporter of merit pay for teachers tells why it doesn’t work. By Marion Brady
http://teachers.net/gazette/JUL09/brady/

As a former teacher (a very competent one according to many), I'd like to add to Brady's points the concern that competing for merit pay would stifle cooperation among teachers, and negatively impact the willingness of good teachers to share and collaborate. Isolation and lack of collaboration need to be remedied, not perpetuated.

Dear Mr. Alter,
As a veteran high-school teacher and faithful reader of yours, I have a few comments here. First, I couldn't agree more that we need to take what works in the charter schools and use those approaches in the public schools, since while charters have had some great successes, it's the larger public schools who must deal with all the issues, both societal and educational, which hinder our students' development. Secondly, I'm committed to both teachers' unions-- which are effective and absolutely necessary to our professional wellbeing-- and public school reform. I'd like to see my colleagues in the unions find ways to be more flexible so we can move ahead; however, that would require from us a level of trust in the powers that be that is too often unwarranted, since bad faith is a product of top-down "reforms" masquerading as grass-roots change, as well as other, more human, problems, such as the ever-popular power struggle (I've noticed that the people who seek power are often the ones who should not have it because preserving it is their top priority). Finally, while I admire President Obama for taking decisive action, I can't support merit pay based on standardized test scores because those scores are never, ever, good measures of learning. A portfolio-based assessment approach combined with some (judiciously used, locally developed), open-ended/standards-based testing (NOT EVERY MONTH, SEMESTER, OR YEAR!) could be a first step; as for merit pay, it must be awarded to the entire faculty and staff of a school, not individual teachers, in order to foster the cooperation that's essential to success. Too many initiatives have been based on the "divide and conquer" model, which is damaging to the teachers and, more significantly, to the children for whom we are responsible. Oh, and one more thought: the research shows that smaller is better, both for schools and class size, and I'd like to see some of that stimulus money spent to accomplish that end. This is a great discussion; thanks for joining it.

Charter schools are not public schools inasmuch as they are not required to take all comers and inasmuch as they are free to dismiss students who do not measure up academically or (more likely) behaviorally. Public schools cannot do this.

"Charter schools are not public schools inasmuch as they are not required to take all comers and inasmuch as they are free to dismiss students who do not measure up academically or (more likely) behaviorally. Public schools cannot do this."

It's hard to imagine a comment more precisely false. Charter schools, when oversubscribed, typically have to admit students by lottery. Which means, in other words, that they have to accept students randomly, not by selectivity of any sort. And it's just ludicrously false to say that "public schools" can't dismiss students. They can and do, all the time, sometimes for such menial offenses as having a pocketknife.

I would agree that Mr. Alter misses the point with the idea of charter schools. One must remember that in the public school system, we must take in all students. Thus, I have a classroom of students who are English Language learners, students with IEPs, very bright kids, kids who can barely read. No wonder we lose many people in teaching because of such diversity in the classroom. Plus, we do have an equity gap in many parts of the country, like urban schools vs suburban schools vs. rural schools. One size fits all is not the answer.

Did the author ever teach in a public school?
MYTH--Teachers are not accountable.
FACT--In 32 years of teaching I was formally evaluated by the principal at least twice a year for my non-tenured years and formally at least once every other year once tenured. It now takes four years to gain tenure here. I also was continually evaluated by students and their parents, and by area employers -- where I placed students to industry standards! To maintain our certificates, we also have to continue to take classes and workshops every year--often at our own expense.
Effective principals are in the labs and classes regularly--the lazy ones skip the visits and evaluations altogether.
Are the lazy administrators the ones who get to dole out the merit and performance pay?
By the way, tenure only means you get due process and a chance to be remediated (correct whatever was wrong) when found unsatisfactory. It varies by state. Even with tenure a school in my state can remove any teacher within 90 days, immediately if they deem it necessary.
FACT--Approximately 50% of new teachers self select themselves out of the profession within five years.
MYTH-- Charter Schools can solve our problems.
FACT--Charter schools were supposed to be incubators for new ideas, free from the overwhelming burden of bureaucracy that the rest of us suffer under. The good ideas were then to be transplanted into the regular schools.
Now most charters take the cream of the crop students, keep out students with IEPs, mandate involved parents, and insist on a trained, motivated and evaluated administrator. Charters do this with little or no accountability and no documented consistent improvements over regular schools.
And what are the public schools to do with the rest of the student body?
MYTH--Unions are the problem.
FACT--My union and I fought for high standards of behavior--often supported by area employers. We actually worked to encourage a principal to remediate and then remove a teacher who was not performing well. My teachers union asked during contract negotiations for peer review and tried to get administrators to develop mentoring programs--all to no avail. We bargained away teacher raises to fund more class supplies. Teachers and their unions do not run the schools. And we are rarely at the table to develop policies.
REALITY CHECK--
Three of my students were shot and killed in the past few years. Others have been arrested for violent crimes. I had to deal with verbal abuse, gambling and drug use daily with virtually no administrative or parental support. We had an increasing number of pregnant girls, girls with children and neglected or abused teens. At the same time we had a reduction of resources that I could turn to in my school to intervene in these kids lives. I faced a lack of school counselors and social workers, a reduction in the number of academic aides, little disciplinary follow up by administrators, a pervasive lack of parental involvement and even a reduction in police resource officers in our building.
How do we motivate those troubled students? How do we save them?
I've saw more violence and bad behavior daily in my last several years as a teacher than on any given day on any tour of duty in my 36 years of military service.
I've served in the military, worked in commercial media and private business and continue to teach in higher education.
Walk a mile in my shoes before you prescribe what public school teachers should do.