Finally, Some Real Changes in Public Education

Public education is royally screwed up in Los Angeles, as in urban centers the country over, and in L.A. it's heartening to watch a groundswell of outrage shape itself into action. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's gallant play for control of the embattled school district was struck down by the courts, but successes are brewing; just last week, the Los Angeles Board of Education voted -- after a contentious debate -- to hand over one of the city's most underperforming high schools to Green Dot Public Schools, a nonprofit charter organization with an excellent track record.* Whether Angelinos agree or disagree with specific actions taken, finally we are talking in new ways about education, and finally there is movement in this long-stagnant quagmire. We can only hope that such movement is contagious on the national stage.

Relating to this issue on a personal level, it seems telling that of all the journalistic stories I've written over the years, the one that continues to garner the most feedback is a quick essay I published in the Los Angeles Times when I was a freshman in college. The story is an overview of my experience at Berkeley High School, a huge, beautifully diverse public high school in Berkeley, Calif. I began ninth grade determined to take every AP class and expand my resume in every possible way in pursuit of the Ivy League, but it soon became apparent that I was sacrificing truer passions such as writing and music for empty daydreams of future prestige. So I opted to drop the success ethic rigmarole and instead to try and view high school as an innately worthwhile experience rather than as rote preparation for college or the workforce beyond. The kicker to this story, which in a backwards way grabs the attention of parents busy corralling their kindergarteners into SAT prep courses, is that I ended up getting into schools like Stanford and UC Berkeley anyway (and then decided on Occidental, a small liberal arts college in L.A.).

Doesn't sound like a revolutionary suggestion, huh? That kids might actually enjoy their education rather than viewing it as preparation for some future idyll that always gets postponed? In a better world, my story would not have been newsworthy, and the fact that I still hear about it from college counselors, teachers, parents and students is a testament to how awfully screwed up our educational system has become -- and how deeply we all yearn for something better.

I was lucky at Berkeley High to encounter teachers who strove with great heart to bring about meaningful change. My English teacher and first journalistic mentor, Rick Ayers, invited me to join his "small school" within BHS, an innovative program which eliminates tracking and brings together kids from the entire racial, socioeconomic and academic spectrum into single classrooms for three periods a day. I learned more from these classmates, from the ocean of their life experience, than I did in any tracked, ostensibly "high level" classes. At first, our classroom was self-segregated on racial and cultural lines along with the rest of the school, and it would have remained that way were it not for Rick's remarkable ability to inject empathy into the room. Mainly, his technique was simply to listen -- when a student was fumbling for words, or angry, or scared, Rick listened -- and we listened alongside, and in the process began to see past stereotypes, to appreciate each other as people.

My high school years were engaging and fulfilling, thanks to folks like Rick, but as is typical with urban public schools, many kids at Berkeley High either fell through the cracks and dropped out, for lack of adequate support, or lived in the future tense, for too much of the wrong kind of support. Thus, both low achievers and high achievers are existentially absent from the educational process, and most importantly are absent from each other. Criticism of public schools typically hinges on the persistent inability to inspire low achievers, but the problem of "chronic achievement syndrome" among elite students is interrelated as it engenders in them an inability to participate fully in a diverse community as engaged citizens among peers. The ideal of a liberal education as an experience that broadens and deepens the person as well as the mind, that prepares students for true citizenship in the Greek sense, falls by the wayside.

Working as a journalist in Los Angeles these last few years, getting to know kids who went through the Los Angeles Unified School District, memories of Berkeley High have come wafting back: Here again is a vastly diverse student population -- a great asset! -- paired with some extremely talented teachers whose efforts to reform the system are hobbled by a bureaucracy vigorously hostile to innovation. On rare occasions, renegade teachers are able to overcome resistance and see their innovative ideas and programs come to fruition, but in the end relatively few students have access to these resources, and the old model -- assembly line learning, overcrowded classrooms, social division via tracking, emphasis on testing rather than learning -- trucks forward. There is really no villain here, no organized administrative blockade, just a behemoth organization calcified in its ways and lacking sufficient motivation to shake things up and begin anew.

If the system cannot be changed from within, then it seems that we must change it from without. In Los Angeles as in other cities whose bloated school districts are stuck in a rut, education entrepreneurs are hard at work breathing life into alternative visions. Instead of expending all their creative energy fighting to implement changes in current schools, many of these entrepreneurs choose to create their own public charter schools. The upshot here is twofold: First and foremost, students are given the choice to enroll in public schools that are methodologically and organizationally dynamic and creative, and secondly, as a critical mass of charter schools enters the equation, school districts are forced by competition on the open market to update and improve their dysfunctional models.

The multilayered efficacy of this approach is well illustrated by the success of Green Dot Public Schools, which operates charter schools in some of L.A.'s poorest neighborhoods. Founded in 1999 by colorful education entrepreneur Steve Barr, Green Dot has regularly bested LAUSD statistics -- in 2006, for instance, Green Dot graduated roughly 80 percent of its students, whereas the LAUSD graduation rate hovered under 50 percent. Numbers can be misleading, of course, but the principles undergirding the Green Dot philosophy make so much sense that it's easy to wonder why the school district hasn't been employing this model all along -- which, I guess, is sort of the point. Green Dot's commonsensical tenets are, in sum: "Small, safe, personalized schools," "high expectations," "local control," "parent participation," "get every dollar into the classroom," and "keep schools open later."

As was the plan from the get-go, Green Dot and other charter organizations are putting intense pressure on the LAUSD, and the results have been rapid and tangible. As mentioned earlier, just last week the L.A. Board of Education voted to hand over to Green Dot control of Locke High School, one of the lowest performing schools in the district and the state. Green Dot plans on dividing Locke into multiple small schools to be run independently according to their central tenets, just as they did in 2006 when they took over Jefferson High School, traditionally the lowest performing school in the district. Even given the troubled history of Locke and Jefferson -- blighted by the manifold exigencies of poverty, not to mention low test scores -- Green Dot expects its replacement schools to eventually graduate over 80 percent of students and enroll three-quarters of graduates in four-year colleges. A lofty goal, to be sure, but this can-do optimism is welcome in a milieu long dominated by the reverse.

The point here is not that Green Dot or any other charter organization has all the answers, but that in L.A. as in Oakland, New York City and elsewhere, the pot is being stirred. A clear answer to the problems endemic to public education will not arrive overnight, nor will there ever be a one-size-fits-all solution; society is fluid, problems are fluid, and so our school system must also be agile and fluid. Innovators must be given room to implement new ideas, despite the growing pains that result. Perhaps one of these days, more public school kids will sit in their college dorm rooms reminiscing as I did in that essay for the L.A. Times -- "High school was one of the best experiences of my life," I wrote, "and I'll always remember it fondly." It's worth mentioning that even now, years later, this sentiment remains for me singularly and wholeheartedly true.

* Full disclosure: NewSchools Venture Fund, where I am a part time journalist-in-residence, provides support to charter school organizations including Green Dot.

Comments

[DIOeducationist]

Foremost, I would like to address that your title immediately drew my attention because of its ingenuousness; furthermore, its sincerity lead me to have high expectations for your blog. As a charter school teacher myself, I hinted that your post would allocate discussion to the charter division, if not placing it at the forefront of your argument. Secondly, your post was very well-composed and articulate, keeping me interested and fond of reading it thoroughly. I relished how you incorporated your unique secondary school experiences into your argument; they were very appropriate and supplemented tangible evidence to your position. I definitely agree with your argument that charter schools are a miraculous remedy for students and parents from underprivileged backgrounds. Referencing Green Dot in particular was a very prudent decision being the non-profit organization has an outstanding reputation reflecting its great increase not only in test scores, thus fulfilling NCLB, but also in high school graduation rates and transitioning students into 4-year institutes compared to neighboring public schools. My only concern reflected primarily on athletics. Though Green Dot has been successful in many domains that traditional public schools remain unaccomplished, what happens to the various extra-curricular activities offered in public schools? Moreover, are sports and student clubs even a vital aspect of Green Dot"s entire curriculum? Extra- curricular activities, in addition to academics, remain prominent to a student"s high school experiences, if not his/her future career aspiration. Furthermore, what happens to highly gifted athletes who certainly desire good education alongside getting recruited into the University of their Choice on a full-ride scholarship? One memory that I admired at LACES but never got from my later charter high school was the great sense of school spirit being that I was one of the renowned Breaststrokers and dance team innovators. I wonder if Green Dot or similar charters consider athletics in their rigorous programs. Though athletics should not be the greatest aspect of a child"s educational structure, they do play a crucial role in the child"s overall school experience and transition into their next realm of education.

[irishgawdess]

I agree with the premise of your article. However, I believe this sentence underscores the debate between idealized American public schools vs. how they actually are:

"The ideal of a liberal education as an experience that broadens and deepens the person as well as the mind, that prepares students for true citizenship in the Greek sense..."

This statement is out of context with the realities on the ground. It reminds one of the colonial period in America when the ruling class elite established universities patterned after Cambridge and Oxford. They enrolled their 13-year old sons to study the bible, Latin, the Greek Classics, and citizenship while preparing to become civic leaders or clergy via a "liberal education."

Not until Horace Mann developed the American public school in the mid-19th century were American children provided an education. While pondering the social problems created by the great influx of immigrants in Boston during the mid-1800s, as well as the need for factory workers by the industrialists, Mann created the first public school system in America. It was modeled after that of Prussia, which Mann had seen first-hand while studying at university there as a young man. That school system had been developed after Prussian social scientists determined that to turn out "obedient, unquestioning soldiers and laborers" to do the work for the aristocracy, their schools must be run in a tightly controlled manner. The children of the Prussian underclass didn't start school nor learn to read until age seven, were taught only basic reading, writing, and arithmetic in a rote manner during fixed periods of time. Critical thinking was verboten. American children learned citizenship along with "the Three Rs." Seems almost altruistic in comparison.

Under NCLB, an eighth grader reading at a sixth grade level is considered literate, no remediation required as it"s considered enough to get by in our society. We hold the bar so low for the majority of our children; it"s really no surprise that the graduation rate is just 50% in the LAUSD. Especially when you know how it COULD be.

[NavyMom]

Charter schools were supposed to be labs for educational innovation. Instead many were opportunities for stealing taxpayer money. The real innovation seems to be in homeschool movement(and, no, many homeschooling families are NOT fundie. Some parents take kids out of public school so they CAN learn about evolution.And lots of other stuff.)

[AmandaM]

I don't know, the whole home-schooling movement just doesn't seem like the best idea to me. There are things learned in a classroom environment that you can't learn at home. Socializing and interacting with your peers, a certain amount of healthy competition, making friends - they all happen in a classroom.

I definitely believe that a solid education starts at home. My parents started teaching me to read when I was a toddler and they struck a really good balance between helping me with homework and making me figure things out on my own. Parents who basically do the work for their kids to get them a good grade are doing a real disservice to their children. The same can be said for parents who neglect their kids' education.

[NavyMom]

I agree that this may not be best for everyone. But for some it has been a great experience, especially I think for atypical students, like Autistic kids.And I stand by the idea that this is a great way to try new ways of teaching kids who may not thrive in a public or private school classroom.

[Waubay]

In my 10 years of teaching in the public schools I have seen many children entering the public school system after being home-schooled. Here is what I have seen without exception: #1. Children with absolutely no social skills - they are treated as outcasts by their classmates. #2. Children with math and reading skills 2-5 years behind their classmates. I have seen cases where children have only #1 or only #2 - but most have both. I'm sure there are exceptions out there - I just have not seen any of those exceptions myself.

[drdave42]

It has been known for a long time that when a village exceeds 300 people, it will typically split. The human brain is good at social relationship tracking, but maxes out around 300.

So any school where there are more than 300 students, teachers and administrators is in for social unrest and other ills. You cannot empathize with all your compatriots, and that's a requirement for feeling comfortable, included and part of the group.

[NickHP]

Wow. What a concept. Someone in a psychology article said the limit was only 150. Still. We had loose cliques by faculty and concentration in my university, split into specialties.

If the human brain is wired to interact with that core group, limited by the number of contacts we can grasp, the number of interactions we can have in a day before they become fleeting, it explains a few things. Football teams, at 50+ players and tens of staff are at the effective Team size limits. Go Green Dot.

[yellowdogSC]

Great start!

Perhaps the next BIG change will be when a REAL Secretary of Education is chosen.

In light of "No Child Left Behind", Secretary of Education, Margret Spellings credentials are appalling.

What joke or satire could possibly have been more effective than that this Secretary of Education has ZERO education in Education, and ZERO work experience in Education.

According to the White House website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/spellings-bio.html
her only qualification is that:
"SHE"S A MOTHER".

Period.

("As the first mother of school-aged children to serve as Education Secretary, Spellings has a special appreciation for the hopes and concerns of American families.")

BUT¦..she DID help Bush's election for Governor of Texas.

And we all know what that means.

[philistine]

Imagine what we could be doing in areas other than education by following your prescription, y-dog. Competent administrators with relevant experience in the field would be more common if we had a competent president interested in competent government. Sadly, that is not the case. Lighting a fire under Bu$h only makes him more obstinate. Long-term, that will push him to the periphery. Short-term, most of us are still suffering until such time as Chimpy can go "fill up the ol' coffers."
I had some mild hope that the Cheney and Chimpy Show could be taken off the air before 2009, but that hope has been dashed by Nancy "Off the Table" Pelosi.

I'm way off-topic now. I'll save the rest of this rant for another blog.

Best regards, all.

[yellowdogSC]

phil,

Point well taken.

This is DEFINATELY a "reverse psychology" prez.

Situation worth addressing.
3 " c