education and the achievement gap

Read an interesting article on some schools that have made great progress in closing the achievement gap in New York City.

The funny thing is that I read about the schools and their strategy and I come up with the opposite conclusion.

Then they this about the school's philosophy

To me this shows that the reformers really arent right. Yes they got results but by keeping the children in school longer and working on discipline, attitudes, and values - something that is more the job of families and socity than schools. If you offer this to every poor district in the country, we'll go bankrupt and eventually the government will be raising all the poor children. After 2006, half of the teachers at these schools left. After 2007, a third of the teachers left. With stats like that can they achieve long term success.

Read the article. Interested in what other think.

 

Isn't this called "trying to break the cycle"??

Sounds like it talks about a segment of society that doesn;t have much familiarity with the values that are creating positive results. So this program spends twice as long introducing this generation to them, as their family and community don;t know much about them. The reliable, quantifiable results probably won't be coming for 6 or 7 years yet. And then, those will only be the beginning.

 

The Jesuits have been using a model very similar to this since the 1970s. They call it the "Nativity Model," named for the Nativity School in New York where they first tried it.

In Jesuit education, the idea is called (in latin) cura personalis. That means "care of the whole person."

They now run a dozen or more "Nativity" -style schools across the country. http://www.companysj.com/v184/nativityschools.htm

Of special note to soccer fans:

 

Here is a website with a more comprehensive look at this model:
http://www.nativitymiguelschools.org/index.php

* All have school days lasting from 9-10 hours.
* Many (like Loyola here in STL) go most Saturdays.
* Most have mandatory summer sessions.
* Two meals per day are served...sometimes 3.
* Small class sizes and lots of one-on-one attention.

Whitesbouy, as far as quantifiable results, at Loyola Academy the boys come in to the sixth grade with stadardized test scores in the range of 20th-40th percentiles, and finish the eighth grade with scores in 60th-80th percentiles. Some even higher.

They graduate from Loyola with the skills needed to succeed in high school. After ten years, 94% of Loyola's grads complete high school within 4 years of graduating from Loyola.

Here's Loyola's website: http://www.loyolaacademy.org/home.html

 

As to the original post...

I agree that these things SHOULD come from the home. But when they don't, what then? What do we do with these kids who grow up without discipline, without values, without support?

Lets face it, the way our society has answered that question for the past half centrury or more is to concentrate the problem in the crappy parts of town, and then be sure NOT to live anywhere near those parts of town.

Agreed. That's why I'm excited about the schools I mention above. The problem seems overwhelming. These small schools nibble at the edge of it, offering a hopeful pathway to those who are motivated and ambitious enough to "break the cycle," without wasting (I'm wincing as I type that...it sounds so harsh) resources on those who are unmotivated and, perhap, hopeless (another wince).

It is the latter group that causes the high rate of staff turnover you mentioned.

 

This is great! I was going to weigh in on how the system got that way and that it cant be fixed in the same way it was broken, and it WAS BROKEN. It didnt just 'fall into disrepair'.

But I hesitated because I realized the history of it is moot. What's important is to realize the solution must be drastic in conception and practice, at least at the initial stage.

 

Just to be clear, not my original post, but Mo's.

 

Several comments here do not make a lot of sense to me as I work in a public school:

Concerning the students being at the school for 9 or 10 hours per day.

I do not see how that is any different than public school due to before and after school programs, and Extracurricular activities. Our students arrive at 8 AM and the Activity Bus takes them home after practice/activities at 6 PM. Are all of those 10 hours spent on academic instruction - NO! And I sure as hell hope it never changes to that because developmentally it is inappropriate anyway.

Second - as to the "Whole Person" stuff:
I am in a low income district where 90% of the students are on free/reduced lunch.
We feed them for free.
They all have medical coupons for free medical, dental, and vision.
We provide free counciling for the students and their families.
We teach their parents for free.
We pay for them to compete in athletics for free.
We provide school supplies for free.
We spend countless hours in mind numbing meetings talking about how we can make sure we are meeting the individual and family needs.
We create individualized education plans for all of these students.
We have employees who's only job is to work with parents and facilitate communication.
We are held accountable if these students do not perform at the same level as upper-class students.
We have federal grants and programs in place for before and after school tutoring and 'boys and girls club' like activities.
We provide free day care.
We provide free translation services.
I am tired of typing and thinking, but I am sure there are more things we do to take care of the 'whole person.'

The only difference and benefit I see in this kind of a model is that you can get rid of bad teachers easier due the lack of a teachers union, and you decrease class size.

The problem I see is that these private/charter schools traditionally pay less and I would guess that is why teachers leave. Also - these are schools in areas where there is a high cost of living. All schools in those kinds of areas with underprivileged kids have a hard time retaining teachers.

The area in which I live I have had a number of parents approach me to encourage me to start a charter school. I have no interest in doing so because pulling out all the students who have parental support or those with the ambition to succeed will destroy the public school system and lead to a larger division in classes - not a smaller one.

But - I believe in public education so take my comments for what they are worth.

 

I will not argue with you. Not all situations are as they are in my small, rural school district. We have plenty of problems and a handful of less effective teachers (At times we are all less effective - that is probably important to point out).

Some kids do fall through the cracks, and not all take advantage of athletics and extracurricular activities. It is true that instruction can be limited and interrupted by lower level, or disruptive students.

It is also true that the education system is in constant need of reform and I realize we will never find a silver bullet. The reality is that we are all trying to wrestle with the definition of what it means to be educated, and the varied definitions have conflicting best practices.

The only thing I will disagree with is your comment that the phrase, 'public school mentality,' exists for a reason.

There is something strange going on in our country as it continues with its question of authority. Somehow the public servant - including members of military (and it seems the middle class in general), have found that their credibility is being eroded. I dont know who is to blame for this or how it is repaired, but by in large I know public educators to be committed, concerned, dedicated members or the community who are on the front lines in the clash of generational ideals.

I am not aware of a mentality of mediocrity among the majority of educators, and I am disappointed when I hear that a person looks back on their public education with contempt.

I am especially discouraged when I hear such things being perpetuated by institutions of higher learning - but this is another subject for another time.

 

Careful... the longer this is discussed the closer you get to expanding to the 'Big Picture'.

Let's just say the 'Cultural Mindset'... brought on by those who complain loudest about the results of their own actions.

Just so you dont jump to the obvious.. and wrong.. motivations for the above, I'll point the finger at PaleoConservatives of the sixties as greatly contributing. That's not something I arrived at in my old age. that is what I felt at the time. Gee... even though I was willing to take the possible bullet for such programs as Affirmative Action, I was right!

But I didnt worry about that, I was worried about the effect of Great Society program qualifications; like 'able bodied male in household' and what they would mean to future generations.

 

I will say this - Schools are part of a system, but they are also individual entities...

As such there are some poor, good, and exceptional public schools. The definition of an exceptional school (To Me) would be one where it is an integral part of the community because it provides services for the common good (Which I doubt was the intended role for the public school system, but regardless - that is the place we find ourselves), while also producing students that meet whatever standard is currently popular or accepted.

Charter or private schools are designed to meet a need. They also create competition - which I believe in.

That being said - competition in the sense of only being concerned with the 'bottom line' doesnt seem to have a place when you consider that the education system in this country is all tangled up in our social fabric.

Look - this is a difficult question that has been spinning around from the get go.

Not all public schools are good. In that situation - a charter or private school may be a good option.