Presenters:
- Bob Wedl, partner in Education Evolving and former Minnesota Commissioner of Education
- Jon Bacal, executive director of the newly created Office of New Schools in Minneapolis Public Schools
- Jeff Buszta, a North High teacher working on a New Schools proposal
Meeting Summary: Legislative changes allow Public School Districts to approve self-governed schools. The structure gives teachers control over budget, curriculum and other decisions. The School Board has to approve the plan, including accountability measures. The new structure is not an end in itself. If schools don’t meet targets, the district ends the contract. Self-governed schools join charter schools and contract alternative schools as new school models. Minneapolis is poised to approve several self-governed schools. During the Q&A, several long-time educators raised concerns that similar reforms had been tried in the past and the structure would lead to teacher burnout. Others said it did not address integration issues.
The following is a meeting paraphrase.
Bob Wedl
We need to approach the new schools like a split screen. On one screen we want to work to improve what we have, the constant, continuous improvement. On the other screen we need to create new and different models of schools.
Facts: We have always said we want all of our students to be successful. We haven’t designed our schools to make that happen. Some students do well in the current of schools. Some unsuccessful students need different kinds of schools. Sometimes we ignore the fact that some successful students could fly in new kinds of schools. Individualization is the key. Technology is a major asset to individualized learning. Technology is no longer just a teacher’s aid; technology is a teacher. We don’t use it enough. Kids are a lot different today. The only thing in their life that is not individualized is school.
Realities: Revenue picture is not getting better; it is getting worse. We have used all the gimmicks. Federal stimulus money is one time. School Boards can’t cut any more.
What not to do: Don’t circle the wagons or act like the auto industry in the 70s, seeking to put up barriers to competing products. We shouldn’t seek solutions that say we will make students come to the schools that we have.
Redesign: We suggest the long-term strategy is redesign. We need to do things different. Redesign includes the creation of new and different kinds of schools. One option is site-governed schools. When we talk about site-governed schools or charter schools or contract schools, we are talking about using those management tools as a vehicle to create new schools.
New law: The Minnesota legislature amended the law last session to allow public school districts significant autonomy over school design. New school sites get to decide which teachers get to work at that school. They get to decide leadership, whether to have a principal or use a teachers professional practices model, like doctors and lawyers. The site decides student policies. The School Board has to approve the plan.
Self-governed schools: Teacher governed schools have the same flexibility as charter schools, which are exempt from tons of laws and regulations. Self-governed schools are exempt from all of those except pension laws and tenure.
Empowering teachers: The research behind site governed professional empowerment does not come out of education. We have never really done that. We hear a lot of discussion about “we need better teachers.” Usually that means people with higher GPAs. That may be so. But we believe we need to create a better job for the teacher. We tell teachers you have no say over your curriculum or who your colleagues are. And by the way, you can’t go out for lunch for the next 30 years, either. That is not exactly the kind of environment where young people are saying, “I want to do that.”
Accountability: This model provides better accountability for results. These sites will have written performance agreements with the School Board and will be held accountable for what is in that agreement.
Start up revenue: It costs money for start up. We are in discussion to create in the “Race to the Top” application to the federal government. It would ask for the same kind of federal start-up funding as charter schools. ($200,000 a year for three years.)
Jon Bacal, MPS
Jamal and Sierra: Jamal is in 3rd grade, Sierra in 2nd. They lived in south Minneapolis when I met them. They would be classified as a highly mobile family. There are six kids in all and mom has struggled with chemical dependency for a while. She is a wonderful mom and does her best. It is hard for those children to get up in the morning and get to school. It’s a very familiar story. What changed for them? They found a new school where the principal went to their home when they weren’t making it to the bus. He bought the children an alarm clock so they could get up, regardless of what was happening with mom. Their teachers worked very hard with them and they loved their teachers. Over the past year, student achievement has increased at this school, Hiawatha Leadership Academy. This is an example of the kinds of schools we need more of in the city of Minneapolis.
No silver bullet: The Board has set high student achievement goals. We would like 80 percent to be on track for college by 2012. We would like to close the achievement gap by 75 percent. The question is what are the strategies? There is no silver bullet.
Restructure underperforming schools: The MPS strategic plan talks about restructuring the lowest performing 25 percent of schools. The list will be released in the next couple of months. Those schools need to do something dramatically different. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan outlined several ideas, such as replace at least half the teachers and the principal or changing to a high-performing charter school.
New schools: We as a school district are agnostic about what structure that new school wants to use. There are three kinds in state law: charter schools (we have had them for 18 years); contract alternative schools (typically serving high school kids who have struggled in traditional schools); and now self-governed schools. None exist currently. I am working on a daily basis with three groups that intend to apply. Our role is to cultivate and recruit and support and make sure these groups have technical assistance. We will select the schools for approval and review performance data. We will decide whether to renew the contract. (Performance contracts are a three-year agreement that can be severed earlier or extended.)
Portfolio strategy: There are many large urban districts moving toward a portfolio strategy. New York and Chicago were pioneers. The idea is to manage a portfolio of schools. Give them freedom to make decisions about staff and program and budget and focus on the results they can achieve. Charter laws were passed in 1991 and we didn’t know much about the oversight and accountability process. It was undeveloped. Today in MN you have 52 entities that authorize 150+ charter schools. Some are very good. Some are in the middle and some are bad. Some have been closed. It hasn’t been a strategic approach used by school board and districts to achieve performance. We don’t have a random interest in new schools for the sake of new schools. The focus is higher student achievement.
No proven strategies: This is a fairly new and to some extent unproven strategy, in large part because there are no proven strategies for a large urban districts. It does parallel a couple of areas of promising research.
Factors outside of school’s control: In this country the greatest predictor of student academic performance is mother’s education level. What that says is that most schools today have a relatively limited impact on student academic trajectories. That is not true in a number of other countries, such as Finland, the province of Alberta, South Korea and Singapore. The first two are not culturally radically different from Minnesota. Last week, we brought the superintendent of Edmonton who had initiated the Alberta reforms. It moved powerfully in the direction of this portfolio or self-governed model.
Edmonton model: In the late 70s, Edmonton began cutting away the layers of management that separated the School Board and superintendent from the schools, and gave the schools complete autonomy. Schools got to decide how to spend 92 cents of the education dollar. The superintendent held that school accountable for results and was able to make swift and effective decisions based on performance indicators. That is just one model. It is not the structure determines the outcome. The real work is at the school level in the classroom. Teacher and teacher quality are as important as anything. The question is, how is teacher effectiveness enhanced? That is—the interaction of the teacher, the school design, leadership, their working together as a community to constantly improve is critical.
Union cooperation: The Minneapolis Federation of Teachers has been completely instrumental in the development of new schools. We would not have this option in Minneapolis if it were not for MFT.
Jeff Buszta, North High
Best kept secret: I have worked at North for 21 years, at MPS for 25 years. North is the best kept secret around, but test scores don’t show that. I have had students who have gone on and earned Ph.D.s. I have students with Masters Degrees and who are chefs and own their own catering businesses. When you look at North, the test scores aren’t that great, and that’s being nice. When we got an email from the union about the opportunity, we sent a few people to the introduction meeting. They convinced the rest of us this is what we should be doing.
Application: We are not done with the application. Can’t say what the application will be. It could still change. But it has brought the staff together. We had to take a vote. One requirement is that 60 percent of the staff has to vote yes to move forward. I was expecting 65 to 70 percent to vote yes. We have 89 percent of the staff vote yes. I think it was because of the individualization. I had a former colleague say, you don’t go to the doctor with a headache and just get a pill for it. They have to find out what is causing it. It could be a migraine, a simple headache, or the need for glasses. It could be more severe like a tumor. The doctor has to do some research. That is what we have to do.
Q&A
Q: Give us a more specific idea of what self-governed schools do differently?
A: (Wedl): Site governed schools are a vehicle to do things differently. For example in Boston they came up with a number of different self-governed magnet schools. Some are similar to what you would see in a lot of places. Others focus on literacy beginning in Pre-K and continuing on that whole literacy effort. Others are linked to post secondary so students graduate from high school with one or more years of post secondary. Others are on-line or partially on-line. The important aspect of this model is what does for professionals. That is what the North High teachers are saying. It is treating them as professionals and it will drive how teachers do their work.
People in Edmonton said one thing this model has done is it completely changed how the School Board and central office work. Now the central office is a serve provider. The school sites purchase the service. If your service isn’t purchased, then maybe it has something to do with the quality of that service. School Boards also get more into the oversight of how schools are doing. It doesn’t just change the kind of schools. It has a ripple effect on the entire organization.
Q: There are demographic changes in the school population. I am thinking about new immigrant of students of color, and a brunt of the problems that we are referring to that makes us characterize schools as failing. Where is the evidence that this model has addressed the needs of this particular population?
A: Wedl: When we look at change analysis, we always put a huge burden of proof on the piece that says we need to change. Any time you want to do something different it is “prove that it will work.” Yeah, I think it is important to have quality evidence that what is being proposed will be helpful. I wonder how well we are doing with what we have now. All this model is suggesting is that here is one more way to do things differently.
A: Bacal: Thank you for raising the sense of outrage and urgency that the question reflected. The current reality is completely unacceptable. It is not just the achievement gap—the unacceptable levels of student learning throughout this state. What we are talking about here is a growing consensus that the way we have done things in an industrial, bureaucratic model hasn’t worked. It hasn’t worked for the children you are talking about, or even for children in more affluent areas. Our point today is not that the creation of new schools allows the community to put in place a continuous improvement process, open new schools and try new ideas. If they don’t work, move them right along and get better ideas.
Q: How will it be different for parents and how does it tie into early childhood?
A: Bacal: In all three types of new schools, none are assigned students. They have to attract parents. If they can’t in sufficient numbers, they are not viable. … Many of us believe it is absolutely critical to reach children earlier than kindergarten. Many of the most successful schools design a program that begins at age 3 and continues onward as a seamless organization. It is easier to design a seamless system than grafting it on afterwards. One obstacle to that happening here is our state policy framework and funding framework.
Q: Is the definition of successful the right definition? Is it test scores or something else? Five or ten years out, what does the economy consider successful? You could do great schools and not prepare kids to succeed.
A: Wedl: Education Evolving hosted a national meeting this week on the question, What is Achievement? I hope it is more than reading and math scores. You are right. We got into those mushy things. Being able to work together. Being able to understand the world. Being able to make decisions. … A colleague developed the “Hope Inventory.” North will use it. It is another definition. Do you have hopefulness? If you have no hope, why bother? In this model, the agreement with the School Board needs to expand on the indicators of success and it needs to go well beyond test scores.
Q: Research shows that kids do best in middle class schools. That implies something about desegregation. What integration standards apply to new schools?
A: Bacal: We do not want to put a ot of artificial, bureaucratic restrictions on the groups that are coming up with new ideas. These schools are public schools. They are open to all children. The reality is, we do not have integration in the city of Minneapolis.
Q: Is it no restrictions—or no standards—for these new schools?
A: We are not going to put specific, quantitative standards for this percent and that percent for the new schools.
Q: The research shows that education is an identity development process. If I work for 3M. I will work with Chinese, Russians, Latinos and others. If you don’t value this element of identity development, you might be creating a problem. The person might not be able to survive in the society that emerges.
Q: (Follow up) What I am hearing is that you take the same group of teachers, we have some great ones, OK ones and some bad ones, and we are giving them more power and the ability to innovate. But we are not essentially changing that pool of teachers. And 87 percent of our teachers are white. And 75 percent of our students are children of color. That is the part that is really not addressed. Education is about relationships. It was empowering me to see women teach math. Reverse the roles. Say young white women weren’t doing well in math and most math teachers were older African American men. We would be saying, “My daughter needs someone who looks like her.” We are talking about good innovative stuff, but it doesn’t address one of our main issues.
A: Wedl: We are just saying this is just one model. The district schools can create schools using other vehicles. You can charter; you can contract. Under current law, you can’t blow up and start over. What we are suggesting is that this is one tool. What would you and I do if we were in charge? Probably a lot different.
A: Bacal: This is such an important point. I encourage you to take up your concern with the MN Legislature, which sets this kind of policy. ... You can also start schools through charter and contract options. They don’t have any of those restrictions.
Q: What is the state law that is the barrier .. PELRA, tenure .. ?
A: Bacal: There was an effort to get alternative certification through the legislature. Everyone was supporting it. At the very last minute it was killed behind the scenes. One of the criteria for states to get federal Race to the Top money is how open are they to alternative pathways.
Q: When you talk about the funding coming from Race to the Top money, Secretary Duncan has said very clearly not submit your application if your state does not have a true alternative pathway for teaching. Minnesota just doesn’t have it. We can talk about putting together an application for Race to the Top. We will not get it if we don’t have a true alternative pathway to the classroom. That pathway is very clearly being blocked by Education Minnesota. Without alternative certification, we won’t broaden the diversity of our teaching talent pool. Our schools of education produce a lot of good teachers, but they don’t produce a lot of good teachers of color.
A: Wedl: Jeff and his colleagues at North will be able to select the teachers. The teachers know good teachers from those who have needs. The experience around the country is, when teachers get to select their peers, they are very fussy. That is part of this change as well, the self-selection within the profession.
Q: Judy Farmer: I got my start in education at Southeast Alternatives. It was very successful. It was a federally funded project. We had five kinds of schools. Parents chose. Each of us had considerable autonomy. At Marcy Open School, which I helped start, we did select our teachers. We did select our principals. I know what it is like to start a school and I know what it’s like to change.
When parents make choices, a lot of the parents are motivated for education. I believe every school of choice has built into it a very important ingredient for success. It has motivation. It has parent ties. I am concerned. Is this approach going to serve the kids who need it most? Having gone through Southeast Alternatives and serving on the School Board, I am hoping that innovative schools you are interested in proposing include possible seeds of real sustainability in teacher quality and principal quality.
I also think that it is very empowering and exciting for teachers to do the “Just do it” contract. But that is not sustainable. That excitement begins to wane. If you don’t have some built-in way to sustain the diversity and the methods of getting a diverse teaching population and improving the quality and addressing some of the things that Geoffrey Canada addresses such as early childhood, then I don’t think real change for the kids that need it is going to happen. I worry a little you are looking at pretty constrained organizational models. We’ve done that. It is not sustainable.
A: Wedl: This law is now three months old. One message to the Minneapolis School Board is, the kinds of schools you are willing to create will also determine the kinds of kids that you have attending them. If you are not willing to put in place options that will attract kids from other districts, then you won’t get them. Be willing to put in place multiple options that will be attractive to suburban kids, and you will get the diverse population, greater than we currently have in Minneapolis.
Q: I taught for 27 years and was principal for 10 years in an urban school. What I am hearing you say is that we desperately need minority teachers in our schools. As a teacher I was involved in two programs, one at the U of M and one through St. Cloud State, where the teachers came into our building and they worked for a year and then they were allowed to teach. Out of 14 teachers that we had in each of those programs, we had two remaining after three years. We definitely need people. There needs to be an alternative path. I don’t know what that is. Whether there wasn’t enough training or we didn’t do the right things, I have no answers. We have to find a way that will be successful.
The second thing is about 25 years ago we did site-based management. I was involved with it. We had a leadership team and worked with the whole staff. We went through a lot of training. We got paid for the extra work. We worked all summer. By the third year, we were so burned out. We didn’t know if we were up or down, on foot or on horseback. This was 25 years ago. We didn’t have half the problems we have now. I don’t know how teachers will be able to sustain it. Budget alone is a three-year cycle. We were crazed with that. There were so many other things. We kept our same principal. We got to do a lot of these very same things. Burn out was a problem
A: Wedl: This is not site-based management. This is far more than site-based management. These kinds of models are new. Teachers with 5-6 years experience say this is a lot of work but “we will never go back to the other way.”
I believe, after being at a site-based management school - one created in 1995-1998, that the problem is, the district just simply doesn't have personnel with management expertise. These administrators need to be able to manage the building, the staff, the curriculum, and students. They need to be able to work cooperatively with all. And they need to have parents and staff empowered to step up when they have experience in a certain area of need. Minneapolis has very few administrators that are true leaders. site-based management failed, because the underlying intent and energy didn't change. Administrators kept the attitude that although their experience was limited to teaching, basically, they were there as a dictator. Many are disrespectful of parents, and staff in some cases. They don't understand teamwork, and they don't do problem solving. they aren't trained in supervisory techniques or creating successful teams. They are very close-minded, and they don't know how to take action, or work in a win-win manner. If you are relying on teachers to do all the work - when they do not have the education or experience to do so, then self-governance will fail. Managing these schools requires a lot more than a teacher degree or a masters in langauage arts. Or even an administrative certification. Site-based Management relied on parents, as well, to be part of the process.
The main thing missing in Site-based Management was lack of placement of policies and on-going education of the staff and orientation of parents. By the 4th year, no one really knew what they were supposed to be doing, or who was doing what and when. There were no clear guidelines or boundaries, task assignments or responsibilities. This left holes, and wide-open areas, allowing the aforementioned principals to step in and take advantage of the community's ignorance. If the school district were a business - it would be out of business right now. The fact is, the district provides a service. A service that is paid for through tax dollars, not the clients it serves. That makes it a non-profit corporation. It would be a good idea to take some classes in how to manage from that perspective. Seems like the district is always re-inventing the wheel, instead of solving the problem in the first place.
Posted by: Carol Peterson | 11/15/2009 at 12:50 AM