A recent article in the NY Times inspired me to write down some thoughts that I have been grappling a lot with lately. As I look for new opportunities in my career I sometimes wonder if my move to charter was actually the best move for me. Sure there are many things about being a part of a charter school that I love and appreciate– but at what cost?
This year it seems that the cost is that my own job has become the act of slowly de-individualizing my students to a point where even when they ARE heard, the say they have no voice. The charter school formula provides what some call “structure” for our failing black and brown children. Structure is a good thing — if you ever enter my classroom structure prevails in order to maintain a calm learning environment. But the danger occurs when structure becomes the mindset that the only way to teach “these kids” is to “control them”. For far too many teachers, a lack of structure is too scary and unpredictable and so the grasp at every opportunity for control and call it “structure”.
So schools proceed, creating structure to a point where it suffocates the creativity and critical thinking of its students. Children are taught to simply regurgitate what the teacher is teaching and not to solve the problem on their own or truly comprehend the underlying concepts behind why things are the way they are. Year after year we watch our students nail the questions that look exactly like ones we’ve gone over in class and utterly fail on any question that requires them to think just a little bit further, push just a little bit deeper. They’ve become so accustomed to things being “easy” for them (because of the way they are taught) that when they find something difficult, they give up before they even begin.
So then, the question is– why am I still in it? I do believe that there is something here. There is something in the autonomy given to charter schools that provides us with the potential to create truly institutions of learning. Schools where children not only learn but develop into critical citizens of our world. Where students are able to switch from moments of active participation in their education to more structured participants of learning. But the question that yet remains unanswered is, how do we get there?
What “successful” charter schools have figured out is a way to break down seemingly impossible concepts into smaller pieces for our students to understand and use. They’ve found a way to make learning, especially in the lower grades more interactive and fun. They’ve found a way to analyze student data on a daily basis that give the teacher the ability to plan lessons that are truly responsive to their student’s needs. But, with all of these great tactics in place, charter schools have yet to figure out how to teach, what many call “grit”. The perseverance and persistence to continue even when things seem unsolvable. We have put SO much time and effort into making sure that our students FEEL successful that we’ve held their hands a bit TOO much. The consequence of which is their inability to truly grapple with more difficult problems when we let go. Whether it is the analysis of a poem or the solving of a multi-step equation, if they haven’t seen it before, they won’t try it.
This however, is still more than we can say for the majority of their counterparts in the public school system. So at the very basic level we can still define this as progress. Unfortunately, this progress is still limited and we certainly have not “arrived”. What concerns me most is the lack of urgency behind addressing the issue that our charter schools do very little in promoting critical thinking, in providing avenues for students to express themselves as individuals. It seems that, as long as the test scores are relatively decent, then a charter school can be defined as successful. And, as long as a charter school is deemed successful, why push for more?
Charter schools have always been touted as this light at the end of the tunnel that, in the beginning, felt new and exciting. A “movement” as some call it for educational reform. Now, almost 20 years later, with charter schools still running on the same structures and foundations of its predecessors more than 20 years prior, can we really call it “new and innovative” any more?
I recently found myself interviewing for various positions within charter schools nearly 3,000 miles away from my home base. Part of me found it both reassuring and disturbing that for every single interview the comment “oh, your adjustment to the school won’t be as difficult because you already work for x charter school”. This turned out to be a pretty big “selling point” for me to use in my interviews but troubled me just the same. If charter schools are to be this image of educational reform and innovation, how is it possible that we are essentially trying to create exact replicas of the SAME thing from coast to coast? Doesn’t the word “innovation” imply something new, different and sometimes radical?
Even within my own charter network that spans across two states, we often find that when we gather as teachers the character of our respective groups of students are drastically different. We often say “what works for kids in _____ doesn’t work for kids in ____”. Now, if this is a conclusion that we can draw after 10 minutes of discussion, why is not the same from coast to coast? Sure, we can say that each school adapts to their own communities but, to what extent is this really happening? HOW can it really happen when the main focus of the charter movement is rapid growth and replication? And what exactly are we replicating?
Last year one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”
Ponder this for a moment.
Only 1 out of 5 charter schools actually offer an education that is better than the local public schools. Yet 100% of them carry missions that scream “college for everyone!”, “success!” and boldly compare themselves to “the public school down the street” when referring to places that their students DON’T want to be. 4 out of 5 schools are perpetrating a fraud but who is checking?
When you walk into a public school you can tell right away that the school is struggling. There are often telltale signs — the state of their physical space, the conversations in the teachers lounge and the look and feel of the classes as you walk by. Indications of struggle in a charter school are much more subtle. Teachers in a charter school sign up to work in an environment where doing “whatever it takes” is often the mantra so there is no question that teachers are putting in their time, working longer hours, investing more in their students and, on the surface it seems that everything is great.
After all, as long as the teachers work hard their students will succeed right? At least that’s what movies like “Freedom Writers”, “Dangerous minds” tells us. What these movies miss are all the little nuances that happen in every single interaction an adult has with the child or children they are teaching. Every word, every action, even the way you dress relays a message to your students and, it is a teacher’s ability to navigate these nuances that distinguish a mediocre teacher from a great one. But where, in this systematic approach to replication does it allow for these nuances? There is nothing in the books that provides a plan for this to happen. It is something that can be nurtured but not learned, it is an innate ability that either exists or does not.
Struggling charter schools struggle below the surface. Below the bold statements of “whatever it takes” “success for all” “college bound” one finds lack of leadership, innovation and teacher burnout. After all, there is nothing more tiring and more stressful than working hard for somethings that is destined to fail. It’s nice to be sitting in the best seat on a sinking ship but it’s STILL a sinking ship. Unfortunately, because of the stark contrast at first glance between a struggling public school and a struggling charter school, it often takes years and years of mediocre teaching, lack of leadership and deadly school culture before people actually realize that a school is struggling. This unfortunately means that hundreds of students have already gone through a mediocre school advertised as the best school in the area. And, if the school is allowed to remain mediocre for long enough, this could mean that someone has already attempted to create a replica of this seemingly successful charter school.
They imitate one another in superficial ways, too, like hanging inspirational banners: “This Is Where We’re Headed. To College!”
But the differences in how schools are run, the way classes are taught and how school culture is nourished are striking. It is like watching two couples dance a tango, one with poise and precision, the other stumbling to execute the intricate footwork.
On the surface, it is still the same dance but when you look more closely, one couple is just barely struggling to stay on their feet.
It is the challenge of the charter school movement to push further, dig deeper, find ways of educating our children that does not involve a one-size fits all mentality. As I look for the next place to hang my teaching hat I am looking for that school that truly delivers on its promises– not a mere facade of brightly colored walls, fancy signs and inspirational slogans. It MUST be so much more. That place where teachers are committed to continual growth and the creation of life long learners. A group of adults, searching for innovations in education and not just talking about it, but implementing it. Individuals who realize that innovation of the 90s cannot STILL be innovation in 2010 and that the power of the charter school movement MUST lie in our abilities to adapt and refine our schools to the children we intend to serve.
