Trotwood-Madison vs. Winton Woods
.jpg)
2009-10 UD men's basketball
Pyramid Hill lights up
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > April > 14 > Entry
A final word on the Oprah shows
OK, we’ve sort of been all Oprah this week. (This post has links to the rest of my Oprah posts if you want to read them all.) Her two-day program on America’ education crisis has sparked lots of conversation. I had two last thoughts on the issues she raised.
First is on the question of who’s fault this is. Of course, many people and institutions share blame when the quality of a public school declines. But it was interesting to me how much parents were singled out as the main culprits causing the decline of schools in the comments at the Atlanta Journal Constitution’s education blog. Posters were saying too many parents don’t care, aren’t involved or are hostile to schools and actually get in the way of good education by encouraging bad attitudes in their kids.
If parents are the main problem, or even just one of the major problems, it creates a difficult situation. How do you deal with those families? Can you somehow force parents to care?
This brings us to the issues of school choice and small schools.
Are small schools a feasible solution, given the potential costs? And can choice work if parents are uninvolved?
Thinking about this reminded me of former Cincinnati Superintendent Steven Adamowski’s approach.
Adamowski believed both in small schools and in choice. In Cincinnati, his goal was to split the city’s big, comprehensive high schools down into smaller schools within the school. So it might look like this — instead of one, huge 2,000-student high school, the same school would be divided into four, 500-student units. Those kids would mostly be kept together in one part of the building with a core group of teachers in hopes of building the intimacy and support that are the hallmark of effective small schools. But the bigger school remains intact, sharing the gym, cafeteria, library and support staff to keep costs down.
And Adamowski wanted each of these units to have a specialized theme. So instead of, say, six huge high schools trying to be all things to all kids, he’d want 24 themed small school units. Years ago, I read an interview in which he described how he hoped this would work. His goal would be to have lots of options for kids. Suppose a student chooses a school with a science theme, but end up struggling. Then maybe they try the student in an Arts-themed unit. Or maybe one that specializes in Montessori method, or a language immersion school, or a military-themed school or even a digital high school? Essentially, Adamowski hoped that with options they could keep trying until they found the place where the kid fit best and, hopefully, flourished.
Part of what he was trying to do was solve the problems of the cost of small schools and of student/parent apathy by creating what he hoped would be affordable, energizing choices.
That vision never got entirely off the ground in Cincinnati, as Adamowski ultimately left after a long-running political battle. But it raises the question of whether some of these seemingly insurmountable education problems can be creatively addressed.
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: My Favorite Posts, Teaching and Learning, The Parent-Teacher Divide
Comments
By rightwingprof
April 19, 2006 4:39 PM | Link to this
“If we continue to allow politicians and news media to spread over-simplifiations and distortions like “bad teachers can’t be firedâ€? “ It is nearly impossible to fire bad teachers. That is neither an oversiplification, nor a distortion; that is the reality of tenure. As for funding, funding has done nothing but increase (speaking of distortions). And there is no relationship between increased funding and success in education. I deal with the students who come out of the public school system, and frankly, I’m sick of having to do the job my students’ teachers should have done in high school — like teach them basic math. The fact that my property taxes support the school system does not improve my mood, either.By Rick
April 18, 2006 7:25 AM | Link to this
Oldprof, your undertanding of history is wrong. Funding has skyrocketed and legislative mandates did not come into play until the 1990s. What did come into play was the new and “exciting” educational methods, such as new math and whole word, that turned out to be disasters. Yet the educational blobaucracy kept pushing them even after the evidence was in.By superdestroyer
April 17, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this
The mini-school within a school is probably doomed to failure from the start. Within a year or two, a couple of the subgroups would get a reputation as the elite and a couple of the subgroups would become know as the losers. Thus, parents and students would queue up to get into the “elite” and fighting to get out of the “loser” programs. PS. the school within a school program still suffers from crowded hallways, overused facilites, and does lose many students. I have always suspected that many administrators want the school within a school concept in order to create many more counselor, principal, and administration jobs.By KDeRosa
April 15, 2006 7:57 PM | Link to this
Oldprof, education funding has at least tripled since 1960 and that’s accounting for inflation. Also, the golden age of education prior to 1960 never existed. The college-bound kids probably learned more under the traditional curriculum, but overall school failure of the lower performing kids remains about the same.By Oldprof
April 14, 2006 4:51 PM | Link to this
Let’s stick to facts. American education started to decline in the later 1960s, and two things were happening: (1) funding went into decline (2) teachers’ authority was removed due to legislative mandates for over-administration and imposition of “new” theories of instruction that turned out to be inferior. If we continue to allow politicians and news media to spread over-simplifiations and distortions like “bad teachers can’t be fired” or “it’s the teachers’ fault” then education will never improve. Mary is right about some parents getting more say in school matters than others—but in fact, that’s been true since schools were invented and has no real bearing on the current crisis. Engender high respect for all teachers from all levels of society—included John Husted—and you’ll see much of this problem start to go away. (It would be good if teachers were paid according to the status we’d like them to demonstrate, as well.)By Mary
April 14, 2006 2:36 PM | Link to this
I agree with much of what charm has to say. However, I have some additional comments on parents and the schools. I have very much cared about my children and education. However, many parental concerns have been suppressed by the schools. PTOs and PTAs have been relegated to fun and money raising roles instead of focussing on the classroom. Schools seem to carefully pick and choose the parents they want to be involved and steer their involvment the way they want. The fair-haired seem to be parents from band and athletic boosters. The schools use them to pass levies and it seems to be a symbiotic relationship. You help us pass levies, write mushy letters to the editor, and we will support athletics, band and other extracurriculars and help your children get scholarships. Screw all the other students and parents and the classroom.By charm
April 14, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this
Great point. I think that if choice is going to work, parents HAVE to be energized and engaged. I don’t think it’s fair to blame parents or “force them to care”, because I believe that parents DO care and truly want what is best for thier children. Most parents will say that they want their children to go to college. The problem lies in the fact that most parents don’t know how to take the necessary steps to ensure a good education for their child. When it comes to choice, the dilemna is the same— how can we help parents make educated choices? If we are going to offer choices to families, we have to educate them on how to make intelligent choices. This means understanding the quality of the schools they are choosing. Choice, whether between large or small schools, can’t work without parent education.