Charter schools: back door segregation

 

by Christopher Paslay

Recently, the Philadelphia School District released a list of its “Vanguard schools,” 25 high-achieving schools that continually meet annual performance targets and help children succeed. The district promises to grant them greater autonomy with budget and curriculum and is considering replicating their programs.

 

The formula that makes these schools work is not hard to figure out.  Many have the privilege of hand-selecting their pupils, which means prospective students must meet specific academic and behavioral requirements to be considered for acceptance.

 

In addition, a number of schools on this list have the ability to quickly remove problem students from their programs.  If a child is having academic problems or discipline issues and is not responding to interventions from teachers and counselors, the school can transfer the student out.

 

Parental involvement is also much higher at Vanguard schools, because many have special admission requirements that force parents to get involved with the admissions process and serve as an advocate to ensure their child’s acceptance.

 

If the Vanguard school formula—admission requirements, strict academic and discipline measures, and active parental involvement—were implemented in every public school in the city of Philadelphia, the district would undoubtedly be transformed right before our very eyes.  Test scores would go up and violence would go down.  Graduation rates would increase, and because safety and major behavior problems would no longer be an issue, most schools would have experienced, quality educators.

 

But there is something called a compulsory education law in the state of Pennsylvania, and this law requires that all children, aged six to 16, receive an education.  It doesn’t matter whether they want one or not, or whether their parents want them to have one.  Children are required to be in school.

 

Ultimately, this prevents the Vanguard formula from being applied in all city schools.  If you remove a child from his neighborhood school, where is he going to go?  By law, it’s the district’s job to find a replacement, and the district doesn’t have the manpower or the resources to build enough alternative schools to accommodate these high-needs children.

 

So the majority of these students are forced to remain in their traditional schools.  Children with emotional problems, learning disabilities, and English language issues become the responsibility of the district.  So do the children whose parents suffer from addiction problems, or are incarcerated, or have no medical insurance.

 

This creates an overwhelming problem for the system, one that is as complex as poverty itself.  This, at least partially, results in a school culture plagued by violence, low test scores, and a high dropout rate.  It also keeps the talented, most experienced educators from wanting to work there.

 

So what can be done?  How can we reform the system without eliminating all the problem students (the politically correct term is “special needs” students) and building alternative programs?  The answer is simple: You build more charters.

 

This is at the heart of Arne Duncan’s national reform model.  Charter schools apply the Vanguard formula in reverse.  Instead of removing the bottom 20 percent of students who hamper the educations of the remaining 80 percent in traditional schools, you do the opposite: You siphon-off the top 80 percent from the traditional schools and put them in charters.

 

There are both pros and cons to this approach.  One pro is that now the kids who really want an education can get one, free from the distractions of the bottom 20 percent.  The violent and unruly will no longer be able to rob anyone of the ability to learn.

 

However, there are also drawbacks.  Charters suck resources from traditional schools, leaving them in some cases to rot.  One answer to this problem is to make all schools charters, which seems to be the philosophy of Arne Duncan’s national reform model.

 

But here’s the problem with doing this.  The bottom 20 percent will still need a place to go.  Most likely they won’t end up in the competitive charters with the highest admission requirements, but in the charters that are forced to take the traditional neighborhood students.

 

In the end you’ll have a dual-class system once again.  Instead of calling these schools “Vanguard schools” and “failing schools,” they’ll be called something else—perhaps “good” charters and “bad” charters.

 

At this point studies will be done by social scientists, and they will show that a certain type of discrimination is taking place.  Poor kids, or the emotionally disturbed, or the learning disabled, or those without parents, or those of a particular race, or those from a particular area of the city, will find themselves in a “bad” charter.

 

Then politicians will get involved.  To get votes, a new law will be passed that all charters must have balance, that they must include a portion of the bottom 20 percent.  Within a few years the charters will be “balanced,” and we’ll be back to square one.  The students who come from good backgrounds or are self-motivated and have all the tools to learn will be once again robbed of an education, and the other 20 percent will still be running amuck.

 

This is what happens when society refuses to realize that schools are an extension of the surrounding community, not vice versa.  Until we embrace this reality, nothing (besides names and faces) will change.

 

So goes the national reform model.

 

Eye on the Notebook: ‘Expulsion pipeline’ story paints distorted picture

 

by Christopher Paslay

On the front page of their Winter 2009-2010 edition, the Notebook published a story headlined “A growing expulsion pipeline”.  The article focuses on the unfairness of the Philadelphia School District’s zero tolerance policy for violence, and highlights incidents where students were kicked out of school for supposed misunderstandings that involved illegal objects in their backpacks.             

This story does quite a job of tugging on our heartstrings.  I might have been taken in by it, only I teach at the school where one of these students attended, and I know that the picture the Notebook paints of this student is off the mark to say the least; it’s clear the Notebook conveniently left out a number of important background details.          

 

In fact, the Notebook’s depiction of this student is so far off base it’s mind blowing; when some of the faculty at our school read it, they tossed the story across their desk in disbelief.       

 

If Notebook writer Wendy Harris would have done her homework—if she had talked to teachers, administrators, or even the dean of discipline at our school—she would have gotten a more authentic profile of this student.

 

But in this case, I don’t think the Notebook was looking for authenticity.  They were looking for a quick and easy way to appeal to readers’ emotions, and so they chose to dance around the surface, painting a slanted, distorted picture of reality.               

 

This kind of reporting is not new to the Notebook.  In their Fall 2005 edition, they ran an almost identical story titled “Harsh punishment: a factor that pushes students out”.  The article talked about “victimized” teens being unfairly disciplined.      

 

They wrote about a teen being suspended for simply showing up late for school.  They also mentioned a student who was expelled because “he forgot to remove his pocket knife from his key chain”.   

 

Granted, there are isolated cases where a student is unfairly disciplined because of zero tolerance, but these cases are a lot rarer than the Notebook makes them out to be.  In my experience (and in the experience of the colleagues and school police I’ve talked to), when a child is removed from school because of an illegal object in a backpack or a pointy thingamajig on their keychain, it is usually the result of numerous prior discipline offenses.

 

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, there were nearly 15,000 criminal incidents reported in city public schools in the 2007-08 school year.  1,728 students assaulted teachers.  479 weapons were discovered inside elementary and middle school hallways and classrooms.  357 weapons were found in high schools.  And there were 4,848 “serious” crimes committed by students in grades 5 -12.  

 

If the Notebook wants to focus on “unfairness” in regard to discipline, they should do more to stand up for the rights of the thousands of students who have their educations ruined everyday by incorrigible classmates who have no desire to learn.       

 

I commend the Notebook for questioning zero tolerance, but they need to make sure all their “victims” are truly victims.  Telling only half the story hurts the newspaper’s credibility and harms the integrity of the District’s discipline policies.              

 

Teens and cellphones: Some startling statistics

 

 

by Christopher Paslay

 

Recently, Common Sense Media and Benenson Strategy Group conducted over 2,000 interviews with teenagers about their cellphone use.  Here are some of their findings:

 

          –Eight in 10 teenagers have cell phones.

 

          –In an average week, teens send 440 text messages.

 

          –110 of these text messages are sent during class.

         

          –65 percent of teens use their cellphones in the building  despite school policy.

    

          –35 percent admitted to cheating on a test at least once with their cellphone.

 

          –65 percent say they know of somebody who has cheated with a cellphone.

 

          –Only 41 percent say that cheating with a cellphone is a serious offense.       

 

Although technology is obviously here to stay, and progressive educators must find innovative ways to use this technology to their students’ benefit, I believe we are nearing critical mass when it comes to cellphones and the classroom.  Something has got to give: the cellphone or academic integrity.

 

In my opinion, cellphones in schools are going to eventually go in the direction of cellphones in cars—there will be stricter rules and regulations put in place to keep teens from abusing technology.

 

Let’s just hope principals and education policy makers come to their senses sooner rather than later.

 

Dom Giordano’s lost touch with teaching

by Christopher Paslay

 

After reading Dom Giordano’s “Education’s 5 Big Lies” in the Daily News last week, it’s hard for me to believe that Giordano was ever a teacher to begin with.  In particular, his belief that class size has no impact on learning is quite puzzling. 

 

Giordano states in his article:  This lie says that class size is paramount in determining a child’s ability to learn.

 

The National Education Association, the teachers’ union, has often floated the notion that 15 students in a class is the highest effective number and having 30 is an impossible situation.

 

The Rand Corp. did one of the biggest studies of class size, analyzing the effects of California’s spending $1 billion in the late ’90s to cut class size in elementary schools. They found no link between the smaller classes and improvement in test scores.

 

The major flaw in Giordano’s reasoning is that isolated standardized test scores are the sole means in which to measure a child’s progress in school.  There is a lot more to learning—especially at the elementary level—than reading and math scores. 

 

Learning is also about socialization, citizenship, conflict resolution, organizational skills, critical thinking skills, and all the other academic and behavioral competencies children need to grow into successful adults. 

 

To see if class size has an impact on learning, one needs only to ask two fundamental questions: 

 

1.  Does classroom management have an effect on learning?  It most certainly does.  Any legitimate educator who’s spent time in a classroom will tell you that you can’t teach a class that you can’t control.

 

2.  Does class size have an effect on classroom management?  Without a doubt.  You can manage 15 students much more effectively than 30.  There are less behavioral issues; there is a stronger teacher-to-student ratio; there is less time needed to produce and grade materials, so there is more time to plan for instruction; when it comes to resources, such as computers and money for field trips, you can accommodate 15 much easier than 30; and the list goes on and on.  These factors not only impact learning, but also the teacher-student relationship, and the closeness of the classroom environment. 

 

The Rand Corp. study Giordano refers to might show class size has no impact on test scores, but then again, theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff with his tail tied to a daisy. 

 

Any educator with common sense knows that class size has an effect on learning.  Giordano’s claim otherwise is either an attempt at sensationalism or proof he’s lost touch with his former profession. 

 

Breakfast shouldn’t be on the principals

 

 

“For Superintendent Arlene Ackerman, it’s not enough that the Philadelphia School District offers free breakfast to every single child in every single city school. Now, principals must coax the students into eating it.

 

Under a new district policy, principals will be held accountable for the number of student breakfasts eaten in each school. District officials reason that including breakfast participation in a principal’s performance rating will increase the number of students taking advantage of these free meals.”

 

This is an excerpt from my commentary in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, “Breakfast shouldn’t be on the principals”.  Please click here to read the entire article.  You can respond or provide feedback by clicking on the comment button below.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

–Christopher Paslay

 

Instead of promoting ‘social justice,’ let’s promote our humanness

 

by Christopher Paslay

Fighting for social justice, the 21st century term for “equality” or “civil rights,” is the hippest thing since wearing pink for breast cancer.  Topped only by going green, promoting social justice has become the latest adopted cause of politicians, universities, educational researchers, and of course, the starry-eyed, idealistic school teachers fresh out of college.      

 

Striving to level the playing field for the underprivileged in America is very commendable, but we must be careful how we go about doing so. 

 

Pema Chodron, the American Buddhist nun who wrote When Things Fall Apart, explains, “True compassion does not come from wanting to help out those less fortunate than ourselves but from realizing our kinship with all beings.” 

 

This insight is incredibly profound.

 

Promoting social justice in the 21st century has a dualistic quality to it.  The concept suggests that there are “haves” and “have-nots,” “free” and “oppressed,” “celebrated” and “marginalized”.  Because of this, there is a built-in condescension, a polarizing effect between the giver and the receiver. 

          

Last month, in a Philadelphia Weekly commentary, Teach For America transplant Brenden Beck explained why he was giving up teaching in the Philadelphia School District. 

 

. . . I got into teaching to promote social justice, mad at the Jim Crow-sized injustice that gives our nation’s poorest students an education much inferior to their suburban peers. I hoped to listen to and learn from people who endured the poverty I’d read so much about in college. . . .

 

. . . Since my students were all black, I talked about whiteness. I used my own experiences as a point of departure for discussions about privilege. While reading a story about Haitian street children, we talked about how police treat black and white people differently. While reading a biography of Thurgood Marshall, we talked about the advantages most white people had growing up.

 

I hoped that I could offer my students insight about the ways to speak and write or the mathematics needed for college and jobs. But I found that those very same privileges prevented me from connecting with them.

 

Late one afternoon, many students had begun to ignore the lesson, talk to one another, and throw the work on the floor. Exasperated, I launched into a lecture about using education to go places, to have options. One of the kids, Shandra, a bright, talented student, said, “What’s wrong with it here in Germantown? Why do we need to ‘go places?’ Why don’t you go back to the suburbs?” I stared mutely at her, and mumbled something about me being there because of my belief in social justice.

 

In talking about my whiteness and advantages, I had ignored my students’ situation: I was casting their homes as an undesirable obstacle to be overcome. My students knew theirs wasn’t a “good” school, but it was theirs, and they weren’t sure why I was there. . . .

 

Brenden Beck’s revelations are very interesting, and very true; I suggest reading Beck’s whole commentary in the September 16th issue of Philadelphia Weekly.  His writing is excellent, and his observations are right on the mark (you can do so by clicking here).

 

I think Beck’s experience teaching in Philadelphia can serve as a lesson for all those folks who wear their social justice buttons on their shirtsleeves.  Just like Pema Chodron says, we don’t help people because we are better than they are, but because human beings share the same stuff. 

 

This is the main reason why I’ve survived 13 years teaching in the Philadelphia School District.  My students and I are the same.  There’s no up here and down there, rich or poor, fixed and broken.  I don’t teach from a place of guilt or idealism, or from a lofty privileged pedestal.  When I look at my students I see me sitting in those desks. 

 

In my opinion, this is a big reason why so many new teachers can’t hack it in large urban cities.  Programmed by the divisive politics of many multicultural education courses, new teachers often view their students as “underprivileged” and “marginalized,” victims of an oppressive system.  Riddled by guilt, they try to play the role of savior, and when they find out it’s not as easy as theorized in their college textbooks, they get discouraged and move on. 

 

I am leery of trendy 21st century buzz words that come out of the mouths of the masses.  Instead of fighting to promote social justice, politicians, researchers and public school teachers should simply fight to promote our humanness. 

 

Sharpton, Gingrich and Duncan: Rebuilding America’s Schools, Brick by Brick

 

 by Silence Dogood

The official word is in: There is hope for education!  This encouraging conclusion was drawn by Al Sharpton, the race-hustling, anti-Semitic demagogue who in 1983 was caught on FBI surveillance tape discussing a cocaine deal; Newt Gingrich, the draft dodger and serial adulterer who admitted to cheating on his wife while leading the impeachment proceedings against President Clinton; and Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education who has zero experience teaching in a public school classroom and possesses no instructional certificate of any kind! 

 

After bestowing their greatness on the students and faculty at Mastery Charter School’s Shoemaker Campus and McDaniel Elementary in Philadelphia, these education gurus graced the public with their expert opinion: Schools can actually work!  Kids can actually learn!         

  

“After visiting these two schools today, I am more inspired and encouraged than I have been,” Sharpton said. “It’s a breakthrough moment.”

 

“You realize what is possible for all American children,” Gingrich said regarding his trip to the schools.

 

“Philadelphia, I think, is really at a fork in the road,” Duncan said. “Philadelphia has a chance to lead the national conversation in education.”

 

It’s good to know Philadelphia public schools have passed the Sharpton-Gingrich-Duncan litmus test.  With these guys at the helm, it’s only a matter of time before America’s public schools are the world’s best and brightest.      

 

The gift that keeps on giving

by Susan Cohen Smith

Sometimes the rewards of teaching come years after retirement. My former student, Edward Chung, is for me, the gift that keeps on giving.

A ninth grader struggling in my French 1 class submitted his written work accompanied by the most fascinating drawings. The following year this young man fortuitously appeared in my Art 1 class. During the subsequent three years, he went on to win first place in almost every citywide art contest in the Philadelphia district. To work off his detentions, he did a drawing of the school, which was reproduced and given as a parting gift to retiring staff members.

Edward is a naturally gifted traditional artist, whose ability to faithfully record exquisitely detailed images from memory is surpassed only by his expressive, emotionally charged, technically excellent, stunningly beautiful creations. As a child in Hong Kong, he began drawing on his bedroom wallpaper. For him, artistic expression has always been a powerful vehicle for translating his vivid mental imagery into tangible visual reality.

In Edward’s senior year, I had more than my share of “Service Learners:” students who have enough credits for graduation but need to fill up their rosters. Not really wanting to serve, a restless Edward needed something constructive to do but it couldn’t be another contest or mural for the school. I had the perfect project for him. My husband had framed out an area off our second floor with the intention of creating a door that would lead to an outdoor deck. For two years, I suffered the sight of the Tyvec building material where the door would go. I had the idea of painting a trompe l’oeil mural of a door to hide the offensive Tyvec panel.

My husband cut a piece of plywood the size of the opening and brought it to school. Edward ably sketched a drawing of a door with a large glass window. For the window’s reflection, I handed him a crude snapshot of the buildings

Original Photo 2001

 

Edward (right) and helper with completed painting in school.

across the street from where the painting would be installed. It so happens that across my street was the rear of the Art Deco Reliance Insurance building, an area of greenery, a parking area, and a bagel shop with striped awning. To my amazement, Edward did a convincing, detailed sketch of the structures, as they would appear in the window’s reflection merely by looking at the poor quality photo. Next, he executed a skillful representation of the door in outdoor acrylic paint. He obligingly used the same distinctive color paint to match our front door.

In March 2001, my husband hung Edward’s painting of a door on the outside of our house and it has been there ever since. It has been quite a neighborhood attraction, even more so now that the building across the street has turned into the Perelman Annex of the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The site that Edward painted is where the rather unattractive addition to the Perelman has been appended to the old building, much to the chagrin of the neighbors facing it. Edward’s faux door painting serves as a reminder of how the site used to look.

Over the years, the painting took a beating from the elements and was beginning to fade. I needed to find Edward to restore the mural. With my son’s help, I located him and renewed our acquaintance. Edward was pleased to hear from me but was sad to have to tell me that his career as an artist was going nowhere.

He had earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Digital Media and had not been able to find a job in his field in three years. He did not want to visit his family in Hong Kong because he was ashamed of his situation. His mother always told him that I brought him luck and success in high school. So I took on the daunting task of helping him to find a job in a crowded field during the worst economic recession in recent memory.

I scrutinized his resume and website and tried to learn ways to improve them. Never having had experience in web design, it was an education for me as well. What I noticed about his latest work was that it lacked the imagination and mesmerizing attention to detail that his high school work had. Edward’s greatest asset was his ability to elevate ordinary, mundane subject matter into extraordinary works of art, an element totally absent in his college work. I also recognized that he had lost all confidence in himself as an artist. I know firsthand that Art School has a way of tamping down youthful exuberance. My alma mater had a similar affect on me many years before.

I don’t accept credit for it, but within three months of our renewed relationship, Edward Chung landed what he calls his “dream job.” Within a very short time, his enthusiasm and zest for life returned.

 Edward Chung continues to keep in touch with me. He seems to be enjoying his life to the fullest. Knowing that I played a small part in his success is probably the most gratifying reward a retired teacher could hope for.

He successfully repainted the trompe l’oeil painting of the door on site, perched on the roof outside of my second floor. He spent many hours in the sun after work on this endeavor that dragged on longer than expected because of weather-related delays. After a painting session, Edward would join us for dinner. He entertained my family with lively conversation and impressed us with his gustatory sophistication.

Edward Chung continues to keep in touch with me. He seems to be enjoying his life to the fullest. Knowing that I played a small part in his success is probably the most gratifying reward a retired teacher could hope for.

 Susan Cohen Smith is a retired Philadelphia public school teacher.  She taught Art and French for 36 years.  You can email her at retiredartteacher@gmail.com

President Obama’s back-to-school speech inspires teens to achieve

 

 

by Christopher Paslay

 

The brouhaha surrounding Barack Obama’s speech to our nation’s school children, to use a cliché, was much ado about nothing.  In the end, the President’s address was not only squeaky clean but quite inspirational to boot. 

 

Using examples from his own life and from the lives of other students who have overcome serious educational roadblocks (such as poverty, brain cancer, and English language issues), the President explained that each and every one of us can achieve success and reach our goals. 

 

“Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up,” Mr. Obama told the audience.  “No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.”

 

No matter what your political affiliation, the idea of personal responsibility has to sound appealing.  I have to admit that for me, Obama’s words were quite refreshing. 

 

“But at the end of the day,” the President said, “we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.”

 

Amen.

 

On Wednesday I played the speech for all of my classes.  I was impressed with my students’ level of interest in Mr. Obama’s words.  There was pin-drop silence in the classroom for 17 straight minutes, and I could see my 11th graders were not only listening but hearing. 

 

It’s moving to see so many young people looking up to the President as a role model.  In Philadelphia, there’s no doubt that Barack Obama has a much stronger connection to students than George W. Bush (or any other recent president) has ever had, and this is a wonderful and powerful thing.

 

For homework I had my students write the President a three paragraph letter in response to his speech (not the most original assignment but a good back-to-school ice breaker).  In it they were required to introduce themselves, state their goals and how they were going to go about achieving them.  They were also given the opportunity to react to the President’s speech—state whether they agreed or disagreed with what he said.

 

I was very pleased with the response I got from my students.  Their letters were sincere, and their goals were commendable (and surprisingly realistic).  Many talked about staying focused in school so they could graduate and move on to college or a technical academy.    

 

One student majoring in Culinary Arts wrote, “I would like to take my talent to California and work as a chef at the French Laundry.”

 

Another student was shooting for perfect attendance, and planned on graduating with honors and going on to pharmaceutical college.   

 

One of the most moving letters was from a girl who was diagnosed with a learning disability.  She wrote, “As a young girl, my mother was told I would probably never be able to read. . . . It was always my goal to prove that a person with a learning disability can do great things and overcome their disability. . . . Your speech inspired me to continue my ways in school so I can succeed and help my country.  Thank you!”

 

Next week in class we are going to edit and rewrite these letters, and then email them to the White House.  My students keep asking me, “Do you think the President will read them?  No way!  He doesn’t have time for that.”

 

But I tell my students stranger things have happened.  I’ve written many letters to many different people (famous and ordinary), and have gotten some surprising responses; two years ago, after I had my Creative Writing students write a 30 page screenplay and a query letter to a Hollywood literary agency, one of my kids got a reply.  The agent ended up passing on the script, but my student was in the clouds for days.  Later in the year I got a call from his mother, explaining that he was getting serious about writing films.     

 

President Obama’s back-to-school speech was a positive experience for my students.  I am glad I was able to sift through the political controversy and listen to it in my classes.

 

Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality

According to The 41st Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools, 75% of parents gave their local school an A or a B.  But when it came to the nation’s schools as a whole, less than 20% gave a similar high grade. 

 

Why is there such a difference in perception between “your school” and “the nation’s schools”?  Gerald W. Bracey, a longtime Kappan columnist, explains the reason for the disconnect: 

 

Americans never hear anything positive about the nation’s schools and haven’t since the years just before Sputnik in 1957, Bracey writes in a commentary in the September 2009 issue of Phi Delta Kappan.  Negative information flows almost daily from media, politicians, and ideologues. During the 2008 presidential campaign, a $50 million project, Ed in 08, inundated Americans with negativity through its web site, TV ads, and YouTube clips.

 

Our leaders don’t help matters much. “The fact is that we are not just in an economic crisis; we are in an educational crisis,” said Education Secretary Arne Duncan in February. He’s said it repeatedly.

 

The President repeats the mantra. “In 8th-grade math, we’ve fallen to ninth place,” Obama said in March. That’s factually true, but those students were still ahead of 36 other nations. More important, when the test was first given in 1995, American 8th graders were in 28th place. They’ve been busy falling up.

 

On the other hand, parents use other sources and resources for information about their local schools: teachers, administrators, friends, neighbors, newsletters, PTAs, and their kids themselves; and they’re in a much better position to observe what’s actually happening in American schools.

 

Bracey expands this idea in his new book, Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality (Educational Research Service, 2009).  Here is the description of the book:

 

Are America’s schools broken? Education Hell: Rhetoric vs. Reality seeks to address misconceptions about America’s schools by taking on the credo ‘what can be measured matters.’ To the contrary, Dr. Bracey makes a persuasive case that much of what matters cannot be assessed on a multiple choice test. The challenge for educators is to deal effectively with an incomplete accountability system—while creating a broader understanding of successful schools and teachers. School leaders must work to define, maintain, and increase essential skills that may not be measured in today’s accountability plans.

 

Is Dr. Bracey saying the glass is half full?  Marvelous!  It’s refreshing to see educators giving the public an objective looking glass from which to view America’s school system.