FOCUS DC News Wire 7/11/13

 

 

 

A recent study shows that DC charter schools, on average, outperform DC Public Schools. Why? One reason may be that they're better at creating a "school culture." A well-respected study of charter school outcomes released last month concluded that DC charter schools do a far better job educating students than traditional public schools. As the Post noted in a recent editorial, DC charter students get the equivalent of 72 additional days of learning in reading and a whopping 101 additional days in math. Clearly, there are many reasons for this phenomenon. Charter schools often have longer school days or school years, and they have greater freedom to expel disruptive students. But one crucial factor that sometimes gets overlooked is what charters often refer to as their "school culture."

 

The results of the study, conducted by the Stanford-based Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), shouldn't be overstated. Nationally, it found that gains from charter school attendance were small. And one reason DC charters perform better relative to traditional public schools is that the performance of DCPS schools is so low. Even so, some DC charters achieve no better results than some DCPS schools. But, partly thanks to the DC Public Charter School Board's recent aggressiveness in closing low-performing charters, DC has a good proportion of high-performing charter schools serving a high-poverty population. And one thing that distinguishes those schools is a commitment to creating a school culture.

 

The term encompasses a variety of methods that schools use to set high expectations for student achievement. Following a model pioneered by the KIPP network, classrooms are often named after colleges, and hallways are festooned with college pennants. The kindergarten class might be called "The Class of 2030," not because anyone is assuming it will take the kids that long to graduate from high school but because that's the year they'll graduate from college. Those measures are relatively easy to adopt, and some public schools have started to follow suit. But while it's great to get kids thinking about college from an early age, merely displaying pennants isn't enough to make sure students will actually get there.

 

High-achieving charter schools also focus on building character as part of their school culture. At the charter school where I serve on the Board, DC Scholars, even the three-year-olds start learning about "grit," a term that encompasses traits like optimism and perseverance. As detailed in Paul Tough's How Children Succeed, grit often has more to do with whether students make it to, and through, college than do things like test scores.

 

A behavior management system is essential

But test scores, and the learning they're supposed to reflect, are obviously crucial too. And learning can't take place in a chaotic environment. That's why a third piece of school culture is so important: a consistent classroom and behavior management system. Some observers of charter school discipline are put off by what they perceive as regimentation. Hallways are often marked with lines that serve as guides for students when they're moving from room to room, and kids may be instructed to "track" the teacher with their eyes or use a system of hand gestures to convey everything from "I need to go to the bathroom" to "I agree with what you're saying." Disruptive students may be relegated to a bench at the side of the classroom or required to wear their school uniform shirts inside out. But all kids need rules and structure, and kids who come from high-poverty backgrounds (as do many charter school students) need them more than others. The experience of living in poverty creates stress that makes it harder for children to master skills, like focusing and self-regulation, that are essential to learning. And if parents are themselves stressed by poverty, they're less able to instill those qualities in their kids at home.

 

A behavior management, or discipline, system doesn't have to be harsh and negative. At the charter schools I've visited, teachers seem to rely more on praise for good behavior than chastisement for bad. At DC Scholars, which currently runs from pre-school to 3rd grade but which will ultimately expand to 8th, classrooms for younger students are equipped with a "Choices Meter," a yardstick painted in different colors. Each student is represented by a clothespin attached to the yardstick. When a student makes a good "choice," her clothespin gets moved up towards the blue section at the top of the yardstick, but when she misbehaves the clothespin gets moved down towards the orange area at the bottom. Students are able to track their progress, and if they've behaved really well, at the end of the day they get a blue star. Older students, for whom a blue star may not hold as much power, get fake "dollars" for good behavior, which they can spend on end-of-the-week treats at a school store. In addition, students who have accumulated a certain minimum amount get to go on field trips. This past spring the third-grade class at DC Scholars (the "Georgetown" class) went on a field trip to Georgetown University, but some students stayed behind, learning an important lesson about the consequences of behavior.

 

There are all sorts of ways to create a calm and engaging school environment. At a couple of high-performing DC charter schools, for example, students carry a piece of paper from class to class on which they record letters representing various qualities they've displayed (e.g., a teacher might tell a student to give himself an "A" for attentive, or an "H" for helpful). Whatever system a school chooses to use, what's important is that teachers and staff apply it consistently, so that students know exactly what's expected of them and what the consequences of their actions will be.

 

Can DCPS replicate this?

Can DCPS schools emulate not only the college pennant aspect of school culture but also the behavior management side? I'm not aware of any that have even tried to implement a consistent program, but perhaps someone else out there is. Clearly, there are certain features of charter schools that make it easier to create a school culture: greater flexibility in weeding out teachers and students who can't or won't get with the program, for example. (It should be noted, however, that the majority of charters expel few or no students.) It also requires a huge investment of time and energy. At DC Scholars, there's a full-time Director of Culture and a good amount of culture-focused training for teachers. The school considers culture so important that it devotes the first six weeks of the school year to acquainting students with it. And obviously, it's more difficult to engage kids in school culture as they get older.

 

But regardless of the challenges, it's worth a try. Teachers and students who want to learn are often at the mercy of a disruptive minority, and without a clear and consistent approach it's a lot harder to create an environment conducive to learning. If DCPS were to adopt a district-wide behavior management system, students wouldn't have to adapt to a new regime every time they transition from one school to another. On the other hand, different schools have different needs, so there's something to be said for autonomy in this area. But even a few DCPS schools, or one, with an effective behavior management system would be better than nothing.

 

 

The July 7 editorial “A gold star for charters” was right to note the significant performance of the District’s charter schools vs. those in the rest of the country. Kudos to the D.C. Public Charter School Board and the schools for their achievement.

 

But neither charter nor traditional public schools are automatically effective or ineffective. Are all charters great? No. Are all D.C. traditional public schools terrible? No. The discussion should not be about charters vs. traditional schools. That deals with who governs. Instead, the discussion should be about what programs are effective in producing gains for which categories of students. For example: Have schools that achieved high academic growth increased instructional time through an extended day or week?

 

A Center for Research on Education Outcomes study, cited in the editorial, has enough mixed findings to give pause about using the results as a policy rationale in the District. For example, nationally only 25 percent of students in charter schools performed significantly better than their traditional school “twins” in reading; 56 percent were not significantly different; and 19 percent performed significantly worse. More interesting: Charter school students on average have weaker academic growth than do students in traditional public schools when they attend schools with a preponderance of low-achieving students.

 

If charter schools point us in the direction of effective school programs, then let’s build on those findings for both charter and D.C. public schools. It is time to move away from competition to find out what works for all our children.

 

Stephen Smith, Washington