The Cloud Factor

I had an interesting conversation with a teacher who used to work in my school, whom I will call Joe. He was one of our strongest teachers and a leader in our school. After about five years of working in high needs, under-resourced schools, he made the decision to transfer to a KIPP school, where he could still work with students who come from poor families, but where the school would provide all the resources and support he needed.

Joe said the two jobs are like night and day. He described a school that is tightly and thoughtfully organized, highly supportive, and fully resourced. He works a longer day, but gets paid for it, rather than arriving early and staying late voluntarily, as most of my colleagues and I do. The long afternoon, he explained, includes a few hours of band for the entire middle school. During this time, teachers meet and then pull out small groups of carefully selected students for targeted interventions.

Students are indoctrinated into strict behavior standards, which they almost always meet (all of the students have been at the school since sixth grade). This includes becoming completely silent when the teacher claps two times. Students are explicitly taught how to discuss their feelings with their peers and solve problems. The curriculum for this portion of the program is provided for teachers. Students who consistently do not comply with the behavior standards can be counseled to leave the school, and attend their neighborhood zoned school.

I was most intrigued when Joe said this: "All the behavior stuff is basically taken care of for you. I feel like now, I've become such a better teacher than I ever was. I didn't fully realize it before, but all the craziness that was constantly going on around me was clouding my teaching. With all of that gone, I can identify my weak points and improve on them."

This was a little hard for me to hear. I knew exactly what he was talking about and have felt this clouding effect at times in two very different high needs schools in New York City. With the exception of one student teaching placement at Bank Street's own School For Children (a private lab school), I have always taught in an environment that had some dysfunctional aspects to it. In many cases, these dysfunctions are not the fault of anyone at the school, but rather, are related to the lack of adequate funding of the school's resources or the unstable home lives of the students.

For example, I may plan a lesson that involves students researching something on the Internet, only to find that a good number of the computers on the laptop cart I have signed out won't connect or won't even turn on. We have no technician on staff to maintain the computers, and we likely never will, because we spend our limited funds on more pressing things. I can either stop using computers completely, which seems like a disservice to my students, or I can take my chances every time. In another example of unavoidable dysfunction, I have a few students with chronic attendance problems. The school has made home visits, reported the families to ACS, but the attendance problems persist in some cases. When I strategically assign my students to work in partners for a project, I may find that a student is absent for days with no explanation, leaving someone without a partner for the duration of the project, while the absent student misses the entire learning experience. These are both issues that a fully resourced school--with the power to make noncompliant students transfer out---can prevent from happening (for better or for worse).

Teachers at schools like mine get used the multitude of x factors. In fact, we stop expecting everything to be "just so" and start going out of our way to plan for all of the unexpected things that might happen. Does this make us less effective? Maybe it does, in a way. It is harder to address problems quickly and effectively, when new problems present themselves simultaneously. But is it fair to call us less effective? Is it actually fair to measure my effectiveness in the same way my former colleague's teaching is now measured, when the playing field is not level? Is the job of teaching in these very disparate environments even the same?

If the quality of my teaching is measured by my students' scores on the same test that Joe's students also take, and soon, I am compensated based on this same determination, then tell me-why should I keep on working at a school that can't provide me everything I need to reach my full potential as a teacher?

If I can choose to be "more effective" in a "better" school, then what is really being measured?

[image credit: commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Image:Clouds.JPG]

Comments

[Sam Rosaldo]

Does talking about KIPP schools ever get old? I don't think so. And Ariel, by pointing out the issue of teacher "effectiveness" as it is measured in different school environments, I think you added some nuance to the conversation here.

[Ken]

Hi Ariel,

Great post! A few thoughts:

1. If your goal is to most effectively teach a given population of children, you should try to get a job in a school that will provide you with the best environment to succeed. I am guessing this will mean getting a job at a charter school.

2. You write "In many cases, these dysfunctions are not the fault of anyone at the school, but rather, are related to the lack of adequate funding of the school’s resources or the unstable home lives of the students." Since charter schools receive less funding than your school and teach the same population, why do you assume that the problem is school resources and unstable home lives?

3. Since Joe works at a charter school, his compensation will not necessarily be determined by test scores. It will be determined based on whatever model the school leadership thinks is most appropriate. Only at traditional public schools will you be subject to the Rube Goldberg schemes that are negotiated by the UFT and the DOE.

I hope you continue to consider the merits of teaching at a charter school.

Ken

[Sam Rosaldo]

Ken,

What evidence do you have that charters receive less funding than traditional public schools? I suppose it depends on how you compute funding, but my impression is that the funding is comparable. It also seems clear that the most successful charters obtain significant outside help--see today's WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/14/AR2008121402654.html?hpid=topnews

[Sam Rosaldo]

Ken,

What evidence do you have that charters receive less funding than traditional public schools? I suppose it depends on how you compute funding, but my impression is that the funding is comparable. It also seems clear that the most successful charters obtain significant outside help--see today's WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/14/AR2008121402654.html?hpid=topnews

[Ariel Sacks]

Joe's school receives significant outside funding, as do many charter schools I know of.

[Ken]

Hey Sam and Ariel,

A few points on this important issue:
1. I think these numbers get confusing sometimes, so I am always curious to hear about the latest research.

2. From what I have read, in both NYC and DC, charter schools receive much less per-pupil public funding than traditional public schools. The true cost for traditional public schools in DC is close to $25,000 per pupil versus $11,900 for charter schools. Similarly, in NYC, the real number for traditional public schools is over $19,000 per pupil versus $12,400 for charter schools. People often cite lower numbers for traditional schools that don't include a large number of important items. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html on DC, for example.

3. Every charter school I have spoken to in NYC (including KIPP) receives additional philanthropic funding but tries to spend no more than the artificially low, government-cited per-pupil numbers at traditional public schools. As a result, assuming that charters are being straight-forward in that claim, they spend less than the real per-pupil number for traditional public schools.

4. I have never heard a reputable commentator argue that in general charter schools spend more than traditional public schools. So, even if they spend the same amount (which I doubt), I still have the same basic question: Why do you think the traditional public schools are suffering from a lack of resources if charter schools are able to succeed with the same or less funding?

Ken

[Clover88]

Ariel, this line is most telling: "Students who consistently do not comply with the behavior standards can be counseled to leave the school, and attend their neighborhood zoned school." Translated, that means that Joe's work is better now because he puts the burden of students who don't "fit" into his school onto you. As long as this basic inequity persists, that some schools can choose their students--by counseling them out--and others cannot, we will continue to "save" some students (and teachers) only by abandoning others.

Clover88

[Ariel Sacks]

Thank you for this comment, Clover88. I agree this is a huge problem. All schools should be equipped to work successfully with at risk students, but currently very few are. Some schools have disproportionate numbers of "difficult" students, and these schools are penalized rather than supported in the very challenging work they do.

[MizzB]

I work in a socio-economically disadvantaged elementary in Los Angeles, where I face many of the attendance, behavior, and home-life problems that you're talking about. I try my best to get as much content and social skills teaching into a day as possible, and I often dream about how much more I could do without all the x factors interfering.

There's a lot of talk here about KIPP schools and their highly structured approach. What I wonder about is if we're creating a two-tiered system where the schools that have less x factors to deal with get to work more constructivistly, with their students doing project-based learning, technological group projects, and creative stuff, while the more socio-economically disadvantaged populations are drilled, regimented, and controlled. I haven't heard much about how creativity is valued or promoted in KIPP schools. I get the sense that they're test-taking powerhouses. Does anyone have more information on creative instruction in KIPP schools? Thanks.

[Ken]

Hey MizzB,

I think the best way to learn more about KIPP is to visit a school. From the Kipp NYC website (www.kippnyc.org):

"We have an open-door policy at all of our schools and welcome visitors at any time! Please feel free to contact Carol Lee at clee@kippnyc.org or (212) 991-2600 x6002 to set up a tour or to learn more about volunteering, tutoring, and other opportunities to get involved."

Separately, I would encourage everyone to avoid equating KIPP with the concept of charter schools. KIPP is not for everyone and there are many other excellent charter school operators in NYC. If you don't like KIPP, you might like Achievement First, Uncommon Schools, Harlem Success, Democracy Prep, etc. One of the great things about the charter movement is that it allows for a wide variety of approaches to the difficult task of providing an excellent education to inner-city kids.

Ken

[Sam Rosaldo]

Ken,

I still have the same fundamental disagreement with you: I don't think that charters have the same or less amount of funding. Secondly, I don't think they serve the same students. And third, they have the option of kicking them out.

That said, and before I give my reasons, this is not a stream about whether charters are a good idea or not. You are correct, there are many charters that are innovative and offer excellent options. This stream should not be construed as an anti- versus pro-charters conversation. I'm pro-charters. I just think that teachers at some charter schools, like KIPP, should not be evaluated on an individual level in the same way that teachers at traditional public schools are evaluated.

I read the article that you posted from the Post. Did you read the one I did? Did you think the sources in the article that said that top charters in DC receive more funding are reputable? I thought so. Here's another one that cites the principal of Democracy Prep, one of the schools you refer to. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/14/AR2008121402377.html?sid%3DST20081213http://www.washingtonpost.chttp://www.washingtonpost.com:80/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&sub=AR Reputable?

I don't always think the CATO Institute is reputable. The author of the article made the same point that CATO always makes--choice and charters are great, and money is not the issue--without talking about special education. You cannot be reputable if you are going to talk about school funding in DC without addressing special education.

Here is another article from the Washington Post to check out: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400973.html

Where was this data in the CATO article?

A quick glance at the audit of the student enrollment report by the Office of the State Superintendent of Education shows that charters enroll a lower percentage of special education students than DCPS, and a significantly lower number of Level 4 special education students (those that require the greatest amount of services, and cost the most). In other words, in DC, you're comparing apples to oranges. And your question is based on a false premise.

[Ken]

Hey Sam,

Several thoughts:
1. Democracy Prep is not the same as D.C. Prep. Democracy Prep is a charter school in Manhattan. I don't know anything about D.C. Prep beyond what I learned from the article you link to.

2. D.C. Prep spends about $13,500 per pupil. This is from a quote in the article: "...about $1,500 a year for each middle-school student beyond the nearly $12,000 in public funds the school receives per child".

3. What do you think the correct number is for traditional public schools in D.C.? How does it compare to the $13,500 per pupil that D.C. prep spends?

4. The long article you originally referenced doesn't explicitly talk about the dollars spent per pupil in traditional public schools versus charter schools (unless I missed it?). Instead, it discusses the extra funding beyond the per-pupil funding that charter schools receive. As I have stated, I know that charter schools generally receive additional philanthropic funding, but my argument is that even with these additional funds, they are generally spending no more, and often less, than is spent in traditional public schools.

5. The article about special-ed in DC is scary. I agree that one would need to back out those costs to get a better comparison for how much is being spent on traditional public schools. Separately, that special-ed funding system must be reformed. One reason that fraud is able to occur is because DCPS, in the past, has done such a good job of keeping the actual spending numbers under wraps.

I encourage you to do more research... I could certainly use the help! It is a shame that the school districts like New York City and D.C. don't spell it out for us in a clear manner so that we can make apple-to-apple comparisons, so, unfortunately, it takes some research. Also, I wish charter schools were more open about how much they spend per pupil, although, in my experience, they will give you this information if you ask for it. I hope you can help me with that research since you seem interested in the issue.

I will be surprised if it turns out that the typical charter school is spending more than the typical traditional public school in either D.C. or NYC. With your help, perhaps we can get to the bottom of this.

Ken

[Sam Rosaldo]

Hi Ken,

I appreciate the collaborative tone of your email, and you raise some fair points. And you're right--after I wrote I realized that I had confused Democracy Prep and DC Prep. My mistake.

This conversation illuminates for me how complicated it is to compute actual per pupil expenditures, because so much depends on the criteria one chooses to exclude or include in computing that figure. It's certainly a question with multiple answers.

Ultimately, I think that it would be difficult to find a figure that was fair to both charters and the traditional public schools. Even if you could prove definitively that charters are currently more cost-efficient than traditional public schools, what would the implications be? (given that the high achieving charters do not have significant special ed populations, have a self-selecting group of parents, and are able to exclude students/families who are unable/unwilling to comply with school norms)

Sam

[written essays]

Thank you for making this site very interesting! Keep going! You're doing very well!

[essays]

Just keep on sharing such a great information with us,helped me alot. Good luck with this.Keep sharing.

[dissertations]

I was expecting a post like this! More than anything else, I want to thanks you for sharing this post.