Donate today!
view counter

Why can't we be friends?

By Anna Weiss on Jul 6, 2009 11:48 AM
Photo: D Sharon Pruitt

Let's join together and approach improving schools as friends.

I believe in the idea of quality public education. 

I believe that the opportunity to attend an amazing school should not be dictated by how much your family makes and where they can afford to live. 

I myself am a product of the Chicago suburbs' excellent public schools, kindergarten through high school.  When sticky divorce proceedings put a crunch on my parents' finances, my canny mother moved all over the suburbs, chasing after acclaimed school districts in the same way that Plains Indians tracked the buffalo. 

Perhaps because of the sacrifices we initially made as a family to live in such neighborhoods, I never took my public education for granted--I always recognized that it was a huge privilege to be able to attend such schools for "free" and to be able to receive instruction from such experienced, talented teachers. 

However, I think many Americans are far too willing to take public schools for granted.  Sure, sweeping reforms are attempted, but how many receive enough public support to pass?  Why, for example, is there not a more comprehensive, meaningful teacher evaluation protocol in Philadelphia?   Why is it so hard to fire a truly negligent teacher in many school districts all over the country?  These, and many other questions burned in my head as I retired from the School District of Philadelphia to work at a charter school.

Huh?  How is it possible that I could so ardently support public schools, yet I left the school district to work at a charter - a charter which, by all accounts, is not wanting for staff or student applicants?  You may have your hypotheses, but here's the answer, plain and simple: I was working in a system set up for failure. 

It didn't matter how competent my administrators were because they were too busy to focus on enforcing thorough, whole-school disciplinary systems or investment pieces.  It didn't matter if the teacher next door was the most seasoned veteran or the most enthusiastic greenhorn. What structures were in place for us to co-plan? Our preps were consistently taken away to cover for a teacher who went on a months-long extended leave every year.  Even if I became a better, more experienced teacher, how could I trust that my students weren't just going to be handed off the next year to an ineffective one?

The ugly truth is that our current dinosaur of a system, for what it's worth, is not working. 

It pressures teachers and administrators to magically turn what may be legitimately failing grades into unwarranted passing ones.  It allows children, some of whom are in need of genuine intervention, to go unattended for months while their paperwork languishes in the offices of often overworked school counselors.  It protects teachers wholesale, making the issue more about protecting teachers than student achievement. 

I couldn't stand behind that then, and I can't stand by it now.  And while the School District of Philadelphia has in many ways made huge leaps and bounds in the four short years since I've been teaching, we cannot ignore the fact that we are still failing to serve thousands of students.  I believe that an effective system should always be a step ahead.  Our system, if you will, is being outpaced by its constituents, and doesn't show any sign of catching up to it soon.

After that fateful afternoon in the spring of my second year of teaching, I began to look into jobs with charter networks that were known to be high-performing.  I wanted to know what it was like to be a part of a system that worked.  (For those unfamiliar with this particular ongoing debate, a good cross-section of these voices can be found in the comment section of my last post.) 

I've found that because they tend to be smaller, charters are more open to large-scale innovation and flexibility (in a best-case scenario, at least).  For example, this year a colleague and I deviated significantly from the reading list and the prescribed curriculum - with the blessing of our administration - because we made the argument that our students required more rigorous material as they grew throughout the year.

Perhaps it's this advantage that causes detractors to say things like, "You take only the smart kids.  You kick out all the bad kids.  You hurt unions."  Such commentary undermines the good things that can come out of schools like these. 

Why do we in education constantly feel the need to tear each others' successes down?  This "us vs. them" mentality is not effective.  Instead of telling flatly why not, we should be asking gamely, "Why not?"  Can the KIPP, Mastery, or whatever model be replicated exactly on a large scale?  No!  But instead of squabbling about it, we should be thinking about how to adapt these models, or at the very least extract what works, and swiftly implement it to tackle challenges at schools that sorely need support.  

It's not that I believe that charter schools should replace district schools, or that all charter schools are better than district schools.  You see, I don't just believe in charter schools, I believe in schools that work.  And if you're reading this, you do too.

Click Here
view counter

Comments (5)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on July 7, 2009 2:43 pm

It would be great if public education could learn from KIPP schools about what's working for them. Unfortunately, KIPP and its advocates are dishonest about some key features, so that makes it difficult to learn from them.

Two key issues are that the enrollment process for KIPP schools self-selects for students from more-motivated, higher-functioning families; and that many (if not most or all) KIPP schools have very high attrition, as the lower-functioning students who can't cut it leave.

These ARE facts about KIPP schools, and they're very important to consider when looking at what works about KIPP schools -- yet KIPP advocates frequently and dishonestly deny these facts. So how can we learn what works if we are not given honest, accurate information?

Submitted by EnoughIsEnuff!!! (not verified) on July 7, 2009 9:15 pm

KIPP like all the other getrichquickusingpublicschool solutions has an advantage that is denied to public schools. They can screen out potential problems and get rid of those that develop during the school year. Public schools are still open to any and all. This is what we loath about charter shils that are always crowing about their "achievements". Give us a level playing field and we will do even better. Many charters can't compete as it is even with this unfair advantage.

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on July 7, 2009 9:23 pm


The comprehensive, neighborhood schools are doing a fine job...

They empower students, they have a fabulous graduation least 50 percent graduate...and students run their own schools...

At least charter schools have some degree of discipline...discipline is a foreign word in the Philly schools...that is why teachers are ravaged and beaten up on a daily basis...

Submitted by Philly High School teacher (not verified) on July 9, 2009 11:41 am

You shouldn't have to justify your decision to move to Mastery. As a parent, I want my kids in a school that works on a variety of levels. Also, as a parent of kids whose test scores are too low for Masterman and will not get into Central, I want alternatives. As a single parent, I can't afford to send three kids to a Quaker school so I appreciate there are an array of schools in Philly. Most parents want their children / teens to be safe, challenged and prepared for life after school.

I haven't read any posts of teachers at magnet schools apologizing for leaving neighborhood schools - I know some who have only taught at magnet schools. (With full site selection, this will increase. There will be more teachers who only know life at Masterman, SLC, Parkway, etc.) You are meeting the needs of some students/ families for a quality education in Philly - don't apologize. My kids are currently in a K-8 charter school and next year I'll have to help my oldest look at high schools. My kids' charter school, which they got in by the luck of a lottery, demographically is similar to other schools in the neighborhood. They don't "kick out" students. BUT, some charter schools have far less money to work with than SDP schools and teachers are paid less - which makes me feel guilty because I know my salary in the SDP is one reason I stay. (I realize Mastery and KIPP are different - both receive a lot of corporate funding.) So, if anyone should apologize, it is me!

Submitted by EnoughIsEnuff!!! (not verified) on July 9, 2009 2:51 pm

Most charter schools have ENOUGH MONEY because they get money not only from the school district, but also corporate sources too. They often pay their teachers less because they pay their administrators SO MUCH (Philadelphia Academy Charter, Agora Charter, Chester Charter, etc.). That is why charter often won't talk to teachers who have teaching jobs, but snatch up fired Philly teachers in a heartbeat. To get someone to work for low wages you need to get someone who is desperate.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. We reserve the right to delete or remove any material deemed to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Please see our "Terms of Usage" for more detail concerning your obligations as a user of this service. Reader comments are limited to 500 words. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Follow Us On

Read the latest print issue

Philly Ed Feed

Recent Comments


Public School Notebook

699 Ranstead St.
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 839-0082
Fax: (215) 238-2300

© Copyright 2013 The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Usage and Privacy Policy