Gleason, Wang: Debate over school closings asks the wrong questions
by thenotebook on Mar 06 2013 Posted in Commentary
Thursday's School Reform Commission vote on the recommended closure of nearly 30 schools will undoubtedly have a major impact on the future of the city's public school system. In advance of the vote, the Notebook asked prominent Philadelphians to offer their thoughts, using new data and maps on school attendance patterns in the city as a starting point.
Read the responses from:
Sandra Dungee Glenn, former School Reform Commission chair
Helen Gym, a co-founder of Parents United for Public Education
by Mark Gleason and Mike Wang
Far more important than the question of whether schools should close is why some neighborhood schools work -- even when serving the same students with the same funding -- and others don’t. We don’t need to look far to answer this question and don’t need to engage in some hypothetical debate over models, governance, theories, or systems. We need only to look at the dozens of successful neighborhood schools in Philadelphia and find the common threads: focused leaders, resourceful and committed teachers, and the conditions that enable these educators to thrive.
As long as there have been schools, parents and caregivers have pursued the best schools for their children. Whenever possible, nearly all prefer those schools to be close to home. But they will look elsewhere when a good education is not available nearby.
For decades, some Philadelphia families have sought out scholarships to attend private schools, while others with means have paid tuition, moved to a different neighborhood or fled the city altogether for a better local school. More recently, an increasing number of families of all backgrounds are choosing charter schools. Four in 10 of the students who live in neighborhoods with schools recommended for closure have already left in pursuit of something better. The data show that parents and families weighing their options are rarely motivated by a particular type of school; rather, they simply want the safest, highest-quality schools for their children.
There are many reasons for families to be worried about school closings. But the real challenge facing Philadelphia is the number of neighborhood schools that families find unsuitable. Parents know what’s missing in such schools. At the Feb. 21 School Reform Commission meeting, parents from James Alcorn School pleaded with SRC members to address inconsistent leadership and an environment not conducive to learning. Alcorn is among the city’s lowest-performing schools; 55 percent of students in its attendance zone have opted into charters or district schools outside of the zone.
Conversely, at schools where enrollment is high, parents know what is working. “We have a challenge with outbursts with my youngest son. The teachers made a special meeting for me to meet with all of the teachers at once, and we came up with a plan to help my son,” says Gia Calloway, mother of four students attending Young Scholars Frederick Douglass Elementary. “I get a weekly report with feedback on how he's transitioning between classes. … [The teachers] took this time out of their whole day to sit down and talk to me, and make things work for my son. Just for my son. And that shows that they care about him. That they think he has the intelligence to succeed. That they see in him what I see in him.”
At Douglass, which until three years ago was one of the city’s poorest-performing schools, enrollment has increased by nearly 60 percent since 2010. There, economically disadvantaged students learn and achieve at high levels despite the poverty-related challenges they face every day. The same happens at dozens of other neighborhood schools -- some run by the District, some by charters, and some by the parochial system. At these schools, there is a focused principal who is accountable for building a great team of teachers and staff, ensuring the safety of children, partnering with parents, and achieving academic results, no matter what challenges students bring to school. These leaders, more often than not, have the flexibility and the imperative to make budget, curricular, and staffing decisions based on student needs.
Families aren’t the only ones who leave for better schools. The city’s charter schools are filled with former District teachers who moved on in pursuit of working environments that foster collaboration and provide regular coaching and feedback. The culture in these schools revolves around student expectations and teacher effectiveness rather than an outdated 200-page labor contract. Such environments exist in some District schools, too, but cumbersome work rules and a lack of accountability for school leadership hinder them in many. Even within the District, the best teachers tend to gravitate to the schools where strong leaders have created high expectations.
We can and must create these conditions in every school. The question now is whether we can muster the will to do so. In the process of closing schools, we must figure out how to get more resources into the hands of great principals and great teachers to do what they do best. We must pull back from policies and rules that have no bearing on student achievement and hold school leaders responsible for managing teachers as partners and professionals. We must face the challenges of poverty openly and honestly, but without lowering expectations for children.
Closing schools would be less painful if we had enough outstanding schools to enroll every displaced student. The discontent voiced by families amid these closings must be a reminder that we have an obligation -- and the opportunity -- to ensure there is a great school in every neighborhood.
Philadelphia parents Mark Gleason and Mike Wang are the executive director and managing director, respectively, of the Philadelphia School Partnership. PSP is a nonprofit organization working to expand the number of high-quality schools in Philadelphia.
The opinions expressed are solely those of the authors.
Comments (21)
Submitted by Brian Cohen (not verified) on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 23:05.
I like a lot of what you gentlemen have to say but one particular piece I disagree with fervently. You mentioned that teachers are switching to schools that have higher quality leadership in order to find collaborative environments. Unfortunately, there are (and were) collaborative environments at many neighborhood schools that were squelched by the District's Renaissance initiative, amongst others. As a former West Philly HS teacher I can tell you we had one of the best staff in the District but were put on the turnaround list because test scores were low. That particular aspect of education is misleading and I want to make it clear that teachers are being pushed into these schools because they do not want to have to apply for jobs every year like I had to.
Submitted by Rob (not verified) on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 23:10.
If school closings were all about closing the schools that dont work, then why close so many schools that ARE working? My primary concerns with the school closings was the lack of transparancy and that the data doesnt support the decisions to close individual schools. Le'ts come together as educators and community members to figure out how to do this in the way that makes the most sense. Its very hard for an administartion that has been on the job for a few months to understand the complexities of this city (example: moving Germantown to King).
On another note, Does anyone have the numbers on teachers who leave the district to teach at charter schools? I don't know if I've ever met one.
Submitted by reformer (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 07:11.
there are quite a few. Many of the tfa corps members you think abandon education have also transitioned to a charter. the number i'd like to see published is the number of district employees with children in charter schools.
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 09:40.
While I don't have any hard data, I know many TFA and younger teachers who were laid off when the stimulus money dried up and the budget went south. They ended up in charter schools because of limited options, not out of fervor for Gleason and Wang's version of education reform.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/06/2013 - 23:25.
In what way are these guys prominent Philadelphians?
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 05:04.
As usual, Mr. Gleason and now Mr. Wang, use two anecdotal accounts and then make broad generalizations that are not supported with any evidence. I require my students to base their claims on evidence - this essay is a good example of what not to do.
The agenda of Mr. Gleason and Mr. Wang is to increase the number of parochial and charter schools. Their organization - Phila. School Partnership - has funded parochial and charter schools (with one exception - a small grant to Powell Elementary). Mr. Gleason and Mr. Wang are aligned with the powerful granters (Gates, Walton, Broad) who want to privatize education. Their claim of supporting "great schools" is shallow and narrow considering their political agenda.
Submitted by tom-104 on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 09:51.
And he keeps touting that he is a Philadelphian. Typical double speak from the corporate reformers. They frequently state as truth exactly what is not the truth.
He came here from northern New Jersey to take a big paying job to privatize Philadelphia public schools. We are just a stop on his career path. After he has wrought his deformation of the School District he will move on as will all of the corporate reformers engaged in this enterprise.
Submitted by rob (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 10:18.
It's very easy to understand his motives by looking at PSP's funding. They are no different than any other lobbying group
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 10:31.
Gleason and Wang have no credibility whatsoever in this. They both represent a "front organization" which promotes only the privatization of the American schoolhouse.
I have not heard one word come out of either of their mouths which would improve education of our schoolchildren or the governance of "their schools." What I hear from them is only the rhetoric of the privatizers -- who of course, they represent.
If they really cared about our children -- they would be using their money and their influence to assure that every elementary school child in Philadelphia be given a maximum class size of 20 students per class in grades K-3. And that every student who falls behind in reading immediately receive the services of a certified reading specialist.
They speak only the psychobabble of privatization. Gleason and Wang are only about serving themselves -- not children.
Submitted by Joe K. (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 10:42.
I am so jealous. All 3 of you guys said what I said but you all said it better.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 12:36.
Rich,
I'll say it again. Any organization which makes decisions in meetings which are not open to the public is not to be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the money which comes from private donors, and is funneled to schools of THEIR choosing, leads to our present situation: the haves stay open and the have-nots face closure. The SRC should admit that they are meeting with these guys in private and are implementing the policies they advance.
I resent their being referred to as "prominent Philadelphians". They represent corporate interests, not those of the public. They are accountable to no one.
Lisa Haver
Submitted by Anon. (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 15:33.
There is a widespread lack of accountability in Philadelphia public education. PSP actually DOES hold themselves accountable to very clear and transparent benchmarks and outcomes established in 2010.
I find nothing objectionable about this piece.
Those who cannot agree with the big picture message of this piece - that impactful leaders and teachers will be critical to every Philadelphia school's success - are arguing the sake of arguing and continue to get in the way of progress for Philly's kids.
Submitted by Rich Migliore (not verified) on Fri, 03/08/2013 - 00:33.
Well, we can agree on one thing -- "that impactful leaders and teachers will be critical to every Philadelphia school's success." We knew that 100 years ago, too.
So how do you plan to get the best and brightest teachers to come to Philadelphia and spend their professional lives in Philadelphia's schools?
Then, how are we going to choose our school leaders?
Should our public schools be governed as public schools or private schools paid for with public funds?
And just for the sake of honest conversation, What are the benchmarks and outcomes for which PSP holds itself accountable?
And please, school me on their indicia of transparency. I am just a learner here.
Submitted by Dina (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 12:36.
I am glad to see that this conversation is going on here at the Notebook and I think we should have more of it. But it does concern me when people say certain schools (i.e. charter schools) are doing better with the same funding. They aren't - they have more resources. Let's just be honest about it. Just like those of us who decry the increase in charters and the killing of public schools should also be honest about the fact that not only have public schools been starved of resources, they genuinely have had some serious problems and issues with their leaders and teachers (and I say that as a long time public school teacher and parent). But quality education does not solely reside in charter schools, with young and eager (who often get burned out and leave) teachers, supported by corporate investors, and measured by scores on questionable tests.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 14:21.
Mark Gleason: there were no parents of Alcorn students at the February 25 meeting complaining about Alcorn. The people who spoke about Alcorn were paid shills of Kenny Gamble who wants Alcorn in his fiefdom.
If you are going to write commentaries in the Notebook, you should have the "professional responsibility" to get the facts straight and be honest.
You see, we still teach honesty in our schools. where did you go to school?
Submitted by reformer (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 15:15.
will someone please explain why privatization is a bad thing? publicly funded healthcare, housing, food stamps and childcare done by private providers don't get the criticism that publicly funded private educators do. have any of you ever worked in the private sector? your bigotry toward the private sector is clouding your judgement. ms. chen raised this question a few weeks ago. why don't you fight against the investment in private companies by your retirement plan? the truth is this isn't about gleason or wang. it's about jobs. i didn't agree with the way the district started the negotiations and i know that many teaching veterans must feel that pressure. i don't think your union representation has served you well. that's not gleason or wang who did that. this is a train that has left the station. you are getting lip service from the elected officials. their kids don't go to neighborhood schools. you're getting manipulated by the preachers. their kids don't go to neighborhood schools either. hey, your kids don't go to neighborhood schools. so who does? only those who have no other option. if you really are fighting for them, you'd fight for a a better option than they have now. if it's not good enough for anyone else, why do they have to go there?
Submitted by Geoffrey (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 15:25.
Gleason and Wang are assuming the conventional missionary position. In other words, they have little real knowledge of the community they are so eager to change, and no knowledge of the systematic manner in which many neighborhood schools were destroyed by Vallas, Ackerman and now Hite. Wang has is roots in TFA, so we know how much respect he has for tradition.
I've written a little on this blog about how a once-innovative Simon Gratz was undermined by ever-changing leadership. Now all we hear is how much everyone loves Mastery. This may be so, but when there were real, thriving Small Learning Communities, many parents "voted with their feet" in order to send their children to a school that a rich tradition, experienced teachers, great Arts programs, sports and other hallmarks of a quality school.
This is it really bothers me when people talk about "failing" schools. Many of these schools were made to fail by career administrators, Fraternity and Sorority nepotism and other adult issues that have nothing to do with teaching and learning.
While I realize that we cannot change the past, it is important to address the current crisis from a historically accurate position. If city council, or the courts, could order moratorium, then a more thoughtful, strategic plan could be conceived and implemented. Philly Parent offered a plan about blending magnets and neighborhood schools.
I would also suggest that the mayor's office and SRC offer a comprehensive report on how they are pursuing equitable funding from the State and how the state is responding.
Submitted by Dina (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 18:02.
Thanks Geoffrey for reminding us that there is a long and rich history of other kinds of reform in Philadelphia and in Philadelphia schools. A reform effort where teachers were treated with deep respect, where they worked together to provide wonderful opportunities for our young people, and where students had a curriculum rich in content and experiences that engaged them in deep thinking and learning. We were making progress too (and that was confirmed by research), but it was stopped in its tracks when new people came to take charge of the district.
Submitted by Geoffrey (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 19:36.
Dina, you gotta love the first line of my post.
Submitted by Philly Parent and Teacher (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 20:03.
Great double entendre! Which interpretation is more subtle...
Submitted by Dina (not verified) on Thu, 03/07/2013 - 22:58.
Indeed!
Post new comment