Chattanooga is about the size of Rochester, and their schools used to stink. In the late '90s, they were home to 9 of the 20 worst schools in Tennessee, with 22% of third graders reading at or above grade level.
Though Rochester's schools aren't as bad as Chattanooga's, we can still learn from what they're doing to improve their worst inner-city schools. If we do, we're going to be awash in the blood of sacred cows.
As detailed on Tuesday's News Hour, Chattanooga's plan starts with private money from a foundation and and a gutsy superintendent. The focus of the money and the administrator was simple: excellent teaching.
At the beginning of the program, almost all of the inner-city principals were replaced, and the teachers in the worst schools were evaluated. The "retired in place" teachers were deported to suburban districts. As the superintendent explained, each suburban school could handle one or two poor teachers, but the concentration of bad teachers in the inner city (2/3 in some schools) was overwhelming.
Of course, these bad teachers couldn't be fired because they had tenure. But I'll bet that a lot of them ended up getting better or quitting under the increased supervision they received at the suburban schools.
After the deportation, new teachers were recruited with incentives like mortgage financing for inner city homes and tuition for Master's Degree programs. These incentives were tied to retention agreements -- if the teachers didn't stay, they had to pay back their incentive.
The foundation money also paid for new training for existing teachers, teacher "coaches" to help teachers in the classroom, and more teachers for individualized reading instruction.
The results are good: reading scores are up. Everything's not perfect in Chattanooga, but things are definitely better.
One more thing: the whole program was relatively inexpensive. The private endowments contributed $1.5 million per year for five years. More importantly, the endowments also focused their oversight on the program so the money wasn't wasted.
Chattanooga has a modest solution to a difficult problem. The only thing that makes the solution hard is that it steps on the toes of the teachers' union (by concentrating on underperforming teachers), the school bureaucracy (by keeping close tabs on where the money goes), and the suburban schools (by sending them underperforming teachers). These are three of the powers that usually quash any change in Rochester's schools.
I wonder if there's a foundation or a politician with a taste for sacred cow who might want to give this a shot in Rochester.
Comments (6)
One thing to remember and think about, is what are the hiring processes and policies that lead to so many bad teachers in the RCSD in the first instance, and can that institutional climate be changed?
What I mean, is that there is no lack of quality teachers willing to work at RCSD - anyone who claims so is lying (I have done work for RCSD, and know quite a bit about the teachers that they have there and people who would like to work there but are not hired). The first important note to make about RCSD hiring, is that "diversity" trumps quality each and every time. Until that is dealt with, and until the school are willing to and allowed to start truly disciplining students who engage in misconduct and until they are allowed to actually fail students who fail - simply moving teachers around is not going to matter.
Moreover, why should the suburban schools - who usually hire based on quality rather than diversity - be willing or be foreced to take bad teachers that the RCSD hired and gave tenure to EVEN THOUGH RCSD knew or should have known the teacher was incompetent? There is no equity or justice in that.
Also, unless and until people start to a) elect diffent people to the school board (the same individuals get consistently reelected, even though they have yet to solve one problem in 20 or more years); and b) take on the teachers' unions (how anyone believes that an institution whose sole purpose is to get teachers more pay for the least amount of work is looking out for the interests of students is beyond me) - nothing will change.
Posted by Great Banana | June 23, 2006 1:02 PM
Posted on June 23, 2006 13:02
You make a lot of good points.
I agree that there are a lot of good teachers in RCSD. And you're right that the long-term solution to the problem is to put problem solvers on the school board and lessen the grip of the teachers' union. But, as you point out, this hasn't happened in 20 years, and it probably won't happen in the next 20.
The Chattanooga lesson is that private foundations willing to make a modest investment can make a major impact in a way that skirts the usual issues that block educational excellence (lazy school boards and tenure).
They can go around tenure by transferring the teachers out of district. Granted, this isn't fair to the suburban districts, but the impact on those districts is minor. I'm sure you'll agree that one bad teacher isn't going to last long in a suburban district. The oversight is just too good there.
As for the school board, in Chattanooga they had to go along with the superintendent because (a) their bad schools were really bad and (b) they would be turning down $$ if they didn't. They were in a catch-22 where they would appear to be spectalarly stupid, not just merely incompetent, if they turned refused the grant.
All it takes is a superintendent with guts and a foundation with some money and oversight capability. The alternative is years of struggle with a uncertain outcome.
But, yes, it isn't fair. Unfortunately, the fair solution -- total overhaul of RCSD -- is too big a bite. This is a nibble that might work, and might be a baby step towards that total overhaul.
Posted by Rottenchester | June 23, 2006 1:41 PM
Posted on June 23, 2006 13:41
Rottenchester,
But, yes, it isn't fair. Unfortunately, the fair solution -- total overhaul of RCSD -- is too big a bite. This is a nibble that might work, and might be a baby step towards that total overhaul.
Sometimes, people deserve the government they elected. Here in Rochester, the City has elected, and continues to elect, a school board who created the problems they face. Thus, the community deserves the results they get.
Why should the suburbs feel the need to save the RCSD from itself? If year after year of incompetence from the board does not convince the community to elect different board members with different ideas, showing that they have no interest in better education, why should people outside the City care?
This is a question I am always wondering when complaints are made about things that could be changed by the community but are not. The community has made its decision that diversity of administrators and teachers is much more important than quality. And, the community has decided that one party and particular people should have compete control of the board, regardless of results. Why should we not simply allow that decision to stand? That, after all, is democracy.
Posted by Great Banana | June 26, 2006 2:26 PM
Posted on June 26, 2006 14:26
It is democracy at the local level, but at the state and national level, we give education departments the right to set standards. If a school is not meeting those standards, then the school board can be sidelined by the state education dept.
One reason why suburbanites should care is that poor schooling is fueling a cycle of ignorance which ends up costing everyone money. Better education leads to fewer people requiring public assistance, which in turn leads to lower taxes for everyone.
Posted by Rottenchester | June 26, 2006 5:19 PM
Posted on June 26, 2006 17:19
Rottenchester,
Just so you know, I'm not a suburbanite - I live in the City.
You said:
One reason why suburbanites should care is that poor schooling is fueling a cycle of ignorance which ends up costing everyone money. Better education leads to fewer people requiring public assistance, which in turn leads to lower taxes for everyone.
That is fine, but if outsiders are asked to remedy the problems that the RCSD and the community put itself into, then all control should be taken away from the community. If we are basically saying that the community is incapable of governing itself - as far as the RCSD is concerned - which is what you are saying - then the school board should be shut down and the state, or the suburbs who are being asked to save the RCSD, should be allowed to completely control the RCSD and make all decisions.
It cannot be both ways - allowing the community to create the problems but not suffer the consequences. I.e., we either believe in democracy, or we do not.
At some point, I would hope, the community will realize its many, many mistakes and stop voting for the same people who created all of these problems in the first instance.
Posted by Great Banana | June 27, 2006 8:31 AM
Posted on June 27, 2006 08:31
"At some point, I would hope, the community will realize its many, many mistakes and stop voting for the same people who created all of these problems in the first instance."
I would hope so also, but the way politics and political machines run, I think that is unlikely. I've heard of some cities starting 'Parents Unions' or similar groups. As far as I've had experience, most of the people who run of school board are selected by the heads of local political parties, not nominated by parents.
I don't think that democracy 'just works'. It takes educated people. It takes good design. Frankly, I think on a local level, in a lot of places, it isn't working very well. Ironically, the education system was 'officially' deigned to educate Americans to be good citizens, good voters. It seems they've missed the mark on that too.
Posted by FarMcKon | July 19, 2006 8:11 PM
Posted on July 19, 2006 20:11