GreatSchools: Bill's Blog

"I'm so proud of you for keeping at it!"

My second-grade daughter started piano lessons last fall. Eight months later, she's starting to sound pretty good.

During the past week, her rendition of "She'll Be Coming 'Round the Mountain" is sounding really good. I find myself humming along and when she's finished, I praise her: "Wow, babe, that was really good!"

Also this past week, a friend of mine pointed me toward the research of Professor Carol Dweck, A Stanford University psychologist who studies motivation in children and adults, Professor Dweck's research focuses on how people's belief about intelligence impacts how much they learn.

Some young people, she writes, believe that Intelligence or skill depends on innate ability. You either have it or you don't. She calls this a "fixed mind-set."

Other young people believe that intelligence and skills can be developed through education and hard work. They relish the challenge of learning because they believe it will pay off. She calls this a "growth-oriented" mind-set.

Not surprisingly, she finds that students who are growth-oriented do better in school than those who have a fixed mind-set.

And in a recent piece in Scientific American, she has some advice for parents: praising your child's effort is better than praising their achievement. This is because praising effort reinforces the growth mind-set.

This got me thinking: Why is my second-grader suddenly sounding better on the piano after eight months of lessons? Is it because she's recently learned some particular new skills? Have we finally discovered that she has talent?

No, it's because she's learning faster now than she was before. And she's learning faster because she's trying harder and spending more time practicing. She's spending more time practicing because she's enjoying it more. And she's enjoying it more because she's feeling successful.

This past  week, it seems that she "broke through" on the hardest part of "Coming 'Round the Mountain." She played it over and over and over again (yes, sometimes I wanted to escape!) until her halting and mistake-riddled attempts were transformed into a fluent and spirited melody.

I think Professor Dweck is right. Surely, I don't believe I did any harm by praising her when she "broke through" and found success. But even more important, I should be praising her for her effort...for her determination to keep trying until she gets it right. She should be hearing from me after half an hour of working hard on something that is difficult: "I'm so proud of you for keeping at it!"

That way, I can help her develop a growth mind-set, the greatest gift of all.

Parsing John Dewey

I spent some time today reading Democracy and Education by John Dewey, an American philosopher who has had a major influence on education in the United States. A proponent of progressive education theories, Dewey did most of his thinking and writing in the first half of the twentieth century.

Working my way through Dewey's fairly opaque prose, I discovered why this writer is still worth reading almost a century later. Dewey takes us back to first principles to describe the purpose of education as the means by which a society preserves itself. Consider this selection from section one of Democracy and Education:

The primary ineluctable facts of the birth and death of each one of the constituent members in a social group determine the necessity of education. On one hand, there is the contrast between the immaturity of the new-born members of the group — its future sole representatives — and the maturity of the adult members who possess the knowledge and customs of the group. On the other hand, there is the necessity that these immature members be not merely physically preserved in adequate numbers, but that they be initiated into the interests, purposes, information, skill, and practices of the mature members: otherwise the group will cease its characteristic life. Even in a savage tribe, the achievements of adults are far beyond what the immature members would be capable of if left to themselves. With the growth of civilization, the gap between the original capacities of the immature and the standards and customs of the elders increases. Mere physical growing up, mere mastery of the bare necessities of subsistence will not suffice to reproduce the life of the group. Deliberate effort and the taking of thoughtful pains are required. Beings who are born not only unaware of, but quite indifferent to, the aims and habits of the social group have to be rendered cognizant of them and actively interested. Education, and education alone, spans the gap.

He goes on to champion what we consider today to be a core tenet of progressive education: The purpose of learning is to prepare young people to think critically for themselves and to participate in and enrich democracy. (Beware: it takes a fair amount of effort to parse Dewey, who never uses one word when he could use two.)

Dewey reminds us parents that formal education is important not only because it is the means by which our children acquire skills important to their future. It is important also because it is the means by which we collectively pass along our "aims and habits." It offers us the opportunity to consider which collective habits we might like to break — or which aims we might like to encourage the next generation to pay more attention to.

Education is "social engineering" whether we like to admit it or not. We are passing down our habits, hopes and fears. After reading Dewey, I think I'll ask some different kinds of questions at the next "Coffee and Questions" meeting with the principal at my children's school: "What societal habits are we trying to reinforce here? And what habits are we trying to break?

GreatSchools Acquiring SchwabLearning.org

We are proud to announce that we are acquiring SchwabLearning.org, the highly respected Web site dedicated to helping parents of children with learning and attention problems. You can read the full announcement and check out SchwabLearning.org if you haven't already seen it.

If you ask parents of a child with a learning problem about the difficult journey they've been on, you'll quickly recognize that we have a wonderful new opportunity here to provide a much needed service — and an awesome responsibility. Parents have a profound need for accurate information and empathetic support, whether their child has a specific learning disability, AD/HD or a learning challenge that doesn't qualify for special education. The issues can be complex and the right approach to help a child is not necessarily easy to determine.

SchwabLearning.org has done a great job helping parents for more than a decade. Our challenge is to maintain this excellence and build on it. We have great respect for Charles and Helen Schwab, who took it upon themselves to create this resource, and for the staff members of SchwabLearning.org, who have done a fantastic job bringing the Schwabs' vision to reality.

SchwabLearning.org has made research-based information accessible to parents. We recognize we have a lot to learn in this area, and we're bringing in a new editor and writers with expertise in learning difficulties to help us. We will also create a new advisory council of experts in these issues.

We see this as an exciting opportunity for GreatSchools to bring information, support and advice to an even broader range of parents. We're dedicated to serving more parents as they work through their children's learning challenges. At the same time, we're also going to work to help every parent learn what parents of children with learning difficulties know: Each child is unique, with unique abilities and needs.  All can be empowered to manage their challenges, overcome setbacks and achieve success in their lives.

Drop me a line if you have any thoughts about how we can make the most of this new opportunity: bjackson@greatschools.net . 

What makes great nonprofits great?

Earlier this week, I attended a conference of the New Schools Venture Fund, a venture philanthropy organization that works to create and support high-performing nonprofit charter school management organizations. This gathering focused on research by Heather McLeod Grant and Leslie Crutchfield about nonprofit effectiveness.

The interesting thing they found: the nonprofits with the most impact are not so much better at managing themselves internally as they are better at building partnerships with other organizations to advance their cause. The most effective nonoprofits are certainly "good enough" when it comes to internal management, but it is the relationships they form outside the boundaries of the organization that propel them to unique impact.

For the full story, see their piece in the Stanford Social Innovation Review or check out their book, Forces for Good.

How does this lesson apply to schools? I suspect its less true for schools than for most other kinds of nonprofit organizations. The quality of the experience that students have -- especially young students -- is determined so much by what schools do inside their four walls, and the skills and capacity that teachers and principals develop internally.

Yet, this is a good reminder for those of us involved in improving schools to "think outside the box...or the four walls" for the best ideas and for partnerships that can accelerate student learning. A great example: Partners in School Innovation here in the Bay Area teams up with public schools to help them close the achievement gap. They've gotten some solid results that the schools would not necessarily have been able to achieve on their own.

The first order of business for schools is to make sure they have their act together internally: high expectations, strong principal leadership and great teaching. But then, parent leaders and school officials should heed the lesson of this research and consider: what partnerships can we form to accelerate our success? And how can we advance our cause by partnering with others to advocate for changes needed in our education system?

This kind of thinking, as Grant and Crutchfield show, can help an organization graduate from modest impact to extraordinary impact.

Supreme Court Is Not Where The Action Is

Today, the Supreme Court restricted the degree to which public school districts can consider race in school assignment plans. The majority reasoned that "the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," as Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Although he joined the conservative majority, Justice Kennedy left the door open for race to be an element of consideration for school assignment plans. "A district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population," Kennedy said. "Race may be one component of that diversity."

My main reaction: Yawn.

OK, I know this decision matters. I understand that city school boards, including my own San Francisco Board of Education, have a legitimate interest in maintaining racial integration in schools. Civil rights organizations are calling this a major setback to Brown vs. the Board of Education. And African Americans are much more likely than whites to support the idea that school boards should take the initiative to ensure racial integration.

But the real threat to civil rights and equal opportunity in this country is low achievement on the part of African Americans and Latino students, and the wide achievement gap between them and white students. Here in California, African American and Latino seventh-graders read at about the same level as white third-graders. (The Education Trust West has some great data showing the achievement gap in California.) And high school graduation rates for African American and Latino students are around 50% - 60% in most large cities.

This achievement gap is the real story. The civil rights leaders who pressed the Brown case 50 years ago might be disappointed in today's Supreme Court decision. But most of all, I suspect, they'd be disappointed with the wide achievement gap between the races that remains to this day.

The decision was close and might come out differently next time. But the Court is not where the action is. The good news is that, these days, we have a growing movement of schools, districts, elected leaders, foundations and parents who are leading the charge to close the achievement gap and educate all kids to high levels. I'm far more interested in what we're learning from them and how we can accelerate their successes than what the Supreme Court has decided this time around. They're the ones who are going to turn things around for America's underserved children.

Mr. Lopez Does Not Play

Last year I visited Oakland Charter Academy (OCA) in Oakland, California. A colleague suggested that I visit to see this extraordinary school with my own eyes.

Indeed, OCA is an impressive high school. The students, 96% Latino and African American, are focusing and working hard, always. Their hard work pays off. Their GreatSchools Rating is a 9 out of 10, and their GreatSchools parent reviews are glowing. In fact, the parents who have left comments and reviews on GreatSchools.net tell the story better than I can:

(October 2006)
"My child attended another charter school before coming to OCA and had all kinds of problems. I took her out and put her here at OCA, it was the best move I made. My daughter hated it at first, but as a parent that is a good sign in Oakland. There is strict disicpline, and tons of work. I used to be a person who thought that all charters schools were good, but in the search for a school in Oakland, boy did I get an eye opener. So many bad charter schools! I am very pleased with OCA and all of the focus on education and children. All my girl needed was authority and structure, but this is what most schools in this city avoid giving."

(September 2006)
"What can you say? The most improved school in the city 2 years in a row. It is strict, and gives a lot of homework, and Mr. Lopez does not play. But my child has grown tremendously, academically and matured. Keep up the good work."

Principal Jorge Lopez is the key to OCA’s success. Simply put, he does not play. He sets high expectations for behavior and academic achievement. He sets high expectations for his teachers: They work hard to reach kids who often have not experienced success in school before. And he sets high expectations for himself: He's always learning about new education issues himself and pushing the school to improve.

When I visited, he told me that one of his motivational tricks is to challenge the mostly poor kids who attend the school: Do you want to grow up cleaning the homes of the rich people who live in the hills? Are you as good as their children? The answer, clearly, is that Jorge's kids are as good as "their" children.

Congress is debating changes to the No Child Left Behind Act, which is supposed to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged kids. I think they ought to cut short testimony from experts who have never turned a school around, and they ought to call Jorge Lopez and a dozen like him to the stand and learn what it really takes to turn a failing school around.

The key to turning around low-performing schools in this country is to find 20,000 Jorge Lopez's and give them the tools they need to succeed. Let's talk about how to make that happen.

College Board Report on Teachers

Some time ago, the College Board released a report on teaching in America called  Teachers and the Uncertain American Future. Lisa Rosenthal, our senior editor, just alerted me to it.

I knew this was going to be an interesting report after reading the first recommendation: "Provide an immediate 15 to 20 percent hike in teachers' salaries (and rising to 50 percent in the foreseeable future), with provisions for an 11-month contract and a differential pay system based on challenging schools, shortage disciplines, and outstanding teaching contributions."

Read the whole kit and kaboodle here.

Whither NCLB?

A few days ago, I had the pleasure of reading one of the most thoughtful pieces about NCLB that I've ever read, and I'd like to share it with you.

In this piece in National Review Online, Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation (disclosure: The Fordham Foundation provides funding to GreatSchools) describes himself as a backer of the core ideas behind NCLB, which he describes as follows:

"First, that virtually all children (even those living in poverty) have the capacity to achieve a reasonable level of proficiency in reading and math by the time they turn 18 — and that it’s the education system’s job to make sure they do. Second, that everyone benefits from having someone looking over his shoulder and that schools and school systems need external pressure — i.e., accountability — in order to improve; good intentions aren’t enough. Third, that good education is synonymous with good teaching. This requires good teachers, which every child deserves, but which today’s education bureaucracies, licensure rules, ed schools, and union contracts too often impede. Fourth, that giving parents choices within the education system has all kinds of positive benefits, from creating healthy competitive pressures to allowing educators to customize their programs instead of trying to be all things to all people. And fifth, that improving education is a national imperative, and that the federal government can and should play a constructive role."

But then he acknowledges that he may have overestimated the role that the federal government can play in bringing these ideas to practice in schools around the country:

"Using sticks and carrots to tug and prod states and districts in desired directions has proven unworkable. It was worth trying but experience has taught us that this approach suffers from too much hubris and humility at the same time. Instead of this muddle, the feds should adopt a simple, radical principle: Do it yourself or don’t do it at all."

He continues by suggesting that the Feds restrict themselves to two major responsibilities: distributing funds to the neediest students, and collecting and publishing transparent information about the performance of U.S. schools. To be able to do the second, we need to establish clear national standards with a national test, and develop a common approach to school ratings. "Then," he writes, "everyone would have a consistent and fair way to distinguish good schools from bad. We would have consistently high expectations for all students and all schools, and would end the federal/state cat-and-mouse games being played over accountability."

Then, he continues:

"Into the 'Don’t Do it At All' bucket goes everything else. No more federal mandates on teacher quality. No more prescriptive 'cascade of sanctions' for failing schools. No more federal guarantee of school choice for children not being well-served. The states would worry about how to define and achieve greater teacher quality (or, better, teacher effectiveness). The states would decide when and how to intervene in failing schools. The states would develop new capacity for school choice. These are all important, powerful reforms, but they have proven beyond Uncle Sam’s capacity to make happen. These policy battles should return to the state level, where governments can actually do something about them and do them right. And if the federal government just can’t help itself and wants to 'promote' these causes, let it offer competitive grants for states and districts that want to move in these directions.

The Do It Yourself or Don’t Do It At All Act doesn’t have the same ring as leaving no child behind. But its zeitgeist is the same. It would also be a better fit for our federalist system and a more effective vehicle for the reform ideas that we NCLB supporters hold so dear. In this new year, let us resolve to be humble enough to admit the law’s limitations and brave enough to stand up for its ideals."

Since Petrilli published this, he has collaborated with Fordham Foundation President Chester Finn to write this follow-up piece describing their position further; check it out for more details.

Pretty compelling I think: Maintain the essential goal of the law to bring more students to proficiency, but leave it up to states and local districts to figure out how to get there.

How to improve a low-performing school

In his Still Left Behind piece on education in the November 26, 2006 New York Times Magazine (subscription required), Paul Tough does a great job of describing what the most successful charter schools serving typically low-performing communities are doing. The most successful schools follow three practices, he writes:

"First, they require many more hours of class time than a typical public school. The school day starts early, at 8 a.m. or before, and often continues until after 4 p.m. These schools offer additional tutoring after school as well as classes on Saturday mornings, and summer vacation usually lasts only about a month. The schools try to leaven those long hours with music classes, foreign languages, trips and sports, but they spend a whole lot of time going over the basics: reading and math.

Second, they treat classroom instruction and lesson planning as much as a science as an art. Explicit goals are set for each year, month and day of each class, and principals have considerable authority to redirect and even remove teachers who aren't meeting those goals. The schools' leaders believe in frequent testing, which, they say, lets them measure what is working and what isn't, and they use test results to make adjustments to the curriculum as they go. Teachers are trained and retrained, frequently observed and assessed by their principals and superintendents. There is an emphasis on results but also on 'team building,' cooperation and creativity, and the schools seem, to an outsider at least, like genuinely rewarding places to work, despite the long hours. They tend to attract young, enthusiastic teachers, including many alumni of Teach for America, the program that recruits graduates from top universities to work for two years in inner-city public schools.

Third, they make a conscious effort to guide the behavior, and even the values, of their students by teaching what they call character. Using slogans, motivational posters, incentives, encouragements and punishments, the schools direct students in everything from the principles of teamwork and the importance of an optimistic outlook to the nuts and bolts of how to sit in class, where to direct their
eyes when a teacher is talking and even how to nod appropriately.

The schools are, in the end, a counterintuitive combination of touchy-feely idealism and intense discipline."

Now that's really a great summary of what KIPP and other similar schools are doing, and these topics deserve much more attention from parent leaders and allied organizations working to improve low-performing schools. We need to recognize, discuss and debate the following issues:

1. Are many college-educated middle class educators reluctant and/or afraid to aggressively teach values and behavior the way KIPP and similar schools do? Should they be?  Are middle class educators sometimes afraid of the kids they teach? Do educators sometimes feel guilty about their good fortune and does this guilt make them reluctant to "crack down" on poor behavior when poor kids are the ones behaving poorly? Is KIPP laying critical cultural groundwork to enable learning or is it  engaging in a form of "cultural imperialism"?
2. Do we expect enough of our principals with respect to "leading teaching and learning" in our schools? I keep running across parents who say "Our school has a great principal," but when I probe deeper, they mean that the principal is good at building community. They have no idea if the principal really understands instruction or leads teachers through a process to discover the most effective ways to teach the school's children. Shouldn't we be expecting more from our principals?
3. And what about that longer school day, especially for disadvantaged kids? Is it really realistic to fit in a strong basic academic program, and a strong enrichment program in six or six and a half hours? Isn't it time to get realistic about this, and to commit the funding that it will take to lengthen the school day so that we can fit everythig in?

I'd love to hear from you with your thoughts on these issues — leave a comment here or drop me a line at bjackson@greatschools.net.

Putting Progressive Values into Action

This week, San Francisco voters chose three new school commissioners, three women of color who are a breath of fresh air for the Board of Education. Jane Kim, Hydra Mendoza and Kim-Shree Maufas are optimistic, talented and full of energy.

The question, though, is exactly where their progressive values will lead them as they join two other progressive members of the board and begin to exercise their influence as commissioners.

As a parent, I want the Board of Education to focus on improving schools for young people like my daughters who go to school here in San Francisco. As a progressive, I want them to focus particularly on better serving disadvantaged young people—those who really need the schools to help them launch their lives in promising directions.

With this in mind, I have five suggestions for the new progressive majority and all of the commissioners. By following these suggestions and attaching real goals to measure progress, the board could lead the way and show that it’s serious about making a difference for young people and families in San Francisco.

1. Launch a citywide campaign to dramatically increase the college-ready graduation rate for disadvantaged youth.

Send a kid to college, and chances are that you end poverty in his or her family forever.

Here in San Francisco, we have lots of room for improvement when it comes to preparing our disadvantaged kids for college. According the Education Trust West, in 2005, 63% of Asian students and 54% of white students graduated from our schools ready for a four-year college. But the comparable numbers for African American and Hispanic students were 15% and 20% respectively.

The new progressive majority on the board should make it its first priority to rally the city around a campaign to double the college-ready graduation rate – up to 40% or more – for African American and Hispanic students over the next eight years. The board should hold an annual event to share progress and challenge every citizen, business and nonprofit organization that cares about our city’s future to get involved in the campaign.

2. Look at charter schools as a model.

Looking for ideas about how to double the college-ready graduation rate for underserved students? Look no further than some of the charter schools right here in San Francisco.

Gateway High School enrolls African American and Hispanic students at similar rates as the district as a whole and prepares an impressive 69% of them for college.

San Francisco is home to some of the leading charter school operators in the state, including EnvisionSchools, Leadership Public Schools and the KIPP Foundation. Some of their schools have demonstrated success with students who often fall through the cracks in district schools.

The new board should view these publicly funded schools not as competitors to public schools, but rather as allies in our common quest to serve students well. It should explore what might be achieved by bringing more of these schools to San Francisco, and by building deeper partnerships with their parent organizations.

Of course, charters aren’t the only source of good ideas; district schools like Thurgood Marshall and Galileo have made great progress over the past few years and the board should study what they are doing right, too.

3. Get the right principals in place.

Great schools take great principals. Great principals take personal responsibility for school success, know how to lead teaching and learning, recruit and develop great teachers, and build strong school communities. There is no substitute for effective leadership.

While we have some great principals in San Francisco, we need more. The board should make this a top goal.

The San Francisco School Alliance has brokered an alliance with UC Berkeley to help the district train and support new principals. The new progressive majority should pay close attention.

The board should track and publicly report progress toward the goal of getting a great principal in each school every year.

4. Recruit, retain and develop great teachers.

Of course, it’s ultimately the teachers who make the difference for students. Great teachers know their subject matter, engage their students in learning, communicate well with parents and collaborate to strengthen instruction across the school.

The new progressive majority needs to lead the way to improve teacher recruitment, retention and professional development. Teacher professional development has been gutted in recent years, under the pressure of budget cuts. The San Francisco Education Fund and other community allies stand ready to help rebuild a strong teacher professional development program.

Recognizing that we can’t get to where we want to go without great teachers, the progressives should lead the board to develop a plan to address this issue. And again, every year, the board should track and publicly report progress toward this objective.

5. Partner closely with the city.

Schools can’t do it all alone, especially for our most disadvantaged students.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, city Supervisors and city voters know this; that’s why they worked together to pass legislation that provides city funding for schools to support arts, sports libraries, and music, among other areas.

In addition, Mayor Newsom has done more than his predecessors to reach out and help schools where he can. For example, he’s enlisted the help of the Department of Public Health to put health clinics in some of the schools that need it most.

The new progressive majority should put politics aside and reach out to Mayor Newsom and work with him to take the city-schools partnership even farther.

Of course the new Board of Education will be confronted with many other important issues, including finding a new superintendent, deciding which schools to close, revising the student assignment system and making tough budget choices. All these issues matter.

But the true progressives will stand up and see the forest for the trees. They’ll resist the temptation to grandstand on issues peripheral to student academic success, and they’ll rally the city to achieve the real prize: doubling the college-ready graduation rate for disadvantaged students. With their leadership, we can make this happen and change the future for thousands of kids in our city.