Today, Todd Sutler of the Odyssey Initiative joins Deborah Meier for a two-week blogging engagement.

Dear Debbie,

Matt Candler, of 4.0 Schools, recently introduced me to Clayton Christensen's book, The Innovator's Dilemma. Christensen's theory, I believe, happens to describe the education reform movement of the last 20 years. The "dilemma," he argues, is the choice companies face when deciding whether to allocate time and resources to address their customers' current needs or to anticipate their future needs. Some companies are reticent to invest in research and design for the future because it requires too much time and money without a guaranteed payout. Other companies take the risk and end up profiting from a substantial increase in revenues. One of Mike's comments made me think that the ed-reform movement is facing its own "innovator's dilemma":

"The choice today is not between 100,000 Central Park Easts or Mission Hills and 100,000 test-prep factories. If it were, I'd pick the Deborah Meier schools in a heartbeat. But let's face it: There aren't more than a handful of Deborah Meier schools out there."

Mike implies that producing more schools like CPE and Mission Hill would use up too much human and financial capital. Even though he must know that future jobs will require workers who are flexible and critical thinkers, he believes there is too much risk involved in trying to create the schools that develop such graduates. "Test prep factories," in his eyes, are the safer bet.

Had we not spent this year visiting schools across the country, perhaps we would agree with Mike's premise that there "aren't more than a handful of Deborah Meier schools out there." However, when Michelle, Brooke, and I launched The Odyssey Initiative, we argued, "the only innovative thing left to do in education reform is to stop innovating and find the experienced educators already succeeding, identify what practices were leading to their success and replicate them." Twenty-three states and more than 60 schools later, we are even more confident that the talent and the answers already exist.

During our Odyssey, we met with many educators who are achieving quantifiable and qualitative success without pushing test-prep, including Oakland's Lighthouse Community Charter School. Lighthouse was founded by a group of parents and teachers, some of whom previously taught at Ted Sizer's public school, Francis Parker. They have spent 10 years improving their program. Students maintain a portfolio of their work and regularly reflect on their strengths and weaknesses. They lead family conferences from kindergarten through 12th grade and give presentations on personal academic progress each year. Practices such as after-school office hours and two-year class cycles ("looping") enable teachers to build relationships and support students with personalized instruction. Additionally, Lighthouse gives students a week off every quarter in order for teachers to look at assessments and modify curriculum in response to that data. When we interviewed a group of 6th graders at the school, they took pride and ownership of their education, reflecting: "At my old school, they would teach to the middle of the group, here they teach to me," and, "I had to repeat 6th grade, but I am a better math student because of it." Lighthouse's test scores and college placement results also demonstrate why it has been celebrated as one of the best public schools in the country.

As our research continued, we found programs across the country with different practices that, like Lighthouse, demonstrated a dedication to rigor, structure, and student engagement, as well as attending to the developmental needs of their children. The schools we visited this year demonstrated that it is possible to create schools in diverse communities that are successful by a variety of metrics. Perhaps Mike and others would risk allocating money and time toward replicating schools that both meet state standards and build crucial "soft" skills if they knew more about what these schools were doing. Perhaps if he were more familiar with these schools' commitment to presenting content in a contextual setting he would know that progressive schools do, in fact, build vocabulary and content knowledge.

So where do you fit in? On this blog, you often celebrate Sizer's work and the success of the Coalition of Essential Schools as well as that of the Consortium in New York City. Yet I have not seen many citations of the specific practices being implemented at these schools. Your EdWeek readers want to know them. More importantly, America needs to know.

Teacher-leaders are taking action across the country by creating businesses and learning communities and sharing their experiences on blogs, videos, and at conferences. We need national platforms and megaphones (and legends like you) to amplify their voices and broadcast their practices to the rest of the country. Voters, parents, and legislators must better understand the components and merits of student-centered education because they are the stakeholders who effect change in the system. How many people know about Teach For America, KIPP, and Harlem Children's Zone? What if the same number of people were familiar with the Coalition? Can you imagine the influence it would have?

After all, Pasi Salhberg, the mastermind behind the internationally renowned Finish school system, freely admits that cooperative learning, problem-based teaching, and portfolio assessment (practices the Coalition, the Consortium, and other colleagues of yours have championed) are examples of practices that Finland co-opted from America in the 1980s and have continued to improve upon. We should not have to read his blog to find out what America has been doing well.

The Odyssey Initiative team set out to show educators, parents, reformers, and legislators that successful, student-centered classrooms are a reality in schools across the country. We want to see more of these classrooms for more American children, and we believe that goal can only be achieved with a more informed citizenry. We need to get these messages out in the public; we need more people to know what is happening and what is possible. I am asking you and your peers, our heroes, to raise your voices for this cause.

Todd

Todd Sutler is the executive director of the Odyssey Initiative. He and two other teachers are traveling the country to identify, document, and share successful practices in some of America's best schools. Todd traded bonds for an investment bank in New York City, Toronto, and Tokyo before running an afterschool program at the Boys Club of New York. He has attended Bank Street Graduate School of Education and taught 3rd and 5th grade in Brooklyn, N.Y. He hopes to co-found the Compass Charter School in 2014.

Posted by Deborah Meier at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Deborah Meier concludes her recent discussion with Michael Petrilli today. The two hope to launch a new blog conversation in the fall. Next week, Todd Sutler of the Odyssey Initiative joins Deborah on Bridging Differences.

Dear Michael,

Poverty and global warming are alike, as you say, in the sense that both are in large man-made (and women-made). And neither is easy to "fix." Urgent pleas to be more environmentally conscious in one's lifestyle choices are not the solution; neither is a plea to the poor to get (and stay) married or remain childless, read to their children at night, oversee homework, and on and on. Both require a seriousness of purpose we are not prepared to take—I fear. But looking to schools to "fix" the world's problems is flattering—and we sometimes fall for it—but essentially a distraction. We've tried—and come up with some good ideas as my colleague Todd Sutler will describe in next Tuesday's blog post. But every time the Big Boys (forgive the sexism) try to "scale it up" fast they abandon what we've learned and fall back on the ideas for schooling that they wouldn't want for their own children combined with a totally inappropriate approach to governance—the who decides what question. There is another way.

Now, thoughts in response to some of yours.

Why is early pregnancy more frequent among the poor—as well as larger families? Girls Inc. some years ago did a study and discovered that it wasn't a lack of sex education, but rather the lack of a better and more reasonable future plan. I'd add, the lack of marriageable men.

We have become a nation where social mobility has precipitously declined so that today the United States has the highest inequality and almost the least amount of mobility. It's not a promising picture for even the more middle-class women of color.

Irony of ironies, the richer we are, the more likely we are to select schools that resemble my earlier post rather than a "no excuses" school. (Friends' schools, Daltons, Lab School in Chicago, etc.) Why do those with a real choice elect for very small class sizes, highly credentialed and experienced staff, attention to the aesthetics of the environment, plenty of outdoor space, no dearth of arts of all sorts, plus sports, physical education, well-staffed support services, and even nice dining areas, well-furnished teachers' lounges, and usually paid non-instructional time for teachers to meet together? And actually a shorter school year! As Todd will show, we can use our resources better , but ...

The schools the rich use rarely give standardized tests or build their curricula around them. That's not a money question. We could all follow suit. It's no wonder that teachers who choose to work in good private schools say that, in part, it's based on the autonomy and respect given them there. (The unsaid is that some prefer the kids, too.)

And on top of that, why do so many of my wealthier friends sign their children up for expensive weekend and summer activities, take them on exciting vacations, and pay people to look after them when they are too busy? Because they think it's good for them! Maybe that it will improve the odds that their children will remain at the "top"? Or, are they simply the only ones allowed to value happiness for its own sake? Who else has such a choice?

Why do the children of my rich friends seem unharmed when they accept the financial support of their parents? What evidence do we have that such largess leads, as you suggest, to "reducing their incentive to work" or "infantilizes" them? Does it infantilize the rich if they don't have to take menial paid jobs in the summer but can opt for more interesting and resume-attractive internships? Unpaid internships are for those with connections and money and the answer to the absence of decent jobs.

I suspect we fundamentally disagree about the effect of having more tax money; more money could effect everything I've described about poor vs. rich people's children's odds. No amount of character training, or even the best of schooling, can change the odds for most. Growing up in communities of deep poverty has an impact. There's no inoculation for the damage it does—even in terms of death and dying. In addition, many reformers underestimate the price young people pay intellectually and socially because of their daily encounters with racism. The price of having to be ever vigilant—alert at all times in case one's dignity (one's honor) is under attack is substantial. Even what might seem an advantage—their greater self-reliance and independence—is turned into a disadvantage in kindergarten. We ask too many vulnerable kids to leave their real selves and their real life experience (and language) at the doorstep before entering the schoolhouse. A recipe for failure.

Why are we closing Head Start centers this year rather than opening more? Money. Why don't we respond, as you suggest, with more prenatal care, home visits, the eradication of lead poisoning, and the reform of the justice and prison systems? Money. And the will to spend money on the poor.

I know where my previous co-blogger, Eric Hanushek, stands on this. He thinks directing more money to schools is a waste of resources. It occasionally drives me into a rage. Lifting the weight of poverty off the backs of newborn children would be a good starting point. Meanwhile removing the weight of federal- and state-mandated testing and nationally standardized curriculum, etc., etc., will help us return school reform in the promising direction that preceded this new wave of what us old-time reformers sometimes call "corporate reform."

So, onward and upward with your proposal on loosening the stranglehold of the "one right way." I'm on board. Although I shudder when you tie such increased liberty to "rigorous metrics." But ...

I consider judgment based on evidence to be rigorous (unless it's merely a synonym for hard). Metric-al? We can report much of the data you refer to (graduation rates, college-going, etc.), but we're unlikely to get honest information as long as there are high stakes attached. Or we're likely to push kids into college so we, not they, look good. (As we did at least once at Central Park East Secondary School. Fortunately, he ignored our efforts to get him to apply to college and went instead directly into the police academy. He has had an honorable and well-paying career ever since.) Alas, if we cut off such routes to success and make all decent jobs dependent on college we'll "look" tougher, but "do" worse. I'd rather put aside money for such youngsters to go to the university at a point in their lives when they might better appreciate and succeed at studies not directly tied to useful, real-life skills. They're 18 years old and ready to be useful. And then, I'd like a new GI Bill—so that no one goes into serious debt or has to work at a poorly paid job while in college.

Yes! Let's look at the New York state consortium plan, and others like it, and see what we can come up with that would offer more choices with regard to graduation requirements. But why place the current exams as the default—the norm—when we know how poorly they are at measuring what they pretend to—and are so peculiarly sensitive to race and class? (See the work of psychometricians James Popham, Robert Linn, and Daniel Koretz on just the impact of measurement error.)

The current wave of reform has so far demonstrated little if any success on the instruments the new reformers have chosen for measuring progress. It takes time, they say. The same is true for any approach—mine, too. (And is an argument for some forms of choice—it undermines legitimate resistance, for example, and reinforces the idea that more than one path might "work.") We could build in some red flags that suggest a re-evaluation; but otherwise let's just cheer them on and on—as they learn, modify, revise what they see as THEIR plan. Ditto for the common core. Let it be a choice, not a mandate. (See Claudia Dreifus and Andrew Hacker's recent piece in The New York Times.)

We're onto something. Maybe. Who will go first in drafting a plan? (Summer homework!) Maybe Todd's visits to schools that he found particularly interesting will give us ideas, too. Take a look at next Tuesday's blog.

Have a happy summer with your family, Michael.

Deborah

Editor's note: This post has been updated.

Posted by Deborah Meier at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Editor's Note: Deborah Meier will respond to Michael Petrilli's blog post on Friday, June 14.

Posted by Mary-Ellen Phelps Deily at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Today marks Michael Petrilli's final blog post with Deborah Meier—at least for now.

Dear Deborah,

It's been a real joy to join you in dialogue these past six weeks. I very much appreciate the opportunity and hope we can continue the discussion in other forums in the months ahead. (Well, maybe after a summer break!)

Let me use my last correspondence to introduce one new idea and summarize some of the others we've explored—to determine just how far we've come in bridging our differences.

The new idea is this: Poverty is a lot like global warming.

As a Whole Foods Republican, I acknowledge that global warming is real, that it's a major threat, and that it's caused (at least in part) by human activity. Here the science is overwhelming.

But unlike most progressives, I'm not yet convinced that we know how to stop it. Will curtailing our carbon output halt climate change? Or is it too late at this point? Here the science is inconclusive.

Yet many environmentalists argue that we should take drastic actions to limit carbon production anyway, even though such actions are likely to wreck the economy, which would drive millions (if not billions) of people into poverty. That's not a price I'm willing to pay for policies that may prove to be nothing more than symbolic, or a salve for our guilty conscience.

So it is with childhood poverty. We know that it matters—a lot—when it comes to achievement in school, and in one's life chances as an adult. There's no serious debate about that, in the social sciences or in the public dialogue. Where agreement breaks down, though, is regarding what to do about it. As with climate change, we don't really know how to fix it. And what many progressives advocate that we do about it amounts to—in my view—mostly symbolic actions—a salve for our guilty conscience. And some of these actions might make things worse.

The most obvious way to "fix" it is to provide "income supports" to poor parents (via welfare, tax credits, a higher minimum wage, etc.). By definition this will reduce income poverty. But as we both agree, Deborah, this won't fundamentally alter the life trajectory of poor children. (I would also argue that some of these policies can also do real harm, by reducing the incentive to work, by infantilizing adults, by increasing taxes which slows economic growth, etc.)

Other anti-poverty programs—the kind that seek to develop the social and intellectual capital of low-income children—are more promising. But even here we must be modest. High-quality preschool, for instance, has great potential, but we don't really know how to scale up the kinds of programs that have gotten dramatic long-term results. Our efforts at scale (like Head Start) have been almost universally disappointing. (Almost: Recent results out of New Jersey and Texas provide glimmers of hope.)
What else might we do? Curb teenage pregnancy; provide quality prenatal care; offer home visits for expectant mothers; eradicate lead from every American home; keep fathers out of prison by reforming our criminal-justice system. Each of these is worth pursuing, and could help at the margins.

But I will repeat my supposition that to make the biggest difference for the most children growing up in poverty, what we must do is offer them incredible schools—schools that help them to build the vocabulary, content knowledge, "non-cognitive skills," aspirations, confidence, and relationships to "climb the mountain" to college or a middle-class career.

As for what those schools actually do, you and I agree and disagree. We agree that school-level professionals need a significant degree of autonomy—which is why we've both been involved with charter schools, I imagine. We both agree that there needs to be some sort of external accountability, too—and that test scores are hardly perfect arbiters of quality. You posit that a progressive education can provide children, including low-income children, with experiences they will need to succeed in our democracy (and economy). I'm more optimistic that a purposeful program that builds vocabulary and content knowledge (and much else, of course) will provide disadvantaged children the best chance to beat the odds. Let's follow students from both types of schools into adulthood and see who's right, OK? (Maybe we're both right—maybe both paths work as long as the schools are "great" enough.)

Let me finish with one last parting thought. Fundamentally I'm a policy wonk so I can't stop without leaving a policy recommendation. It's one I first floated a few weeks ago, and I think it could change the terms of the school reform debate—maybe even end the school reform wars. It's the Opt-Out.

Let schools opt-out of the current testing-and-accountability regime (and the soon-to-be common-core-testing-and-accountability regime) if they can propose alternative, rigorous metrics for which they are willing to be held accountable. State boards of education are probably the right entities to approve these opt-out requests; the boards' job is to make sure that the alternatives really are rigorous. Some metrics would qualify automatically—long-term outcomes such as college-going and graduation rates and employment outcomes. Others would deserve more scrutiny, such as portfolios of student work or improvements in school climate. If done right, schools would view the opt-out not as a way to "escape" accountability, but as a way to mesh accountability with the school's own vision, principles, and beliefs.

Allowing for such opt-outs would require changes to federal and state law, for it would mean moving away from the "single statewide system" of accountability currently required by the ESEA.

But it would be worth it. It would serve as a release valve of sorts for educators and parents with legitimate grievances with today's system. Do you hate testing and the way it warps schools? Measure long-term student outcomes instead. Are you leery of the common core? Can you show progress against the A.P. or I.B. tests? Great. Are you a career-tech academy with lousy test scores, but great long-term impacts? Prove it.

What do you say, Deborah? Are you ready to opt-in to the opt-out? (Which also means opting-in to the default—common core?) Here's hoping.

Over and out.

Mike

Posted by Deborah Meier at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Dear Michael,

I just wrote and discarded a 3,000-plus-word response to your queries. But I'll post it later on my deborahmeier.com blog. There's just too much to say!

I essentially repeated my argument about why parents are not the problem; it's the conditions under which they have to raise their children, the obstacles they must overcome to cope with daily crises that are the problem—mostly related to poverty and racism.

I repeated my reasons for discarding as useless the data I get from the form of testing we have become addicted to. I've documented their fallibility in many an article in the past. There are too many possibilities for why kids get wrong, as well as right, answers—often having nothing to do with their mathematical or reading skills!

I'm arguing for another honored form of assessment that is based on carefully organized judgments about student work, work presented and defended in front of a panel of both internal and external experts. I'm arguing that this is the most direct and unbiased way to make such judgments and actually closer to what happens in real life. It's the way many colleges, especially those that don't rely on ACTs or SAT, handle admissions. They depend, as we do, on samples of student work in many forms, plus transcripts, interviews, and references to make their decisions. It's the way we confer PhDs and the way we hire people for most jobs.

I'm arguing, furthermore, that the most critical form of assessment is one that has been arrived at by each local school or community itself. As you suggest, there can be a default for those who don't want to or feel unable to "invent" their own or use someone else's invention. It's time to involve "ordinary" adults in considering what matters most to them—what skills an 18-year-old should possess before he can drive, vote, and sit on a jury to judge me.

One cannot judge the success of a school or student (or a president!) without prior agreement about what we mean by success. What makes it worthwhile to require young people full of energy and curiosity to spend 12-13 years in school? We don't have to all agree, and in fact will be a weaker society by insisting on one right answer. Intellectual and democratic life flourishes on diversity, much as biological life does. Different paths require different sacrifices, and the trade-offs that we are willing to make may not all be the same. I remind myself that democracy was invented as a means of accountability—for all its faults.

I look upon the approach that Ted Sizer's Coalition of Essential Schools initiated 30 years ago as more reliable and credible than standardized tests. The very criteria used by psychometricians—reliability et al—were easier to meet in the ways our schools laid them out than the "tests" we've grown too accustomed to.

There is a place for sampling the work of individual schools and young people in general through standardized NAEP-type tests (without high stakes). There's a place for setting standards on a state or even nationwide basis. If. If they are short and sweet, maybe a page long for each "discipline" describing what 12 years of schooling should enable one to demonstrate. (Meanwhile let's leave 4- to 7-year-olds alone. We are playing with fire when we start judging children's competence at ever younger ages.)

Yes! There are forms of state monitoring—e.g. on matters of equity, fiscal integrity, and health—without removing the primary constituents of a school from powerful decisionmaking roles. There is a long history of using such respectful approaches in the independent school sector that we can consider. There are many solutions for leaving the bulk of these issues in the hands of individual school communities, with judicious use of external review.

You and I need more time to argue about who should make exactly which decisions with regard to schooling because this is a question that rests at the heart of the viability of democracy. Only when we allow such authority to rest among those within the school will schools truly serve as vehicles for educating ourselves about democracy. So this may be another area of disagreement?

I believe that it is democracy that is endangered by myriad swiftly changing forces that we are contending with. To hold on to democracy requires a special kind of skeptical trust, a trust that democratic compromises also depend on. I'm neither an optimist nor a pessimist, but I'm sure we cannot afford to take short cuts.

Experiments of the sort I've described too briefly here will help us see up close the complex balancing act that any democratic system requires. They are built around a "default" proposition: that democracy works best when decisions are made by those closest to the action, except when ... . It's the second part of that sentence that we have insufficiently explored, so that the exceptions over time squeeze out voices and expertise on the ground. We may, as we move gradually forward, not only create better schools and stronger students, but also a stronger understanding of why democracy writ large is feasible but also not "naturally" self-correcting. To imagine that schools intended to treat all students as though they were members of the ruling class is hard, but putting it successfully into practice will take a lot of patience, and struggle. Tolerance for the fact that there are many solutions, each making somewhat different trade-offs, will not come to us easily.

The new reforms being pushed down upon us daily and at all levels by a very powerful elite will move us further away, not closer to restoring a healthy balance of power. To do schooling well for all children is perhaps harder than eliminating poverty. But the two can and must go on together while we also struggle over what success itself means.

Deborah

Posted by Deborah Meier at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend