Stanford New Schools, run by the university’s school of education, seems to stress social and emotional support over academics.
Stanford New Schools hires well-trained teachers who use state-of-the-art progressive teaching methods; Stanford’s student teachers provide extra help. With an extra $3,000 per student raised privately, students enjoy small classes, mentoring, counseling and tutoring, technology access, field trips, summer enrichment, health van visits, community college classes on campus, and community service opportunities. The goal is to send graduates to college as critical thinkers, lifelong learners, and “global citizens.”
The school provides students a web of support, reports the New York Times:
High school students have one teacher/adviser who checks that homework is done, and when it is not, the teacher calls home. Teachers know students’ families and help with issues as varied as buying a bagel before an exam to helping an evicted family find a home. Teachers stay late and work weekends, and tend to burn out quickly — causing a high rate of turnover.
EPA Academy enrolls very disadvantaged students: Most are the children of poor and poorly educated Spanish-speaking immigrant families; the rest are black or Pacific Islanders. Their English skills are poor. Those who come in ninth grade are years behind in reading and math.
How did it work out?
It sounded like a great idea: Stanford education professors would create a model school to show how to educate low-income Hispanic and black students.
Or, as it’s turned out, how not to.
In March, Stanford New Schools (aka East Palo Alto Academy) — a charter high school started in 2001 and elementary grades added in 2006 – made California’s list of schools in the lowest-achieving five percent in the state.
This month, the Ravenswood school board denied a new five-year charter. The elementary school — now with K-4 and eighth grade — will close in June. Another year or two wouldn’t be enough to improve poor student performance and weak behavior management, Superintendent Maria De La Vega told the board.
Maybe they're just unteachable? Er, no...
In comments on the news stories that have run, I see a common refrain: It’s impossible to teach these kids. Not even Stanford can do it.
But other schools with demographically identical students are doing much better. The top-scoring school in the district is East Palo Alto Charter School (EPAC), a K-8 run by Aspire Public Schools, Stanford’s original partner. An all-minority school, EPAC outperforms the state average.
Posts
6 comments:
What a bunch of racists blaming the children for their failed methods.
Do you think "progressive teachers" are able or even interested in discipline?
It's time to give all aspects of progressiveism the boot.
Before we begin calling names or giving anyone the boot, let's get our fact straight. What has been "reported" about this school is far from the truth: http://bit.ly/sns-atp-blog. SNS's high school - which has been supported by the same school board who ousted the elementary division- is making large gains. Comparing already well established neighboring elementary schools like EPAC (which on its website homepage notes that it's in its ELEVENTH year) to the 3 year old elementary division is once again, ignoring the facts. Even more of a disservice to Palo Alto's neediest students is the lack of conversation around the kinds of comprehensive measurements and tools necessary to even come close to evaluating schools fairly.
Here is the link that should have been clickable in my post: http://teachingquality.typepad.com/building_the_profession/2010/04/gadfly-gotcha-over-stanford-charter-school-misses-the-mark.html
AMK:
Thanks for the link. I am in favor of charter schools. I believe they are the only alternative to the stifling education system currently oppressing our children.
I'm not sure we really need a conversation on "the kinds of comprehensive measurements and tools necessary to even come close to evaluating schools fairly." It seems pretty simple. Kids should be doing multiplication and division around 4th grade, algebra around 8th grade and trigonometry by 12th. They should be able to read a book like Animal Farm and do a report on it by 9th or 10th. You can teach them all about "ways of thinking" all you want but if they cant even figure out the basics, they are nowhere.
Max,
I'd be interested to hear more about the simplicity of measuring student growth. Are you a current or former teacher? If so, what kinds of measures do you use to evaluate whether or not your students reach the standards you just mentioned in reading and math? Either way, how do you know they are reliable and valid measures of growth and not just indicative of a bad day? Do you have suggestions for how to attribute a child's success or failure to one teacher in particular? For example, is Johnny's 8th grade trig teacher a failure because she could only raise his test scores two grade levels since he came in not knowing the multiplication and division he should have already gotten in 4th grade? And how confident are you that as long as a high school student can do a book report, he or she will be able to function in college, the workplace or greater society? I'm just not convinced it's so simple. I am hopeful, however, about the future: http://catalog.proemags.com/publication/1e41a2a8#/1e41a2a8/14
AMK
Post a Comment