New
Leaders for Better Thinking
In order to make charter schools
work, the leadership would have to be fully functioning. Cultural competency
would be an important piece toward achieving success, particularly in a city
where over 90 percent of the students in the school system were
African-American while less than 70 percent of the population was.
Retired general Julius Becton was the
first superintendent under the new charter school plan. Although charter school
enrollment rose dramatically during his 18-month tenure, he is given little
credit for its success during that time. Part of the reason given is that his
“military” form of leadership did not resonate to those who worked for him, and
any increased support for charter schools was symbolic or occurred simply because
the model was effective.
Other leaders met the superintendent position
and burned out quickly. Arlene Ackerman and Paul Vance held short terms as head
of the school system. Their ideology was different, as Ackerman was partially
in favor of charter schools, but helped pass legislation to give more power to
the schools, including charters. Under Ackerman, charter schools received
access to more local government money, but also were held to a higher standard
than previously. By comparison, Vance was less supportive toward the charter
movement, and under his leadership, growth stagnated.
Yet, the charter movement continued
to move forward, with support from Democrats and Republicans alike. New
District mayor Anthony Williams was supportive, but so were members of the
White House cabinet, now under the leadership of Republican president George W.
Bush as the 21st century began.
In 2002, the legislation entitled No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.
Given the coarse requirements which would face school systems across America,
many school leaders at the national and local levels became willing to look at
alternative methods to help reach the stringent standards. The District of
Columbia was ready to move forward with its development of new charter schools.
Only a year after the passing of
NCLB, the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act was signed into law. Under the Act,
$45 million was earmarked for transformational change within D.C schools, $15
million for charters and an additional $20 million toward a K-12 voucher
program (2008). This act, also known as the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program,
became the impetus which created dramatic change for charter schools in the
nation’s capital. All that was needed was a transformational leader for the
District schools, one who could handle the resistance toward the movement, as
well as the cultural competency issues which would arise as students from the
poorer, more predominantly African-American sections of town, began to seek new
schools in other parts of the District.
Bring
in the New Chancellor
In 2007, with a new mayor, Adrian
Fenty, in place as head of the District, the timing was again right for the
District to seek a leader who was prepared to make huge changes. In order to do
this, the new head of D.C. schools would need more power to make change.
For the new mayor, this meant hiring
a data-driven technocratic type of boss. Fenty was known as a data-focused
decision maker (Risen, 2008) who cared less about politics and more about the
end result. To this end, he named Michelle Rhee, at the time just 38 years old
as the new chancellor of District schools. The power given to her was
unprecedented, and she wasted no time in putting it to use. Serving directly
under Mayor Fenty, and not to the school board, Rhee was given the power to
fire central-office employees and educators, and within months of her hire, 98
office workers, 24 principals, 22 assistant principals, as well as
approximately 250 teachers and 500 aides were terminated (2008).
The type of change which Rhee was
looking for was a sweeping one. However, her leadership style was challenged,
not because of its grandeur, but because Rhee was seen as an out of touch
bureaucrat. This was noted by her Korean heritage and upper-middle-class
suburban background. Her cultural awareness was challenged, because it did not
match the majority of the racial and financial demographics of the District
students.
In her short term as chancellor, Rhee
did manage to prevail in making change, particularly with the charter schools,
of which she was a supporter. This support may have helped, as many of the
charter schools in the District have flourished while maintaining a diverse
student body.
Putting
the Lens on One School
One of the charter schools to
flourish in the aftermath of the Rhee administration is E.L. Haynes Charter
school, with two campuses in upper Northwest Washington. Founded in 2004 by
Jennifer Niles, the school is a shining example of the potential growth with a
well-run charter school. Last fall, Haynes opened its high school building to
ninth graders and will add one grade per year until all four grades are
represented. In all, the school serves 600 students, and accepted a thousand applications
for the 100 open seats available for this school year.
In its first six years, the school earned national recognition for its
student achievement gains, which included 80 percent of its students scoring
proficient or advanced in math and 66 percent in reading (Joiner, 2010).
More remarkable is the ethnic makeup
of its student body. According to ELL chair Michelle Rush, 45 percent of the
Haynes students are African-American, 30 are Latino, 15 percent white and 10
percent Asian.
Two-thirds of the students qualify
for free and reduced lunch, showing the working-class background of many of the
parents. 15 languages are spoken by the Haynes students (2010).
The faculty at Haynes is well versed
with conversations about race. As part of their training at the year-round
school, teachers are required to attend a three-day seminar on The Race and
Equity in Education Seminars (REES), sessions which involve the faculty and
staff engaging in activities which address their own biases, and which of these
are brought into the classroom. According to a quote from lower school
principal Michelle Molitor, which was presented in a recent magazine article,
“It gives dominant culture folks a safe environment to expose the things they
don’t understand and to build allies and friendships (2010).”
Although there are lower performing
charter schools in the District of Columbia, E.L. Haynes serves as a model
example of how to build a successful charter school, one which the
District school leaders can follow and use for other charter schools.
References
Foster,
B.L. (2006). What’s going on in DC’s
charter schools. Washingtonian, October 2006.
Joiner,
L. L. (2010). Whatever it takes. The
Crisis Magazine, Centennial Issue 2010. 17-22.
Ravitch,
D. (2010). The Myth of Charter Schools. The
New York Review of Books,
November 2010.
Risen,
C. (2008). The Lightning Rod. The
Atlantic Magazine, Nov. 2008.
Sullivan,
M. D., Campbell, D. B., & Kisida, B. (2008). The muzzled dog that didn’t
bark: Charters and the behavioral response of D.C. public schools. University
of Arkansas.
Fayetteville.
No comments:
Post a Comment