Chancellor Carranza’s Theory of Change: Create a New Research-Based Urban Education Paradigm or Implement Proven Education Programs?

The new chancellor has been skipping from school to school for a month: the obligatory meet and greet new chancellor tour; heavily scripted trips around the city, the Sherpas arranging carefully controlled media availability, meetings with community and political leaders, lots of pictures with kids and the smiling chancellor. I had an opportunity to tag along on one these tours in the past: you could sniff the aroma of fresh paint, the custodian touched up the school the day before the visit, the student work on the bulletin boards all dated the day before the visit, the obligatory walk-through the day before by the superintendent to make sure everyone was on their best behavior as the chancellor smiles and shakes hands his inbox piles up with folder after folder.

Inbox folders: Specialized HS Options, Diversity (Note: NEVER use the words integration, or, heavens forbid, segregation), Suspensions, Renewal Schools, Fair Student Funding formula, UFT contract negotiations, ATRs, Management structure, Political relationships, Media relationships and more.

Will the chancellor’s management style be to respond to criticism, or, create his own agenda? His predecessor responded to criticism by creating a “program,” with dollars and a press release attached and move on to the next issue. The one initiative that she created, Renewal Schools, has been subject to constant criticism.

Many school and school district leaders follow a triage management philosophy; running from school to school, from problem to problem pouring water on the flames; unfortunately, they sometimes pour from the wrong bucket, pouring gasoline on the problem

After a raucous meeting at an Upper West Side white parents spoke out against a school integration plan, the chancellor, at 1 am retweeted, 

,”WATCH: Wealthy white Manhattan parents angrily rant against plan to bring more black kids to their schools,”

The next day the mayor was asked to respond,

“I don’t think he at all intends to vilify anyone — he’s not that type of person,” said de Blasio. “This was his own personal voice … I might phrase it differently.”

At a school visit the next day the chancellor responded to reporters,

“The criticism of my predecessor Chancellor Fariña was that she didn’t do anything about this,” he said. “And here I am in my first month actually engaging in this conversation.”

“Let’s all take a breath,” Carranza said. “Let’s let communities come forward with what their solutions could be. Let’s give the space to our CECs to lead those conversations.”

The following day  the chancellor called the plan “very modest, quite frankly,” and a few days later,  “Nowhere in there (the District Three Middle School Integration Plan) are they talking about some of the very drastic things like busing or like rezoning or any of those things. I think it’s a modest conversation to be had.”

Welcome to the Big Apple.

A heartfelt comment tweeted out results in a few days of scrambling and back pedaling.

I was on a review team visiting a low performing middle school; we arrived at the school bright and early, the secretary apologized, the principal was busy assigning coverages for absent teachers. The principal walked into the meeting, somewhat disheveled, “Had to find teachers for coverages, we can never find enough substitutes.” The team leader began the meeting with a soft question, “How would you describe the qualities of an effective teacher?” The principal, replied immediately, “They come every day and blood doesn’t run out from under the door”

Triage management, advance planning is the crisis of the moment and the norm becomes constant triage: a description of the job of the NYC Chancellors of the past?

Does the new guy have a theory of action?  Guiding principles?

Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy, in a paper entitled, “The Problem with the ‘What Works’ Approach to Education Research and the Case for Focusing on the Determinants of Highly Successful Education Systems” is sharply critical of focusing on programs, which he sees as commonplace, as the reason for mediocre student outcomes decade after decade. Tucker urges research leading to systemic change.

In my judgment … what the “proven program” research paradigm actually does is identify programs that produce marginal results in a dysfunctional system, when the real issue is how to fix the system, a problem that cannot be addressed with this paradigm.

 The underlying logic is simple. Start with the problem – say, a large proportion of students leave elementary school two or more years behind in reading. Come up with a theory about the cause of the problem and, to test the theory, use the theory to develop … a program. Administer the program with statistical controls … Then, put all the programs whose effect size crosses a certain threshold and meet certain criteria for research quality on a list of proven programs. Then stand back and watch the policymakers implement them in great numbers, replicating everywhere the results the researchers observed. Except, of course, they don’t. They never have, and when they do, we don’t see much improvement at scale.

 What researchers in the United States are doing is identifying programs that are at least making a little difference in a highly dysfunctional system. They tell you nothing whatsoever about how to build a highly effective system. They are a prescription for assembling a house of Band-Aids, when we could be building a great house.

 And that bring us to the main point, which is that effective schools, districts and states are not compilations of effective programs. They are effective systems. You may have a great way to teach reading, but, if you have lousy teachers, it won’t produce great reading results. You may have great teachers, but, if the school leader is a petty tyrant and does not support good teaching, the good teachers will either leave or give up while going through the motions of teaching.

Tucker concludes,

I am advocating for is a large program of research on the most successful education systems in the world, organized to help American states understand what combination of features of their systems account for their success, or, put another way, what the common principles are that underlie the different approaches they have taken. What is needed is a design orientation, which is to say that the purpose of this research should be to facilitate the redesign of our current state systems of education for high performance.

  Robert E. Slavin Director, Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University in “Using What Works [is the] Best Way Forward,” sharply disagrees with Tucker, he avers there are specific interventions that work.

 The only programs known from research that routinely add the equivalent of 20 or more PARCC points involve tutoring. This is particularly true when tutoring exists in a response-to-intervention format, in which students receive only the services they need. Tutoring is expensive. However, its costs can be greatly reduced by hiring high-quality paraprofessionals (teacher assistants), such as ones who have a B.A. Also, effective tutoring is likely to reduce special education costs in the long term. The Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE), which I lead, recently completed a research review and found that tutoring from high-quality paraprofessionals exercised substantially positive outcomes on student achievement, averaging the equivalent of 26 PARCC points for one-to-one tutoring in reading or math, and 14 points for one-to-small group tutoring. If continued with integrity and care across multiple years, a growing number of students would reach “proficient” each year … students eventually could advance far beyond those in Massachusetts and “top-performing” countries. And there would be additional benefits: the apprenticeship model of hiring and training high quality tutors could bring talented, eager, recent college graduates into the teaching profession.

 The most important problem in America’s schools is not our middling PISA scores. It is the persistent gaps in achievement according to social class and ethnicity. Middle-class, White, and Asian students do not present major achievement challenges for our country. It is African American, Hispanic, and Native American students, and disadvantaged students of all ethnicities, whose learning demands our full attention … My proposal goes to the heart of this problem.  There is nothing wrong with struggling learners that tutoring and other proven programs cannot substantially improve. 

Is Carranza the “firefighter” chancellor, responding to blazes, hopefully quelling the jibes of critics and the media? Or, as per Tucker, will be spend months analyzing and researching the system and move forward with sweeping systemic change? Or, as per Slavin, will he select well-researched programs, for example, tutors, and put the programs at the core of the teaching/learning process?

In the meantime those inbox folders continue to grow as advocates and critics lose patience, remember the new journalism mantra: if it bleeds, it leads.

My recommendation for Richard: exercise, meditation and lots of mariachi practice – you picked one stressful job!!

 

One response to “Chancellor Carranza’s Theory of Change: Create a New Research-Based Urban Education Paradigm or Implement Proven Education Programs?

  1. ken karcinell

    Don’t you love it! The lefty Mayor brings in another lefty to run the school system and that lefty goes right after the wealthy white community as the reason why equal opportunity for minority students in our public school system isn’t happening. His solution is to forcefully integrate the mid to upper class west side community with students of color, while at the same time declaring that whites in that community are anti children of color. Talk about failed efficacy points of view, where is Rudy Crew when you need him? For sure these students will learn at a much more desirable rate once relocated to this educator’s panacea for success. My G…d They will all seemingly cry out, Valhalla!. Never mind that some thru no fault of their own are 2 and 3 grades behind the environment that awaits them. I must tell you, that children of any color in the face of that kind of task, will be subject to peer mocking, social isolation, self doubt and low self esteem. The other part of this Miami leftist’s plan requires that white students be arbitrarily assigned to inferior schools, because after all they are so far ahead of the children in those schools, that they require very little teaching. The fact is that the problem in those schools is that indeed there is very little teaching going on, and thats because in those schools, there is very little teacher development going on, and thats because the supervisory leadership in those schools are so terribly lacking in their own training and misguided commitments they couldn’t work anywhere else but in those underachieving schools. I mean didn’t we have a Miami Chancellor at one time? The guy that as soon as he got on the plane to NYC, the teaching staff in Fla had a huge celebration at a hotel on Collins ave? Do we really need in NYC to continue this process of ignoring the talented educators here in our city. A city that boasts Schools of Education at Hunter, Fordham, CCNY, NYU, St Johns, Columbia, Brooklyn Pace, Marrist etc. Is there no one from any of these excellent institutions that could qualify for The NYC School Chancellorship. C’mon man! My solution would not be to totally discount the idea that Carranza put forth. At its base it has merit. In my opinion, the idea of integrating our public schools should always be the aim, but we need thinkers to make it work.You do not effect integration by separation.That only creates contempt and resistance. If I were on Carranza’s team, I would have as a goal the establishment of Middle School Campuses where bye those campuses would be enhanced either by portable classroom “huts’ or the rental of near bye building space.The next phase of my plan would not require any of the white kids to be moved at all. But rather that incoming minority children be identified in terms of their academic readiness for full mainstreaming. Those who are more then 1 .25 months below their entry grade level, would be required to take enhanced remedial classes in the Campus building or annex. Would they have to be in that setting all day? No. Each students designated for the annex, would be identified in terms of strengths and weaknesses, and with regard to strengths, they would be partially programmed to take classes in the main building that serviced those strengths. This is necessary as we do not want students who while in need of remediation, do not get an opportunity to maintain and showoff their strengths. So The Huts or other off campus sites would in fact be a “Triple A situation, whereas students would be accepted into the campus school if they were not more then 1.25 months below grade level. Similarly, any children already enrolled who were so identified would be placed in these “ready” campus sites. And like A Triple A team sends its players to the majors after they have been coached up, the campus school would so do. To make something like this work,there must be full articulation to all families and parents of the main campus building and those targeted for placement from outside the Dist 3 governance. Second, it must have the supervision of top flight APs and Principals, which District 3 has a plethora of. Thirdly, City Hall must fund the concept with no nickel and diming. And to add the “cherry” on top, The Chancellor needs to establish a ” Supervisory Chancellor’s Ombudsman” to oversee the entire operation.That person would observe all practices and policies that directly impact on the entire student population. Student sensitivities to cultural mores, and values must be celebrated reciprocally. Staff development, and recruiting plans must be an outgrowth of a cooperative shared decision making process between the school leaders .The ombudsman should not be seen as a spy, but rather a wildcard. He or she may be proactive in planning training activities, district wide retreats, trouble shooter for principals experiencing difficulty with vendors, and so froth and so on.

    PS…Where is Bernard Griffin?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s