Lesson Learned
William Martin talks about how charter schools could fundamentally change the Texas education system.
William Martin
CHERI22Dorsey says: Every one remembers that our life seems to be not very cheap, but people require money for various issues and not every one earns big sums cash. So to get good home loans or auto loan will be a proper way out. (June 17th, 2011 at 11:33pm)
With almost one third of the students in the U.S. failing to graduate from high school, it isn’t surprising that education experiments such as charter schools are gaining attention nationwide. Writer-at-large William Martin, who is an emeritus professor of sociology and senior fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, investigated the trend in Texas and discovered the answers to some fundamental questions, including whether charter schools are more successful than public schools, why some programs are being accused of encouraging Islam, and why charter schools may signal the beginning of an overhaul in the education system. Here’s the story behind the story.
How did Harmony Science Academy in Houston become the focus of your piece?
Since my original intent was to write an article about the Harmony schools and that was the first of the schools, it was the obvious place to start. Early in the process, it became clear that I needed to address the larger questions regarding charter schools as compared with regular public schools, but I had always intended for Harmony to be the primary focus.
It seems as though HSA has been the gold standard for charter schools, but you described the building as somewhat run-down. What is the true spirit behind this school?
The Harmony schools are exceptional, but so are KIPP [Knowledge Is Power Program] and YES [Prep] and other schools mentioned in the article. They all deserve gold medals. I was fascinated by the Harmony schools because they are operated by Turkish Muslims, not alumni of Teach for America. The motivating spirit of all these schools is a conviction that it is possible to do a much better job of educating children, particularly economically disadvantaged children, than many public schools have been doing. Instead of giving up on these children, they set high standards and then provide a nurturing environment and the constant encouragement necessary to help children meet those standards. It isn’t magic. It is just a continuing effort to figure out what works and put it into practice and insisting on “No Excuses!”
Why is it that charter schools teaching more economically disadvantaged students seem to do particularly well?
Again, it’s not magic. The schools I’ve written about all insist on structure and order, vital to learning but not always present in the homes of such children. Another element is keeping close track of students to spot weaknesses and problems before they worsen. The home visits impress both students and their parents and show that the teacher and the school really care about them. This matters. Over the decades I taught at Rice, I made a point of learning the names of my students and a little about them as individuals. Few of them were disadvantaged, but again and again they told me how much it mattered to them just to know that I had made the effort even to learn their names. How much more that must be true with students who have seen schools from less supportive backgrounds and environments.
How valid is the argument that test scores at charter schools are higher because the students come from families that value education more?
Much research has shown that family environment is a crucial element in academic success. Obviously, students whose parents are interested enough to try to get them into a high-performing school have an advantage over students whose parents have little or no interest in their education. But, as I said in the article, the fact that these schools have waiting lists in the thousands indicates that many parents want more for their children than they are receiving in the regular public schools now available to them. Moreover, natural experiments such as the one principal Thaddeus Lott conducted at Houston’s Mabel B. Wesley Elementary School several years ago showed that the approach used by the best of the charter schools could work across an entire school, regardless of parental interest.
You said that many public school teachers see charter schools as threatening to salary and job placement based on seniority. Aren’t these aspects of public schools dangerous to the learning environment?
I’m not sure “danger” is the word, and I have great respect for the way unions have helped teachers obtain better salaries and more job security. But unions, like tenure for college professors, which I enjoyed for many years, can reduce incentive to improve, or even to maintain one’s skill and effort. Greater flexibility in pay, geared to valid measures of performance, seems to me to be a good thing. Knowing that salaries will rise only in modest increments, pretty much regardless of performance, can dampen teachers’ enthusiasm for improvement. I don’t think it’s wrong for veteran teachers to reap some benefits from years in the classroom—as a senior professor, I was able to have some influence over course schedule—but it’s unfortunate when the least experienced, and sometimes least competent, teachers are assigned to the most challenging posts. It’s hard to see that anyone benefits from that.
What other problems in public schools did you not find when visiting charter schools around Texas?
My Library
