First Person

Thoughts on choosing a good school

I’ve written before about the odds of getting into schools that have consistently high test scores. These are generally schools where parents are lining up to get their kids in—some even hiring consultants to help them navigate the enrollment process.

The reason is obvious: few parents want to send their kids to a school where the majority of kids are not reading or doing math at grade level (assuming that they know this!).  Parents, regardless of income or ethnicity want the best for their kids and want them to be successful adults.

But parents also know that not all schools are equal academically or philosophically: attitudes, techniques, teachers, students, leadership, character development, etc. vary widely across schools.

In the past, middle and upper income parents have looked to teacher-student ratios as an indication of quality. But a growing number now recognize that class size matters little after third grade.  It turns out that a school’s culture, expectations, and practice can make nearly as much difference in a student’s life as their parents’ education and income. With hundreds of factors to look at, prioritizing and evaluating schools can be overwhelming.

Why are there so many choices?  Two main reasons: open enrollment and more more new schools with different instructional approaches.

First, parents are no longer restricted to the schools in their geographic boundary. In the past, only middle or upper income families had options – which they exercised when they bought their home.

Second, schools now have flexibility available to them in how they are organized, bringing about variation among schools. Some schools might value project-based or student-centered learning while others insist on a more traditional teacher-centric approach. Both can be done well or poorly, and the burden to investigate is on the parent. Here are a few ideas for sorting through the myriad of options.

Narrowing your search online

First, look at the data, which takes about an hour. The best websites are Colorado School Grades, the Colorado Department of Education’s SchoolView and, in Denver, the Denver Public Schools district School Performance Framework. Look for schools where:

  1. Students are reading, writing and understanding math and science on grade level (look at the percentage of students scoring proficient or advanced);
  2. Students are learning at the same or faster rate as peers at other schools (the growth percentile should be over 50 –the state average);
  3. Kids that come from a similar demographic background as your child are doing well. The state collects test scores by sex, race, income and ethnicity. One place to find this information by school is here; and
  4. Programming fits your child’s interests. Some schools have great theater programs while others focus on science or guitar. This may be very important or not at all important to you. It’s important to find a school that does a few things well that meet your families needs rather than find the school that claims to do everything well.

The hard part

Next, set aside time to visit schools – maybe one to two days. Call every school on your short list and schedule a visit for at least an hour. Some schools are used to having visitors and have a routine, set hours and days. Other schools that are not used to giving tours and scheduling a visit might take more work. You may have to call a couple of times, but eventually you will get an appointment or access to an open house. Be sure to say that you want to talk to the principal and visit classrooms.

It can be really useful to visit a number of excellent schools even if you don’t want or can’t afford to send your child there. Understanding the scope of options is helpful in knowing what you do and don’t want from a school. Good schools can be public, charter, private, student centered/project-based, or more traditional. Here are a few examples of schools with fairly different instructional strategies and philosophical orientations,

High schools

Denver School of Science and Technology (public charter) Great all round academics with a mix of traditional and project based instruction tied to strong character development program. (Economically and ethnically diverse student population).

East High School (public non charter) Traditional comprehensive high school, The college-prep track is very good but students taking lower level programing has similar performance profile to many other Denver high schools. (Economically and ethnically diverse student population) 

Arrupe Jesuit High School (private) Jesuit high school with strong academic and character development focus that successfully sends all of its graduates to college. Arrupe has one of the among the highest Daniels and Boettcher scholarship percentages in the state. (Primarily low-income student population).

Middle schools

KIPP or STRIVE Prep (public charter) These are both college-preparatory schools with a fairly traditional approach to instruction. The day and year are both extended. (Primarily low-income student population). 

Slavens (public non-charter) Excellent traditional public K-8 district managed school. (Mostly white and middle/high income population).

Girls Athletic Leadership School (public charter) Public girls school that focuses on building confidence and self-advocacy. (Diverse student population of girls) .

Elementary schools

Steck (public non-charter) Traditional district elementary school with strong test scores. (Mostly white and middle/high income students)

Odyssey (public charter) Progressive project-based charter school with a focus on developing self-learners and character. (Somewhat diverse student body)

Denver Waldorf School (private) Based on Rudolf Steiner’s philosophy, Waldorf tudents graduate with outstanding writing and thinking skills. (Mostly white and middle/high income student body)

Swigert (public non-charter) International Baccalaureate focus. (Mostly white and middle/high income student population)

University Prep (public charter) Strong academic program with a focus on skills in early years and traditional character development. (Mostly low-income and students of color).

How to visit

You may have a slew of your own questions, but feel free to borrow any of these.

  1. Do students write?  How much do they write?  How many drafts are students typically asked to do? And what does typical student writing look at particular grade levels?
  2.  Are students regularly asked to provide evidence for an argument in most of their courses? Can you see this in what students are asked to do for homework?  How are students supported to develop these habits in math, social studies, social studies, English and science? And how are they graded in these courses? 
  3. Does the school have a focus on character development?  If so, how?  Does the school evaluate a student’s character? Again if so, how?
  4. How will I know if my student is not on grade level? What do you do if they are below grade level? Above?
  5. Where do most students from this school go to high school? College?
  6. What is your art program? Music? Athletics? We don’t think they have to offer everything under the sun, but should have some options—even if they are a club, after school program, etc.
  7. What does the school ask of its parents? How much homework should a student expect? Do they use packets? Is there a parent contract? What will I be invited to?

Visual observations

  1. What is on the walls in the halls and classrooms? Is it student work? If so, what is the quality? Does the school have mostly generic posters or sayings? Or are there more meaningful indicators of the schools mission and what students should know and do?
  2. One other critical indicator of a good school is the quality of the students’ bathrooms. This may seem relatively minor, but the truth is that you can tell a great deal about the culture of a school by visiting the student bathrooms. Are students treated with respect by having mirrors, working stalls with privacy, hand towels, toilet paper etc? Do students treat their bathrooms with respect?    Do students perceive their bathrooms as safe and clean?
  3. How do students and adults treat each other? Do they greet one another by name? Do adults treat students respectfully and vice versa?

In the classroom

  1. Are students engaged? How do you know?
  2. Are wrong answers corrected? Does the teacher ensure that all of the students understand how to arrive at an answer?
  3. Is the teacher a good communicator?
  4. What do students say about their work?  Is it challenging? If so, how?
  5. Does the structure fit your child’s style?
  6. What do they tell you their plans are after high school?

What not to insist on

One of the biggest mistakes that many parents make is wanting their student’s school to be good at everything rather than great at a few things. Schools should also be aware of the areas they are working to improve. Excellent schools are honest and transparently self-conscious about their strengths and weaknesses. If a school claims to be great in all academic areas, athletics, character development, etc., it is probably not.

There are more and more options available to parents and students than in past years. Hopefully this post will prove helpful. Good luck.

First Person

A Chalkbeat roundtable: The promise and perils of charter networks like Success Academy

When we published an essay about the promise and perils of charter schools by our CEO and editor in chief Elizabeth Green last month, we heard from a lot of readers.

Elizabeth’s piece outlined her conclusions after more than a decade of reporting about charter school networks, and more specifically the Success Academy network in New York City. She wrote that charter school networks offer both great advantages — in their ability to provide rare coherence in what is taught across classrooms — and significant danger. Charter networks, she wrote, have changed public education by “extracting it from democracy as we know it.”

Some of our readers saw their own thinking reflected in her conclusions. Others had a very different take.

What was clear was that Elizabeth had kicked off a conversation that many Chalkbeat readers are ready to have, and that, as always, robust and respectful debate is good for everyone’s thinking.

So we reached out to people who engage with big questions about how schools are structured every single day, in their work or personal lives. Today, we’re sharing what they had to say. But we think this is far from the end of the conversation. If you want to add your voice, let us know.



Charter networks’ needs and goals may not be the community’s

By Tim Ware, former executive director of the Achievement Schools managed by the Tennessee Department of Education and founder of Ware Consulting Group

As the founder and former executive director of a high performing public charter middle school in Memphis, Tennessee, I am a firm believer in the promise of well-run charter schools. I also understand the limits of these schools.

A key aspect of public charter legislation is autonomy. This means that public charters decide how to staff their schools, which curriculum to use, how to allocate resources for student support, and how their daily and summer schedules work. However, this legislated autonomy creates issues that thoughtful policymakers need to address.

For instance, in Memphis, a high-performing public charter network began operating a chronically underperforming middle school as a part of a turnaround intervention effort. Despite significant improvements in learning and school culture, as well as the support of the community, the school grappled with dwindling enrollment and suffocating building maintenance costs. Fewer dollars were available to invest in high quality teaching and learning, social-emotional supports, and extracurricular activities. Ultimately, the charter operator made the difficult decision to cease operating the school.

This example illustrates the limits of public charter schools. The same autonomy that allowed them to create an approach that drove improvement for children also allowed them to decide that they could no longer operate the school. This means that, as long as autonomy exists for public charter schools (and it should), we cannot eliminate traditional districts.

The solution for historically underserved communities will be found by creating strong ecosystems of education. These ecosystems should consist of a healthy mix of traditional schools, optional schools (schools with competitive entry requirements), magnet schools, public charter schools, and private schools. By ensuring that multiple types of schools flourish and are accessible to all, parents will be able to make informed choices and select a school which best meets the needs of their most precious belonging — their child.

Back to top



Focusing on charter networks is a mistake. Districts have the same potential

By Josh Thomases, dean of innovation, policy, and research at Bank Street College of Education

Elizabeth Green’s article on Eva Moskowitz misses one important detail – districts have successfully scaled change for students. In this era of attacks on government, it is worth looking closer.

The hundreds of new small high schools opened in New York City between 2000 and 2012 transformed thousands of lives. The research firm MDRC documented that impact, showing a 9.4 percent increased graduation rate and an 8 percent increase in college attendance. Notably, this increase was driven by success with groups that school systems often fail: poorer students, black students, and students with disabilities.

This extraordinary effort happened with district educators and unions, public resources and processes.

I saw this reform inside and out. I helped create a small school in the 1990s and was part of community protests against some of the initial school closures under Chancellor Joel Klein. And, in 2004, I became responsible for the development and support of new schools within the education department.

The new schools work was an example of democracy in action – with all its imperfections. There were legendary protests against the Department of Education and arguments over race, equity and power. And through all of that, the process transformed schools.

Why the success?

  1. The point was to improve teaching and learning. Everything was looked at through this lens.
  2. Educators were the agents of change. The new schools process challenged principals, teachers, community members and parents to reimagine school.
  3. External partners multiplied the power of the changes. These included school development organizations (such as New Visions and CUNY) and local partners ranging from the Brooklyn Cyclones and South Bronx Churches. For the first six years of the reform, the unions were a partner, too.
  4. The district shifted authority towards the principal and school based staff in key areas: hiring, scheduling, budgets, and curriculum.

This is not a story of perfect success; as a district, we made mistakes and they were debated publicly. But the results show that districts can take bold action to change what is happening in schools.

Charters in New York have also demonstrated they can make an important contribution to a district. The task ahead is not to forego government, but to activate its strengths.

Back to top



Charter networks are a laboratory for consistent and high-quality instruction

By Seneca Rosenberg, chief academic officer at Valor Collegiate Academies in Nashville, Tennessee

My first year in the classroom, I desperately wanted to be the teacher my fourth graders deserved. A diligent student, I carefully examined California’s standards, the curriculum my district had adopted, new research, and popular trade books. I quickly saw that the approaches they outlined — for how to teach reading, for example — were often in direct conflict.

Veteran teachers advised: have your students fill out the mandated worksheets to avoid scrutiny, then close your door and teach as you want. This would have been good advice if only I had known what to do behind that door to help my students to learn.

Now, as chief academic officer of Valor Collegiate Academies, a small charter school network in Nashville, I reflect daily on how our autonomy and network structure provide crucial, and often unremarked upon, resources for developing coherent systems of teaching and learning.

Like other charter networks, Valor has the flexibility to set our educational vision and then organize our own curriculum, assessments, hiring policies, student and teacher schedules, and culture to realize it. Many of our teachers and school leaders report that our shared systems, while demanding, buffer them from some of the stress that comes with making sense of dissonant policies and practices they more regularly encountered in traditional public schools.

Even more importantly, our infrastructure provides our teachers and leaders with a common framework around which expertise can be developed, shared, and improved.

For example, at Valor, our teaching teams meet frequently to study and plan from our students’ work. We have shared protocols for data analysis and teacher coaching. Each piece has been intentionally developed as part of a system. As a result, teachers have opportunities to learn that far exceed anything I had access to as a teacher — and our students benefit.

I share some of Elizabeth Green’s ambivalence about the potential impact of the rise of charters nationally, though she inflates the extent to which charters “extract” public education from democratic control — at least in states in which authorizing laws are well crafted. I am also skeptical of Moskowitz’s suggestion that perhaps “a public school system consisting principally of charter schools would be an improvement.”

But charter networks’ unique conditions do provide a useful laboratory. Critics who dismiss our high-performing charter networks’ many successes risk missing what we are learning from this critical innovation — coherent instructional systems — and how that might contribute to new possibilities for American education.

Back to top



In my city, no schools have it figured out

By Bernita Bradley, parent advocate and blogger at Detroit School Talk (and a Chalkbeat Reader Advisory Board Member)

Take all kids out of charter schools, they say. Close them down and require those students to attend their closest public school, no matter how far, how full the classrooms, and how low-performing. Hop on a bus more than 25 minutes to attend the closest high school near you and sit at the back of the class on the floor. After all, public schools were perfect before charter schools came along, and in order for them to be perfect again, we need everyone on board.

Don’t talk bad about public schools, they say. Don’t draw attention to the fact that we are still figuring out how to improve public schools and need your help. The city of Detroit must unite, be of one mind, and let all charter school leaders know that we are only supporting traditional public schools.

These arguments won’t work. I fight for quality public schools and fought for us to not lose more of them. However, if you strip parents of choice, you prove that you are not committed to providing children with what they need.

To be clear, I am an advocate for both sides. Parents don’t care about this war — we just want good schools that will educate all children equally. Can we have that conversation?

Let’s tell the truth about how, here in Detroit, both sides cherry-pick students and “counsel out” parents. Public schools just suspend students indefinitely until parents leave to find a charter school. Let’s tell the truth about how teaching to the test has affected both charter and public school teachers’ ability to make sure student academic growth is more robust.

Both sides could do better. My children have attended both kinds of schools. I’ve bused my kids 15 miles away. I’ve sent my kids to the top charter and public schools in the city. And no one — including charter schools — has this figured out.

I can’t think of a person would say they are totally happy with their child’s educational experience here in Detroit. We have come to the point where, while we’ve made friends in both charters and public schools, this is a journey full of struggles and broken promises that we would not wish on any parent.

Believe me, if we had our way there would be no need to choose. The school on the corner would be full and alive with students, parents, and teachers who have one common goal, to educate all kids.

Back to top


The rise of networks hurts the charter movement

By Steve Zimmerman, Coalition of Community Charter Schools

In the ongoing saga of Eva Moskowitz and her war against the the educational status quo, two key issues are overlooked. The first is that the rise of Success Academy has come at significant cost to the charter school movement and the democratic values that were at its genesis.

The rigidly top-down managerial approach of the Success network is the antithesis of the original idea of chartering: to free schools from district-imposed conformity so they have autonomy to innovate. There is no autonomy or innovation in a franchise. Franchisees follow the script.

The second issue is that Success Academy schools, for all intents and purposes, turn teachers into technicians. They are trained in a rigid model of classroom management with a relentless focus on student outcomes. As Elizabeth Green and others point out, the effectiveness of this system, at least in terms of test scores, is well documented and ostensibly justifies the orthodoxy of “no excuses” education reform.

Relentlessness, however, comes at a cost. Just as legendary as its record-high test scores is Success Academy’s teacher attrition. Success Academy appears to welcome an increasing number of bright young people to learn and execute the scripts, and then watch as they move on to their real careers after they burn out in three years. The consequences of this trend are chilling to imagine.

If we believe the purpose of public education to be the development of exceptional test takers, then Eva Moskowitz has clearly pointed the way to the promised land. If, however, we believe the purpose is the betterment of society and the development of the whole child, there are better models to emulate.

Back to top



Coherence is important, but charter networks aren’t necessary to achieve it

Andy Snyder, social studies teacher at Harvest Collegiate High School in New York City

Who should decide what students learn in school? Families or individual teachers? District and charter school leaders, elected officials, or panels of professors?

Elizabeth Green’s recent essay focuses our attention on this huge question. She points out that many other countries provide “a clear sense of what students need to learn, the basic materials necessary to help them learn it (such as a curriculum).” And she argues that some charter school networks, enabled by their anti-democratic powers, are developing coherent and meaningful ideas of what to prioritize and how to teach it well.

When I began student teaching, I was shown stacks of textbooks and boxes of transparencies, quizzes, tests, homework — corporate-branded, filled with facts, empty of meaning. I switched to another mentor and recreated the trial of John Brown. Later I left one innovative public school where administrators were attempting to bend my courses into more traditional shapes for another where the interview includes, “Describe a dream course that you would love to teach” and where we teach those courses every day.

But I’ve seen in Germany the effects of a thoughtful curriculum — classes connect between disciplines and spiral powerfully between grades, and teachers adapt rather than invent.  Improvised individual efforts often produce a worse result than a strong system. That’s why I commute in New York by subway, not bicycle.

The systemic approach can break down too. Today we curse the defunding of our transit agency, and we saw what happened to the Common Core. How can charter schools develop truly excellent curriculum when their priority seems to be preparing students to win against bad bubble tests?

Students, no matter what kind of school they attend, deserve lessons crafted by well-trained practitioners who draw from the best ideas of the profession.

In the best future I can imagine, each school or district adapts curriculum from one of several coherent curriculum packages developed over years with millions of dollars and genius and honest sweat. Teachers trained in that tradition lead students in cultivating the deep questions and necessary knowledge, and students graduate with a sense of how it all adds up and what they can bring with them into the world.

Back to top

First Person

I’m a teacher in Memphis, and I know ‘grading floors’ aren’t a cheat — they’re a key motivator

PHOTO: Creative Commons / Shelly

Growing up, my father used to tell me not to come to him with a problem unless I had a solution.

That meant I learned quickly what kinds of solutions wouldn’t go over well — like ones involving my father and his money. His policy also meant that I had to weigh pros and cons, thinking about what I was able to do, what I wasn’t, and whom I needed help from in order to make things happen.

I sometimes wish decision-makers in Memphis had a father like mine. Because more often than not, it seems we are talking about the problems void of a solution or even possible solutions to vet.

Right now, the issue in Memphis and Shelby County Schools is the “grading floor,” or the policy of setting a lowest possible grade a teacher can assign a student. They have been temporarily banned after a controversy over high-school grade changing.

Grading floors aren’t new to teachers in Memphis, or to me, a fifth-grade teacher. I have taught and still teach students who are at least two grade levels behind. This was true when I taught fourth grade and when I taught sixth grade. Honestly, as the grade level increased, so did the gaps I saw.

More often than not, these students have been failed by a school, teacher, leader or system that did not adequately prepare them for the next grade. Meanwhile, in my classroom, I have a responsibility to teach grade-level material — adjusting it for individual students — and to grade their work accordingly.

That’s where “grading floors” come in. Without a grading floor, all of my current students would have grades below a 65 percent.

Can you imagine seeing the face of a fifth-grade boy who tried his hardest on your test, who answered all the questions you gave orally, who made connections to the text through auditory comprehension, only to receive a 0 on his paper?

I don’t have to imagine – I see similar reactions multiple times a day. Whether it’s a 65 percent or a 14 percent, it’s still an F, which signals to them “failure.” The difference between the two was summed up by Superintendent Hopson, who stated, “With a zero, it’s impossible to pass a course. It creates kids who don’t have hope, disciplinary issues; that creates a really bad scenario.”

I know that as years go by and a student’s proficiency gap increases, confidence decreases, too. With a lowered confidence comes a lower level of self-efficacy — the belief that they can do what they need to do to succeed. This, to me, is the argument for the grading floor.

In completing research for my master’s degree, I studied the correlation between reading comprehension scores and the use of a motivational curriculum. There was, as might have guessed, an increase in reading scores for students who received this additional curriculum.

So every day, I speak life into my students, who see Fs far too often in their daily lives. It is not my job as their teacher to eradicate their confidence, stifle their effort, and diminish their confidence by giving them “true” Fs.

“This is not an indication of your hard work, son. Yet, the reality is, we have to work harder,” I tell students. “We have to grind in order to make up what we’ve missed and I’m the best coach you have this year.”

In education, there are no absolutes, so I don’t propose implementing grading floors across the board. But I do understand their potential — not to make students appear more skilled than they are, or to make schools appear to be better than they are, but to keep students motivated enough to stay on track, even when it’s difficult.

If it is implemented, a grade floor must be coupled with data and other reports that provide parents, teachers, and other stakeholders with information that accurately highlights where a student is, both within the district and nationally. Parents shouldn’t see their child’s progress through rose-colored glasses, or be slapped by reality when options for their child are limited during and after high school.

But without hope, effort and attainment are impossible. If we can’t give hope to our kids, what are we here for?

I don’t have all the answers, but in the spirit of my father, don’t come with a problem unless you have a solution.

Marlena Little is a fifth-grade teacher in Memphis. A version of this piece first appeared on Memphis K-12, a blog for parents and students.