An “Evidence-based Academic
Improvement Plan” for our ‘Underachieving’ Schools
Several
weeks ago, Superintendent William Hite announced yet another plan to “improve
schools most in need”. According to the
district, this year’s planning process to improve the eleven named schools will
include community meetings in which a menu of five options will be presented.
One of the improvement plans named is an “evidenced-based academic improvement
plan”. Luckily for the school communities on tap for “improvement” this is the
smartest option, and the one that the excellent teachers and school staffs of
the district know how to implement.
We are
fortunate to have a blueprint for an evidenced-based plan right here in our own
district: The Penn Alexander School was just named a Blue Ribbon School because
they have “narrowed the achievement gap" (properly called the opportunity gap). This provides us a ready-made
template to follow at the “schools most in need.” What does Penn Alexander have
that our most struggling schools do not? The Daily News pointed to Penn
Alexander’s staff selection process as the secret ingredient to PA’s success,
but this is simply wrong. The fact is that all
Philadelphia School District Schools are currently 100% site-selected; that
is, principals and their committees interview and choose the teachers for their
schools.
So, what is
truly different about Penn Alexander? A look at the district’s own school
profiles provides some answers: Penn Alexander
serves a student body in which 39.14% of the students are economically disadvantaged—which
may sound challenging until you realize that 85% of all SDP students are economically disadvantaged. By contrast, PA
serves a relatively wealthy community. The unfortunate fact is that the schools
named for improvement plans each serve a student body in which 100%--yes,
100%--of the students are economically disadvantaged.
What supports have been
provided to these economically disadvantaged schools?
The low-poverty Penn Alexander receives $1300 more per pupil
to help their relatively privileged students succeed. But the high-poverty schools get no such
bonus. They also took the brunt of the
Hite administration’s staffing and substitute debacle last year. Penn Alexander maintains its kindergarten
class size at a very manageable 17 students, while high -poverty schools must
cram 30 kindergartners into each class—with no classroom aide. Some of the
high-poverty middle and high schools have 40 or more students per class. Many
do not have enough desks and chairs (let alone books) for their oversized
classes.
To
review: Penn Alexander has a low-poverty
student body, receives extra money, and boasts ideal class size. They have access to many resources from the
University of Pennsylvania, including graduate students as additional
personnel. These advantages have enabled them to reduce the achievement gap and
be named a Blue Ribbon School. Therefore, I propose what I call the “Penn Alexander Plan” as an evidenced-based
academic improvement plan for our struggling schools: First, advocate for an end
to generational poverty; second, endow the highest poverty schools with
$1300.00 more per student; third, provide the necessary funds to implement
small class sizes for the students who most need it. Throwing in a full-time
school librarian, which Penn Alexander has (and only nine other district
schools enjoy), wouldn’t hurt either.
We have the evidenced-based plan. We know it works. The
only question that remains: Will Dr. Hite and the SRC have the fortitude and
vision to advocate for our most economically disadvantaged students, schools,
and communities? To do that Dr. Hite and his team must give up the false and
destructive narrative that teachers and school workers are the problem, cease
applying simplistic band aid solutions (such as endless churn) to this complex
issue, and work hard to find equitable solutions for all neighborhoods and
schools.
KRISTIN LUEBBERT
Exactly. The answer is staring them in the face. But, then they wouldn't have any one to blame.
ReplyDelete