Arne Duncan: ‘Tinkering around the edges is not sufficient.’
In speaking to reporters on a 25-minute conference call Wednesday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the No Child Left Behind Act failed to produce the radical changes necessary to improve the nation’s lowest-performing schools. He intends to change that with an aggressive $3.5 billion school improvement aid plan that demands striking changes.
Duncan said the federal government was determined to raise the “bottom on the bottom,” the 5,000 lowest performing schools in the nation, half of which were urban, 30 percent were rural and 20 percent were suburban.
“In those schools, tinkering around the edges is not sufficient,” Duncan said. “Those children are being poorly served in chronically underachieving schools and marginal incremental change is not the answer.”
Under his plan, systems must discard scalpels and take chainsaws to failing schools. Systems can close them, restaff them and reopen them under new leadership or as charters. They can shutter the schools and transfer students elsewhere. Or they can make deep, “transformative” changes, including replacing the leadership, adopting comprehensive reforms including performance pay for teachers and extending learning time.
During his time as CEO of Chicago schools, Duncan said he realized dramatic school improvements by adopting the turnaround model, which calls for replacing the principal and at least 50 percent of the school’s staff. “We replace leaders, we replace teachers. Adults will leave and children will stay,” he said.
“We have to educate our way to a better economy,” Duncan said. “All of our schools need to get better. And it has to happen now with a real sense of urgency. We are providing unprecedented resources. We expect unprecedented results.”
What do you think? Is the Duncan plan simply a new name for old reforms that will produce the same disappointing results?
Or, is his plan for major shakeups at lagging schools the way to breath new life and new ambitions into moribund institutions? See details of the plan here.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
74 comments Add your comment
William Casey
August 29th, 2009
10:35 am
I’m retired after 31 years as a teacher, administrator and coach. No longer have a dog in this fight. I finished 2nd in my college class and viewed education as a “calling.” However, I was not put on this earth to be a surrogate parent (or slave) to children and parents who ignore THEIR responsibilities. It was that simple! I had one biological child, Beau Casey, who recently graduated from Northview High. Ask any teacher there if they wanted Beau in their class or on their team. THAT is what I expected as a teacher and coach.
Cere
August 29th, 2009
2:24 pm
Reality 3 @ 5:44, I couldn’t agree more. I’ve always said that humble home lives should not have to equate to a sub-standard education. That said, parents are responsible for sending respectful, well-mannered children who are ready to learn to school. But nowadays, teachers really do expect an awful lot of learning to take place outside of their classrooms. And too many parents/families are far too immersed in drugs and violence to give a damn about their children. Respect all around could go a very long way toward making some progress.
How about this? Take some of the juvenile court/justice budget and put it toward some of the great suggestions presented here by ScienceTeacher671. We may just have to beef up what we are offering in schools in order to provide a proper “surrogate” family to many children in order to refocus a generation on a good and healthy path. Their parents can’t or won’t – so the option for schools adhering to the same old/same old will result in the same old/same old – the generation will repeat itself.
V for Vendetta
August 29th, 2009
5:08 pm
Cere,
So in addition to providing an education, food, and shelter to children, you know want schools to act as “surrogate” families? When did apathy, ignorance, and failure become equal in value to attention, intelligence, and success? Your dangerous brand of thinking tells us they are–and that we should sacrifice one to the other. I’m sure Arne Duncan would agree.
V for Vendetta
August 29th, 2009
5:09 pm
sorry, not “know.” I meant “now.”
cricket
August 29th, 2009
6:33 pm
I work in a Title 1 school and have for a while. Most of our county’s schools are not Title 1. We have more of everything than the more affluent non Title 1 schools already. We have all the technology bells and whistles which are great as well as instructional coaches who are not great. (wasting our minimal planning period with tidbits a first day student teacher would already know). The point is extra money and a lot of it is already being thrown at schools in depressed areas. We have made AYP for 6 years but our scores are still much lower than non-title schools in our county. That’s not for lack of effort on our part. If anything, we are some of the hardest working teachers in our county and our county as a whole does realize this. Having said that, I promise you, there are no requests for transfer to our school from others. It takes more energy and and more patience than most teachers have to handle a typical day in a Title 1 school. I don’t think even paying people more to work in underachieving schools would help because you can either handle teaching these children or you can’t.
Cere
August 29th, 2009
10:30 pm
V – how do you propose to break the cycle? How do you expect severely underprivileged children to learn about life and the world around them? It’s not about technology – it’s about parenting – yes. And we have waaaaay too many really bad parents out there. How do you think it will stop if we don’t put extra effort into stopping it? What’s wrong with introducing inner-city kids with bad parents to things like art lessons after school, musical instruments, cooking classes, summer camps? Why not sponsor much more in partnership with the Y or the Boys & Girls Clubs? The hope is that they will carry it on for their own children. You don’t mind spending so much on jails instead? Pay now – or pay later.
As far as Duncan goes – I think he is aiming for quite the opposite. It looks more and more to me like Duncan is trying to create nothing more than a multi-Billion dollar business for certain business people (textbook publishers, test creators, and privately owned “charter” school business models) to line their pockets with – in the name of improving schools. And he will improve schools – for some – mostly already privileged children. Poor, special needs and other struggling low-performing children will simply get moved to somewhere else – which will soon be deemed “failing” again.
And pity the poor “good” teachers who stay in the bad schools with the lofty goal of “helping” struggling students – they will lose their jobs when the “chainsaw” comes around. Think about it.
Reality3
August 30th, 2009
7:47 am
Not all teachers should work in Title 1 schools, V should not. You can be a great Chemistry in a magnet school and still make a difference. But let the teachers who have a desire to go the extra step try making a difference.
ScienceTeacher671
August 30th, 2009
11:19 am
V, do you consider the children of bad parents “disposable” and impossible to help, or do you think there are other options?
Mary
August 30th, 2009
1:07 pm
Yes, the world is a bleak place in many ways and for that reason I fear for my child every day. However, people can change. In fact, children are far more flexible and resilient than most adults on their best day. We’ve all seen news stories or heard of children who have survived the most horrible living conditions, unthinkable abuse, and physical limitations to become winners and leaders – or even just survivors. So, this concept that children can’t overcome their crappy home lives is a myth. Will most of them overcome it? Probably not. But, what if MANY can?
There are some good examples out there of public school initiatives in inner-city schools that have transformed the futures of the students involved. There are programs out there that have proven that students can rise above the “brainwashing” of their early years in poor home environments. Somebody took a chance on those kids and the kids turned their backs on the negativity of their parents’ lifestyles. Do I think that what Duncan is proposing will do this? Not really. True change takes much more visionary thinking than just shuffling people from school to school, remodeling, and buying new computers.
I’m sure that those of you who think of kids in those situations as disposable, best thrown out with the trash, won’t take the time to do a web search and look at some examples of these types of programs. That’s ok. Take my word for it – they exist. As for what to do with that “trash” that some of you want to keep throwing out – yeah, let’s keep building more prisons to handle future generations of low achievers growing up in a cycle of poverty, crime, and ignorance. Your grandkids can grow up to be the prison wardens.
Let’s just leave things as they are since we seem to be so happy with the current state of affairs.
Mary
August 30th, 2009
1:12 pm
I just wanted to add that I greatly appreciate the spirited debate that we have going here. It’s refreshing to read everyone’s thoughts presented in a mature fashion.
V for Vendetta
August 30th, 2009
1:34 pm
Cere,
Introducing kids “to things like art lessons after school, musical instruments, cooking classes, summer camps” sounds wonderful. “Why not sponsor much more in partnership with the Y or the Boys & Girls Clubs?” That, too. However, the first question that must be asked is “at whose expense?” All of these programs cost money, and, if they are placed under the umbrella of public education, they cost YOUR money and MY money. Now, you might be perfectly willing to serve the “greater good” and have your finances pinched by the government so they can be redistributed to others, but not me. I’ve worked hard to get where I am, and I have a family of my own that I pride myself on providing for. I don’t need or want to provide for anyone else. Whenever there are children involved, why is someone like me–who prefers to keep what he earns simply because he has EARNED it–painted as the villain. Who are the real villains here? That’s easy: They are the ones being handed all the money–i.e., the deadbeat parents and the government. “Pay now–or pay later”? Indeed.
ScienceTeacher671,
No individual is “disposable” nor are they impossible to help. However, these parents flat refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Let’s look at the facts through the clear and unobstructed lens of reason rather than the rose-colored glasses the collective wishes us to use:
Many of these parents have little or no education. They refuse to get one, proving that they neither value themselves or their children. They are able to evade reality in this manner because they are provided for by you and I–via the United States government. The government rewards their ineptitude and apathy by giving them money EARNED by others–i.e., redistributing the wealth of the country. Despite having no resources, little income, and hardly any education, they continue to proliferate at an alarming rate. Why is that? One need not be highly educated to understand where babies come from and the cost associated with raising a child. The explanation is twofold: they don’t care and they receive more money per child from the government. This manner of thinking–without reason, without judgment, without value–is abhorrent. It should not be rewarded or sanctioned by the producers of this country.
If these people were to be cut off, and there was no longer such a thing as government housing, welfare, etc., they would be left with only two choices: work to EARN a living or die.
Though you might think there is a third option, there isn’t. Any third option requires a redistribution of wealth and resources, which is not moral. You might think my proposal itself is not moral, but I would ask “how so?” I’ve simply stated that a man should be accountable for his own actions and never the actions of another. Or, as it is stated in Atlas Shrugged:
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” — John Galt
Cere
August 30th, 2009
2:53 pm
Some quotes from Arne Duncan’s speech to America’s Choice Superintendent’s Symposium
“Teachers and students were then thought of as interchangeable widgets. Teachers were rewarded based on credentials and experience, not on their performance in the classroom. Instruction was not tailored to the individual needs of students but to providing education for the masses and new immigrants.” …
“In the last two decades, those immortal institutions of the past have become more open to innovation and entrepreneurship. In 1996, the nation had about 250 charter schools—today, more than a million students attend over 4,000 charter schools. The best charters today are models of innovation–and the worst charters should be closed. But authorizers have waited too long to intervene in low performers. And districts have not done enough to understand and apply more broadly the lessons of what works from the top performers. In half-a-dozen cities today, charter schools now account for more than 20 percent of all students. Good charter schools increase the number of quality educational options available to parents who previously had no choice where to send their children.”
“My challenge to those cities is to take the next step and perfect this model of innovation—close those charter schools that are failing, and systematically replicate and learn from those that are succeeding.” …
“I like to talk about the “Barack Effect”—the idea that the president has made it cool again to be smart and excel in school. But it wasn’t that long ago that teaching was not considered a prestigious occupation among students at elite universities.
“Two decades ago, a determined senior at Princeton University, Wendy Kopp, set out to change that perception. She wrote her undergraduate thesis about the need to create a teacher corps of committed students, modeled after the Peace Corps.” …
“I think you know the rest of the story.
Two decades later, Teach for America is one of the biggest employers of Stanford graduates. At Ivy League universities, one out of every nine seniors now applies to Teach for America.
Of course Teach for America hasn’t solved the problem of how we recruit the toughest, most compassionate, most committed undergrads to become teachers and then stay in education for the long haul. But a naïve college student started a movement that has made teaching cool, encouraged more people to think about alternative routes to becoming a teacher, and helped engage a generation of twenty-somethings in the work of school reform.”
“It is a lot tougher today than in the past to think of teachers as interchangeable widgets.”
ScienceTeacher671
August 30th, 2009
7:25 pm
V, I agree that the parents are irresponsible and should not be rewarded, and I know that that Bible says that the sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the children. On the other hand, Jesus warned of what would happen to those who harmed the little ones.
I understand your desire to keep all you’ve earned for yourself and for your children. On the other hand, the Georgia Constitution states that a “primary obligation” of the state is to provide an adequate and free public education to its citizens, to be paid for by tax dollars. I would suggest that the state is falling short on this obligation to ALL of its children, and most of all to “the least of these.”
ScienceTeacher671
August 30th, 2009
7:28 pm
@*$&*# blog monster.
V for Vendetta
August 30th, 2009
8:37 pm
ScienceTeacher671,
Perhaps that’s the problem then, isn’t it? Maybe the government should get out of the education business and let the chips fall where they may. I have a sneaking suspicion that the students and parents committed to education would end up just fine. Those who don’t place a value on education would end up accordingly. It is a shame that children must pay the price for parental neglect and ignorance.
As far as what Jesus has to say about the matter, I could honestly care less . . . .
Sam
August 30th, 2009
9:38 pm
Come on V, you’re not going to pass up taking on Mary @ 1:07 pm, are you? Let’s have your response. Let’s have you expose more of your brand of thinking. Reflection and learning seem to be happening. Keep it coming.
ScienceTeacher671
August 30th, 2009
10:43 pm
V, or maybe they should make a better effort to do what they are supposed to do, and do it correctly.
V for Vendetta
August 30th, 2009
11:50 pm
Sam,
What is there to respond to? Mary’s assertion that some students can overcome their disgusting home lives is completely accurate; however, she forgets her own words and goes on to contradict herself:
“So, this concept that children can’t overcome their crappy home lives is a myth. Will most of them overcome it? Probably not. But, what if MANY can?”
She was right the first time. Most will not overcome it; the influence of their home lives is too great for them to emerge unscathed. Are there exceptions to the rule? Of course! There will always be those who recognize something as a value even when those around them are blind to that fact. I would never turn my back on a student whom I thought could recognize education as a value and make strides to improve his or her life. However, after the opportunity is extended, it is up to the student to take the next step. I will stay after school until nightfall to help a student who expresses a desire to make a profound change in his life. I have no patience for those who with to imitate the mooching habits of their ignorant friends and families.
I’m sure your post was tongue-in-cheek since you seem to think that merely being around these types of students makes you some sort of saint, but your willingness to sacrifice those who perform to those who choose not to reveals the error in your premises. It’s not about race, money, environment. It’s about choice. At the end of the day, no matter how bad a student’s situation is, he or she is still capable of making a choice. But only those who understand the concept of consequences are likely to view education as a value.
Cere
August 31st, 2009
10:53 am
Shudder…
Cere
August 31st, 2009
9:44 pm
Someone came to the DeKalb School Watch blog and shared some powerful research -
Below is the blogger’s synopsis, but I hope that you will all read the research at the link below and think about it. I believe (as many of us at the DeKalb blog believe) that we can make a difference in so many children’s lives if we just put serious effort in early on and then strongly again in adolescence. To heck with the damned tests…
Square Peg said…
If you want “research based”, read economist James Heckman, a Nobel laureate, an expert on this topic.
http://jenni.uchicago.edu/human-inequality/
Scroll way down and you’ll get to a heading called Policy Analysis, with links to a couple of papers, one of which is supposed to communicate to a general audience. I confess I haven’t really digested them yet, but take a look for yourself.
“The best way to improve the schools is to improve the early environments of the children sent to them.” (pp 21-22 of the 2007 paper) “Early skills breed later skills because early learning begets later learning… Returns are highest for investments made at younger ages and remedial investments are often prohibitively costly.” (p. 24) “If early investments are made, the returns to later investments will rise. Investment in the preschool years raises the productivity of schooling and post-school job training.”
But all is not lost after the preschool window closes. Anon 10:27 talks about mentoring and plain old fashioned love and attention. The 2006 paper points out that while current systems of evaluating educational reforms are based predominantly on changes in scores on cognitive tests, these tests capture only one of the many skills required for a successful life. There is substantial evidence that that mentoring, etc., can be effective in helping disadvantaged teenagers to become more successful by developing noncognitive traits such as motivation and persistence. (see page 9)
My interpretation is that diverting an enormous amount of our schools’ resources to the futile goal of meeting AYP is an incredible national waste of money and effort. And testmania crowds out love and attention.
What struck me was that the Perry Preschool project described by Heckman cost about $9,785 a year in 2004 dollars. According to a posting today on another thread on this blog, that’s about what Dekalb spends per student anyway.
MBW
September 1st, 2009
9:12 pm
As a teacher that worked in a perpetually struggling APS middle school, I agree with Arne Duncan on this one. Sometimes you just need to scrap the whole thing and start over.
The main issue with reconstituting schools, however, is this: *** If your school has a hard time filling teaching vacancies to begin with, then replacing 50% or more of the staff may not be realistic. You just end up having to settle for the same teachers, which solves nothing.
MBW
September 1st, 2009
9:13 pm
A school’s performance should be measured by student achievement alone……but student achievement needs to be measured with a variety of techniques that include, but are NOT limited to, testing.
MBW
September 1st, 2009
9:18 pm
I support reconstituting bad schools…but we need to make sure that there are mechanisms in place to replace the outgoing staff with BETTER teachers/administrators. Replacing bad teachers with different bad teachers solves nothing.
ScienceTeacher671
September 2nd, 2009
6:00 pm
Cere, all the research I’ve ever read says the same thing – early intervention is the key.
As I’m sure you know, the original idea behind Pre-K was to provide just that intervention for at-risk children, before it became subsidized daycare for all.
RTI as originally constituted was also supposed to provide early diagnosis, intervention, and remediation of learning problems, but the current implementation in Georgia is, in most cases, directly contrary to the research.