Thanks Sara for posting Keith's perspective. I assume one of our goals in education is to prepare students for life. Reducing standards and incorporating questionable "interventions" sends students the wrong message. Once they enter the real world, they will be unprepared and unable to compete with others--the current policies are doing them a disservice! Better late than never, we can set high standards instead of simply accomodating the small group students who do not value education.

A refresher on the topic: The city's elite high schools -- City, Poly and Western -- historically have not kept about a third of the students who enter as freshmen. Dr. Alonso says that's unacceptable, that the schools are already starting with the most academically able students in the city and must do all they can to help them be successful. The schools must now document the steps they've taken to provide assistance before they can kick a student out.

Just a couple of notes about Sara's opening here.

1. According to the data she posted last week, while about 70% of students graduate in four years, only about 82% of them remain in the system. These students could have just moved away. That's only a 12% differential.

2. Since at least 2001, magnet schools have always had to provide documentation about intervention strategies to kick students out. The question is, of course, what intervention strategies are necessary? Teachers have had to turn in parental contact logs, letters were sent, coach classes offered and/or required, tutoring - all have been in place for years (though, admittedly, I'm not sure how stable these were during the tenure of three different CEOs and different principals over the last few years).

He's right! What is the point of dragging all city schools down to the same miserable level?

Shouldn't there be at least a few places in Baltimore where good students can get a good education in the company of other good students?

First off, it is a well-written letter. A constant problem in most, if not all, schools now is the student who chooses not to avail himself of the right to a free and public education. These students do their utmost to ruin the experience for the
students who want to get an education. It happens in the city and the county schools, and nobody wants to truly address the problem.

(1) God forbid the "best" teachers at the "best" schools in the City be required to provide the same thing that EVERY other teacher in the City must provide before transferring a student.

(2) Of the teachers that I know who have gone from zone schools to one of the magnet schools, the report is pretty clear that City/Poly/Western teachers feel that such interventions are "below them" and the schools are ill-equipped to address the underlying issues involved in student misbehavior. This doesn't mean that teachers aren't trying; it means that these schools could learn from those below the hill or outside the gates.

(3) I taught at a high school in the City where the "magnet school transfers" attended once they had been kicked out of a citywide. It was very, very, very clear from discussions with the students and/or parents/guardians that the magnets were not doing nearly enough to reach students with SO MUCH potential but a lack of direction. When I would call to introduce myself to parents on the students' first day, I can't tell you how many times a "transferred" student's parents said it was the first time they had talked to a teacher in years.

(4) "Be placed somewhere they can [be successful]..." - This statement, though likely unintended, clearly is a cop out and hidden way of saying, "We just don't want you here." Let's be real, then we can have a productive conversation.

(5) To get into the schools, students (and let's not forget that these are 14/15/16 year old kids) show their potential. To deny them the opportunity to maximize that potential before addressing underlying causes is a disservice to students and taxpayers in this City.

I'd like to address Bill's wrong-headed comments one-by-one.

1) No teacher at citywide schools is not wanting to provide interventions for students - let's get that clear right away. Nowhere did it say in any article that this wasn't the case. Teachers at these magnet schools are willing to go every extra mile for these students, and any suggestion otherwise is plain old ignorance.

2) What interventions are you talking about that aren't already done in citywide schools? You're being just like Alonso here, speaking vaguely about "interventions" without defining what that means.

3) It's sad that a parent never has heard from a teacher in years (although the parent gets a lot of blame for that, as well, since parent-teacher conferences are held throughout the year), but this is not something that is unique to citywide schools, nor is it the norm. I talk with parents all the time for my 166 students, without a working phone, on my personal cell phone. You painting with such a broad brush is just unfair.

4) I'm sorry, but your comment here is total BS. Sometimes, student DO need to go somewhere where they are successful. If a kid never comes to class or to school, and it's a college preparatory institution, clearly they don't want to be there. Interventions haven't worked. Sometimes, they need this fresh start elsewhere becuase the school isn't meeting their needs. This is an important factor here that kind of gets lost - it's all about what is best for the kids, and if Poly/City/Western/Dunbar aren't meeting the needs of the kid, then they should go elsewhere. You're the one who needs to be real.

5) Again, you're talking in vagueries. What "underlying causes"?

Bill, you raise some interesting points. I'd like to respond to a few of them from a[nother] student's perspective:

Regarding your first two comments, I think you're getting the idea that the teachers feel that these interventions are "below" them because of the way that the administration proscribes them. In an intervention gives the sense that the school administration is trying to stop a pattern of bad behavior, generally bad grades, by taking proactive measures. This isn't usually the case. The proscription isn't generally something constructive, such as students being obligated to show up to coach classes or regularly checking in with a guidance counselor. They usually try to get rid of the problem by forcing the teacher to lower his or her class expectations which the student has failed to meet--something along the lines of "turn in two of the twenty five assignments and I'll pass you." I've overheard teachers actually bargain with the administration over the number of long-missed assignments a student could turn in order to pass. "Intervention" means that the teachers get undermined, the student does only a small fraction of the work needed in order to make the class worthwhile, and the administration has one less problem child. I agree with you: we at City (maybe Poly too) need to learn how to actually intervene in order to really put people on the right track rather than just sweeping them under the rug.

Here's another facet of the problem: when I was a junior, the passing grade was lowered from a 70 to a 60. That policy change alone would be fine, but the minimum score that teachers are allowed to put on report cards is a 55. For one, that's only a five-point difference between a person who didn't turn in once assignment and a person who passed the class. I know two people who flat out stopped coming to school after the first quarter of this year, and since they received an 80 for the first quarter, they passed the class. It isn't fair, and it keeps students who cause problems getting by.

Another thing that needs to be mentioned is that you see neither Keith nor I talking about the run-of-the-mill student with bad grades. It's the students that cause problems, that set fires, assault teachers, assault students, and clearly show that they don't want to take advantage of a good learning opportunity that we want, but can't get, out. Maybe it is a cop out to say that they'd fare better in other environments... maybe it's naïve optimism, but either way, does that justify keeping people in that want to bring the institution down?

As a City alum, I'm glad that teachers at City/Poly/Western feel such interventions are below them. They're supposed to be in environments where such actions should be unnecessary. Maybe it's just implied now, but should be more explicit (as it was when I was attending City) that the student is expected to show up every single day, ready to learn -- not ready to set fires, not ready to talk back to teachers, not ready to skip classes, not ready to fight, not ready to engage in gang activity, not ready act like anything other than a good student.

Bill, your third point illustrates exactly the problems.

Number one, the students have been allowed into City/Poly/Western based on potential. Once they show up on the first day of 9th grade there, it's no longer about potential. Then, it is time to put up.

Just like Mr. Gordon said, there are students who lag behind in certain subjects, but when you're talking about students who can't or don't want to catch up (those who don't want to go to class for one reason or another), those students don't seem to care about their own potential. Why should the school in general or any specific teacher be tasked with bringing out those students' supposed potential, if they can't be brought to care about it themselves?

If students are lacking direction, they need to have an intervention at home. Straightening them out is a job for their parents, cousins, uncles and aunts, priests or preachers, or what have you. Teachers and administrators have a tough enough job preparing students to compete against other students from all over the country for spots at top colleges and universities, as well as scholarship money (have we forgotten that these schools are preparing them for a next level that's not going to give them interventions, either?). That's not even mentioning the teachers that teach full loads, coach sports, and oversee clubs.

Number two, whatever happened to parents being proactive? That these parents haven't talked to a teacher in years sounds as much like the parents themselves not doing their due diligence as much as anything. My single parent was able to find their way up to the school while working and recovering from a life-threatening illness, so yes I understand hardship.

And while I applaud you for taking the time to contact the parents, introduce yourself, etc., it's still, at least in my opinion, the parents' responsibility to contact the teacher to make the introductions. It only makes sense that if somebody is going to be spending so much time with your child and molding how this child thinks, that you take the time to meet them.

It is precisely this mindset that it's all the teachers' responsibility to do everything that's gotten us where we are. The teachers have to teach plus play in some cases, surrogate parent, psychological counselor, big brother, and fight referree, among other roles.

I know there are some students whose parents are non-existent, on drugs, etc. And I think there should be some leeway in who goes and who doesn't. But in the real world, nobody's going to ask these students what their family life was like or anything. It's not just going to all be handed to them based solely on potential. They'll have to perform sooner or later. And it's best to show BCPSS that this is how it is, before it's too late.

I wanted to express my absolute support to the students, both current and alumni, of the prestigious magnet schools. Bill, my favorite debating nemesis :) - I really could not DISagree with you more on this one!

When I taught middle school in BCPSS, I taught in a difficult placement and I remember hearing discussions of teachers complaining that the "City teachers get it so easy" - so I wonder if some of the complaining from teachers outside of the Magnet schools is not slightly based on jealousy. I know there were days I was jealous of what I ASSUMED a teacher's job at City was like - no students cussing them out there or throwing textbooks, or fighting, etc.

But Chris raises an excellent point: teachers at the Magnet schools SHOULD feel that pulling out every stop for a kid is below them. I had a testing policy in my classroom of "You take it 'til you make it!" - but that should not necessarily be the policy in a premier school - I am about 99% certain that Stuyvesant in New York, arguably one of the best public schools in the Nation, isn't giving its students countless chances to step up! Listen, high school is not college yet and there SHOULD still be some hand-holding and guiding, and I don't think anybody here is arguing otherwise. But in a District where many students would have succeeded had their school environment been better, I do agree with those who say that the city's best schools should not be dragged through the mud in the name of making the district better. There are enough problems to focus on without damaging something that isn't really broken! I'm sorry Dr. Alonso - I usually agree with all your decisions, but you need to step up and define what you are talking about here. For somebody that is as strong a student advocate as you, I think you need to listen a bit more to what these Magnet students are telling you they need!!

Ultimately, the whole premise of a Magnet school is quite clear: STEP UP OR STEP OUT!!

1. Chris, I agree with you about the way things should be, unfortunately, we have to deal with the way things are. If the parents were being responsible parents we would not have these problem children in the first place. Reality sucks and unless you know of a way to magically turn uneducated, poor, often disabled and/or addicted, and unfortunately uninvolved parents into caring and competent parents who take the initiative, you are simply begging the question of how to improve the situation. (I hope you just took notes people, THATS how you construct a run on sentence!).

I wish that teachers did not have to fill the void left by a student's parents, but I hope that they do, because the alternative is no one steps up.

2. Raising standards and then enforcing those standards is not exclusive from an aggressive intervention system. If a student is not attending classes, not turning in assignments, the first response should not be to kick them out. The first response should be to have a meeting with them and their parents to lay out a clear plan of what needs to be done and what the consequences are if they're not done. Perhaps Alonso's role is to define what a proper plan is and set a minimum baseline consequence for failing to meet that plan. The difficulty is allowing for some flexibility to tailor a plan to that child's specific needs. If they fail, THEN it is appropriate to move them to a school with lower standards. I agree with those who say Alonso needs to get into specifics here.

3. I still think the biggest problem not being discussed at least for Poly, I'm assuming it's the same at City/Western, is class size. A friend of mine who teaches at Poly has one class of 15 students and another with 35. The smaller class has literally done twice as much work as the larger class. Just because these schools are the best of the bunch doesn't mean we should move all of the kids there. Otherwise we are in danger of making them just another school. Do not increase the size of the student body unless you have more teachers and class rooms to go with it.

And that's all I have to say about that!

One last point:
Chris, you said, "...the students have been allowed into City/Poly/Western based on potential. Once they show up on the first day of 9th grade there, it's no longer about potential. Then, it is time to put up."

This reminds me of what everyone says to me about college: no one is going to care what my grade point average was in high school is once I get into college. At the small lib-arts school I'm going to, I'll be no different from the rest of the students who worked hard in high school. My City College Diploma, my IB Diploma (which I hope I'll get when scores come back soon,) and the hard work that I did in high school won't carry forward. No one will care about the great, nurturing, challenging high school experience I had. And I'm fine with that. I expect the process from middle school to City/Poly/Western to be no different.

A big point of even running a magnet school is to get people that have been performing well in their middle schools, debunking the idea that they're better than everyone else by putting them in an environment of their intellectual equals, and setting the bar higher. That's why we offer "advanced studies". In order for that equalization of students from different schools and the resetting of expectation, we need to leave middle school and zoned school expectations behind and work with something entirely different.

The key thing is this: if you as a student find yourself in a system in which the standards are set low--with these bogus "interventions" (the ones I expressed earlier,) the lax standards about reassignment, and the constant absolution of troublemakers by the administration, you're going to SINK to meet expectations. THAT'S wasted potential.

Brooksy Boy, I agree with you that reality is the way that it is, but I am none of those individuals, so I have no way of changing those individuals' behavior. I could talk until I'm blue in the face, but most bad parents' first and undying mantra is "don't tell me how to raise my child" and I'd probably hear alot of that. Therefore, I'd sooner bang my head against the stone walls at City than try and change those bad parents.

Not that I have all the answers about raising somebody else's child, but I do know that when it comes to educating somebody's child, it's a partnership between the school and the parents. And believe me, many parents have not upheld their end of the bargain by at least making their kids go to school everyday. At the least.

Also, you raise up a hope that shouldn't even have to be part of the City/Poly/Western experience, insofar as intervention goes. When we entered City, we were told from day one that we had to go to class and turn in assignments. Then again, when I entered middle school, I was told the same thing. When I entered elementary school, I was told the same thing. Go to class and do assignments. This is the most fundamental aspect of school. If students don't know that going in on day one, how can they be expected to do the advanced work --college level in some cases-- that these magnet schools offer? Should we then just lower standards further? Should everything at these schools be passing since these students have so much "potential"?

(Maybe Alonso should just go back to basics for elementary and middle school: show up to school, behave, and do your schoolwork. Maybe we won't need to have this conversation about high school students who want to spend their time setting fires and stuff)

If one has somehow made it to any BCPSS high school without going to school every day and doing assignments, then the system has larger problems that need to be addressed. And why should we saddle our magnet schools --our schools that are supposed to cater to the best and brightest who want to learn-- with the responsibility of reteaching the most basic tenets of school: go to school, behave, do your work?

At City, the kids are supposed to be learning subjects like Latin, not how to sit still and respect a teacher, which they should have learned YEARS before entering high school. I imagine that if students could leave elementary and middle school with that much, we wouldn't even need to be having this conversation.

And yes, students who refuse to go to school everyday and do assignments do need to leave City/Poly/Western. These places are supposed to be for serious students. Otherwise, don't have magnet schools.

To what end are we going to intervene for students? Are we going to inflate their grades at City/Poly/Western, graduate them, and then let them find out the hard way that when they go to a serious four-year college that when they miss 3 classes, they fail? That unlike when they went to a BCPSS school, they actually have to you know, show up at class, respect the professor, and do some work?

They'll go off to college, they'll get handed a syllabus outlining what they have to do. Nobody's going to sit them down with their parent and lay it all out for them if they decide they're going to skip a few classes or disrespect a professor. Better to splash the proverbial water on their faces now. Otherwise, our magnets will become a joke and the diplomas won't be worth the paper they're written on.

Artie and CityCollege08, I totally agree with both of you.

Bill,

We've agreed to disagree in the past, once again, we will here. I understand your frustration since you taught in a zone school--at least you mentioned you taught in a high school where kids were "kicked out of a citywide."

I don't want to repeat what everyone else has said, I have 2 points.

#1 You assume incorrectly that no teacher in citywide schools perform interventions to help failing students. I've called parents, offered more time besides the ordinary coach class, made photocopies of missed work, etc. If those aren't credible interventions in your book, please name them.

#2 You want to talk about potential, I get the impression you would rather accomodate the students who a) have problems with attendance b) are disruptive and violent or c) have other priorities besides receiving an education. Well, what about students who behave well and take their education seriously? Who's potential are you wasting?

Interesting discussion... I've certainly touched a nerve here. I appreciate the considered thoughts. Just a few background/framework thoughts:

-I've never taught at a citywide, so my impressions are fully secondhand. My teaching experience took place at a zone school in West Baltimore. Our most difficult students often were those students who were kicked out of the citywides. Over the two years, my 7 most troublesome students had each been kicked out of one citywide or another. To think that these students' behavior magically changes once he/she leaves City/Poly/Western/Dunbar because he/she is in a "better environment, more able to succeed" is a farce. The citywides receive the greatest proportion of resources and have access to the most extensive supports available in the City. Sending a struggling student to a school with less resources, larger class sizes, greater ED and SPED populations, greater numbers of students with behavior issues, and in an environment where standards ARE in fact given lower standards puts an "at-risk" student at greater risk (terrible sentence but the gist is there).

-The students that are most "at-risk" tend to come from non-traditional family backgrounds. To say, "Where are the parents?" is irresponsible. Many of the most difficult students don't have the parental support in the first place, hence leading to the behavior problems.

-No part of me whatsoever believes that teachers at the citywides are failing to dedicate their full efforts to help students. If that's how it came across, I apologize intensely. I'm saying that there should be a focus shift. Sometimes environments change. For instance, to say that we shouldn't use computers in classrooms because we've never done it in the past would be irresponsible. If kids are graduating from citywides without computer skills then we would say, something needs to be done to use "interventions" to improve students' computer skills. Teachers without computer skills may be trying very hard to infuse technology in the classroom, but if their exposure to technology has been limited, then these teachers could do with a little professional development on computer sciences to improve their own practice. This isn't lowering standards, this is changing expectations based on changing realities. It has nothing to do with whether or not teachers are trying hard enough, it has to do with what is expected based on changing trends in populations at the schools.

-We have to get away from this 1970s view of public education. The role of public education in urban centers like Baltimore MUST change and MUST reflect the realities of the community. Sure you can blame uninterested parents while allowing students with a great deal of potential to suffer. That's easy. What's hard, and what's necessary to attack the achievement gap in this City, is to face the reality that schools must be something different. They must provide supports like character development and mentoring in order to truly maximize students' potential. Yes, it's hard, but dealing with the consequences of giving up on students is much more difficult in the long run. I certainly gave up on students while I was teaching because it was so difficult to call every night and/or provide positive incentive interventions (i.e. rewards for good behavior or attendance including trips to the Science Center or Reginald F. Lewis museum or baseball games or the aquarium). However, even though I am sure that I reached a whole cohort of other students, knowing that I gave up on others is the thing that I most regret as a teacher.

-Again, it's very easy to say, "That's not the schools'/techers' job." But, if we really want to make a difference in this City, we need to approach education from a different perspective. No, I absolutely don't have answers; I hope that the more I learn the better I get at developing that skill. But, I think there are enough incredibly gifted and smart teachers out there that would be able to do some pretty innovative things if expressly required/encouraged to do so. I trust the citywide teachers because they have a history of being successful regardless of the circumstances. I believe wholeheartedly in their abilities. I know there will be a bumpy period for a bit, but in time, I'm extremely confident that Baltimore citywides will be a new type of model for urban districts across the country, all of whom working desperately to honestly close the achievement gap.

Forgot to mention a few things:

- Sorry about the poorly written post above; I was trying to watch Dirty Jobs while writing... never a good idea.

- To "A Teacher," I need to apologize. I didn't mean to insinuate that citywide teachers aren't calling home or going the extra mile. I fell into one of my own traps by using a small sample size to reach a generalization. It was just a personal pet peeve that happened to me enough times that I probably created a false characterization in my own mind. Really, honestly, didn't mean to extend that to all citywide teachers (see end of last post).

- As Artie mentioned, I didn't really mean "below them." That was bad phraseology on my part. I just meant that the citywide teachers didn't necessarily appreciate having to serve kids in a a different fashion. And, honestly, that isn't my own opinion; I'm pulling that from my teacher-friends who have switched over and who have been so surprised by the different approach to handling difficult students.

- "Underlying Causes" = Socialization issues related to growing up with inattentive role models. I know this sounds eerily like a gross generalization and/or an assumption about students' lives. But, it's these deeper issues that stimulate bad behavior. Poor behavior is never acceptable and should not be excused (I agree with everyone on that point), but we need to understand where it's coming from and address it appropriately now so that we're not dealing with the consequences later. Ultimately, the resource (time, money, effort, etc) expenditure now, even when it seems extensive, is certainly justified by the long run costs of the alternative.

Only meant to write a few sentences... this always happens once I intend to just write a quick clarification. Back to work.

Yes, Bill, you certainly have and I do appreciate your ongoing engagement in this discussion.

I'd agree with you that it's not desirable to send students away from citywides into environments where there are less resources and such. But the answer isn't to then keep these students, especially those with behavioral problems, at the expense of students who want to learn. Is that fair? I think it would be more fair, as it was stated in one of the other blog entries on this issue, to have better second tier alternatives for schools.

Maybe at a better second-tier school, the students can get the attention they need.

I come from a non-traditional background (so from my position, I don't think it's irresponsible to ask where the parents are because many of my friends have come from non-traditional backgrounds and I don't think it's a sentence for failure, nor an excuse for acting out. not all of us from non-traditional backgrounds are in the exact same situation), so I firmly believe that coddling isn't the answer; responsibility, I believe, is (I wish we'd had more of this when I was in BCPSS).

And that means that when you act out at one of these schools, you have to go. Part of the problem in the city in general is that probably few of the young people today who are out there beating up teachers, setting fires in school, or even worse, committing crimes, have absolutely no fear of consequences for their actions. They can get into a citywide school, act out, have a meeting. They can commit a crime, get it put on STET, get a suspended sentence, or something else. Where do we draw the line? These things don't happen in a vacuum.

But let's say for argument that all students who come from non-traditional backgrounds have behavioral problems. Should the citywides then have to devote some of these resources, which are supposed to be devoted to preparing kids for college, be devoted to trying to convince kids that they should come to school everyday?

I don't think so. Why don't we, instead of saddling citywide high schools with this responsibility, work on these problems at the lower grade levels instead of sending through children who are either emotionally or intellectually unable to handle being at a citywide?

Why don't we concentrate on character development and mentoring before these students are four years out from possibly going to college or a career? It's too late by then. The problem is that these kids are, in some way, getting the message before they arrive at a citywide that this behavior is acceptable. Why don't we work on the problem there, instead of at the point where we're supposed to be preparing kids for college and careers?

I appreciate that you regret not doing more as a teacher to reach students, but I think it's unfair to put the responsibility of character development and intervention on your colleagues in the citywides. If the city were to partner with outside mentoring and spiritual organizations through grants and such, I could support that.

Let's say that there are students attending a citywide who have shown potential academic excellence in the past, as well as potential behavior problems. If there were a program outside of the classroom where these students had to receive this character education and mentoring as well as mandatory classroom attendance and staying out of trouble, possibly as a condition of their being able to attend their school, I could support that in the short term (given that you can't change middle and elementary schools overnight).

Otherwise, again, why should we change these schools that have worked?

As far as closing the achievement gap in Baltimore goes, let's concentrate on catching kids when they're younger, so that when they are older, achievement makes sense. We don't have to make it seem like it's the end of the world if they don't go to school and study, but when there are no consequences to skipping school (in one way or another), it sends the wrong message. When we give students the impression that whether they achieve or fail, in the end, you get the exact same results such as staying in a citywide, how can we expect students to try to achieve anything? Why should they care to achieve if you can skip out and get the same thing in the end????

Chris, evidence of my hunch. What a great idea. I agree that teachers are often over-burdened. I didn't mean to insinuate that the load necessarily fall to teachers (even though that certainly would be a reasonable interpretation of my previous posts). Having a mandatory mentoring program attached as a condition of attendance would be an incredible idea. I think that's precisely the type of intervention that's needed.

Also, there is such a huge difference between attendance at a citywide and attendance at a zone school. For instance, one of the major accomplishments of the BCPSS this year was that a non-citywide student (at ACCE Academy - Paul *something* - I can't remember his last name), earned one of the Leadership Scholarships to attend JHU for free. This is the first time in BCPSS history that a non-citywide student has accomplished this. A proven bright student who graduates from City/Poly/Western/Dunbar has a a significantly greater chance of attending a prestigious non-Maryland 4-year institution than a student from a zone school. The mere reputation of the school gives students an edge in applying for college. To say that a 14 year-old kid, who has very little concept of what college really is, to say that this child should lose out on that opportunity because he/she is a behavior problem is a disservice. Suppose that kid is forced to leave. He/she likely will attend a zone school. Yes, he/she could still earn a spot at a 4-year institution. However, the chances are much less likely (reference the recent report from the Gates Foundation of graduation rates for Baltimore males). At 18, this same child may very likely look back on the idiocy of his/her decision-making abilities at 14 and regret those actions. If citywide schools were asked to do something like what you suggest (mandatory mentoring/character development), then getting that child to graduate from citywide instead of dishing him/her out to a zone school would significantly improve that child's chances of future success.

I couldn't agree more with starting early. Sixth grade (in my opinion, along with the research I've read) is the critical year that students developed warning indicators of future issues. I think it's this year that we should offer a tiered approach to intervention - those with the greatest indicators of future failure get the most intensive attention while the students exhibiting just a few indicators recieve less intense investments in intervention (b/c they don't need it as much!). While I think this is the most effective and efficient approach, I still think we must do something for the current over-sixth-graders to prevent yet another year of students from slipping through the cracks. Granted, there must be some form of triaging (is that a word?) where we attack the problem based on seriousness, but I know that I think the wrong answer is to kick children out of citywides just because that's what we've done in the past.

Lastly, I agree fully that student misbehavior is never acceptable nor excusable. There absolutely should be consequences for poor behavior. It's determining what the most effective consequences are where we differ. I certainly believe in the penological theories of punishment. However, often what we've done in the past (i.e. trying to arrest our way out of problems or using expulsion extensively) clearly has not worked. I think it's time to try something innovative, new, and data-driven to change trends.

Darnit - forgot one more thing.

Jonathan Brice, the new Director of Student Services (and an incredible new leader in the school system), is starting 4 new Alternative Programs. These programs will hopefully be exactly what Chris is mentioned - better tiered alternative options. They're modeled on successful programs in other urban districts and the school system is opening the seat count to 1200. They bring a different type of approach, and I think they're absolutely something that will be critical to the future success of the system.

Chris a few responses (my personal info is saved as "Corey" at work and "Brooksy Boy" at home, but make no mistake these two handles are connected to the same brilliant mind),

1. Your comments about the parents is exactly my point, you can't change them, but we can change children despite the failure of their parents/environment when their synaptic pathways are still very plastic. When parents don't uphold their end of the bargain we have a choice. We can give up on that student or pass the responsibility to someone else, or, we can do everything in our power to help that student. It sucks that measures have to be taken in today's age that might not have been necessary in the past, again, that's the reality and we must address it.

2. You're painting a false either/or situation in regards to keeping the disruptive students in class. How did you feel about my specific proposal that requires intervention when students are skipping school, not doing their work and/or being disruptive? It gives them a second chance to do what they're supposed to be doing, and if they abandon the plan set up at the intervention, THEN you move them elsewhere. A 1-strike-and-you're-out rule isn't even used on elite college campuses much less disadvantaged high schools. Giving students a second chance and enforcing responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

3. Your point about instilling the basic tenets of responsibility at the elementary level is a good one, but it cannot be the only answer when dealing with such a large and complex problem. Even if we enacted your policy immediately what would we do about the high school students who went through the old inferior and structureless elementary and middle schools? Do we just say to them, sorry you were born a couple of years too early? No, you attack the problem at every level!

4. Your point about interventions being handled by an outside organization, be it a church or non-profit is another good one. Teachers in the city are already asked to do too many things outside of teaching and can't be expected to be experts in fields that require specialized training. This is where the tie between a school and its surrounding community is so crucial, and why Sarbanes was brought in to focus on creating those ties. Ideally, a school should be able to tap into the non-profit community for a host of services. If there are disputes and behavior problems call on Community Mediations to handle an intervention with one or many students. For quality after school activities bring in The Y's Boost program. To incorporate service learning in a meaningful way call on Students Sharing Coalition, the non-profit I work for. The big advantage of calling on these various organizations is that they each specialize in a particular field and have a successful track record in what they do. Most importantly for the teachers, it takes one more thing off of their overcrowded plates, allowing them to concentrate on what they should be concentrating on.

Some of this outsourcing is already taking place, we are in many school budgets next year. The entire point of giving principals more freedom over their budget was to allow them to be creative in setting up such partnerships. The non-profit world can perform services often at a smaller cost than elsewhere because of the funding they receive from grant writing + fund raisers etc. They are not completely dependent on what the schools pay them.

With all of that said, a principal's creativity is restricted when they only have enough money to pay their essential staff and not much else. As with all things, the BCPSS is in desperate need of funds to properly function and excel. Who wants to get into a debate about state help and where your tax dollars should go? Me neither!

Peace!

-Corey aka Brooksy Boy aka Archbishop Don Magic Juan

I teach at a city-wide.

The problem lies not with the citywides but with the rest of the BCPSS.

At the middle school level some scores are so inflated that students come to school and they are ill-prepared for the rigor of these schools.

But, city-wide schools NEED to have the ability to put students out for poor performance. By not allowing that you defeat the purpose of these programs. These are supposed to be the best of the best.

Bill and Corey, let me just preface my comments by saying that you both came back strong at me and I recognize that we all have a certain passion for the subject and I welcome the ongoing debate. Now let's get into it.

Bill, we're certainly getting somewhere now. And I did take that previous interpretation of your posts to say that you were thinking the responsibility should fall onto teachers. But I'm glad that we're getting somewhere. I think for "problem students," that these sorts of outside the classroom experiences that involve character, mentoring, etc., are the way to go.

I think that for right now, that's probably a good practice for Alonso now, while transitioning to having those sorts of programs set up for students who need it at the lower levels - you mentioned 6th grade and I think that's a great time for it as well.

The mere reputation of the school gives students an edge in applying for college. To say that a 14 year-old kid, who has very little concept of what college really is, to say that this child should lose out on that opportunity because he/she is a behavior problem is a disservice. Suppose that kid is forced to leave. He/she likely will attend a zone school. Yes, he/she could still earn a spot at a 4-year institution. However, the chances are much less likely

In my view, he or she has already disqualified themselves. But I'm not talking about the student who has the occassional brush or dustup with a teacher in terms of speaking back once or twice or something. I don't want to make it seem like I'm supporting having some sort of behavior czar standing by at the door with walking papers for the smallest of infractions.

Not at all. But I think behavior like setting fires and skipping class chronically isn't the sort of conduct we should be condoning at citywides. Or in any BCPSS school for that matter, but it should be really not tolerated at citywides, which traditionally have held students to high standards. Becoming more lax then dilutes the reputations of the schools themselves. We shoot ourselves in the foot when we let students who get grades in the 50's come back and get grades in the 80's and still pass, after skipping school. That's not even fair to students who bust their behinds to get grades in the 70's and I respect those students a heck of a lot more for putting in the effort.

But if we're talking about the 18 year old who got tossed from a citywide for shooting a single spitball, then we've erred. The students who want to fight and bring gang activity into school, I'm not so sure about.

While I think this is the most effective and efficient approach, I still think we must do something for the current over-sixth-graders to prevent yet another year of students from slipping through the cracks. Granted, there must be some form of triaging (is that a word?) where we attack the problem based on seriousness, but I know that I think the wrong answer is to kick children out of citywides just because that's what we've done in the past.

This I can certainly agree with, as I'm not so caught up in my own City College dogma. At this point, many kids have fallen through the cracks now, so starting intervention now in 6th does nothing for a full six grades beyond 6th and that reeks of unfairness to me, as well.

I don't think we should reassign students out of citywides out of tradition, but out of what citywides are supposed to be. But if we're talking about setting up extra-classroom programs wherein students receive the sort of training and guidance that would give them the option of staying at citywides, provided certain parameters, like I said, I'd be in favor of that. Beyond that, if students want to skip class and do all the other things that inhibit the learning experience, they, in my view should be reassigned.

The thing is, though, and as I'm sitting here writing this out to you, I'm remembering more of my own experiences. And that's that at schools like the former Northern High School, there were neighborhood kids and students who were the "rejects" from schools like City and Mervo, who lived in the area. I remember that adding to the culture of failure in those schools. The students who had been zoned to that school already having felt not good enough to get into a City or Mervo, but then having to be around students who had been kicked out of City and Mervo.

What Jonathan Brice is proposing seems like exactly what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about schools that acknowledge students' potential while not overlooking past problems. But these would also be schools that, should students have the desire and put forth the effort, offer easy transitions back into the citywides. Not a dumping ground or a school for "rejects." There's some hope for the system after all.

But in the end, whether for behavior or poor academic performance, reassignment must be an option or we do indeed defeat the purpose of the citywide programs.

Lastly, I agree fully that student misbehavior is never acceptable nor excusable. There absolutely should be consequences for poor behavior. It's determining what the most effective consequences are where we differ.

I agree.

I certainly believe in the penological theories of punishment. However, often what we've done in the past (i.e. trying to arrest our way out of problems or using expulsion extensively) clearly has not worked. I think it's time to try something innovative, new, and data-driven to change trends.

That's the thing. For a while at City specifically, standards had been lowered. When they began to reassign students en-masse, they went back up again. And apparently, now that they've begun to reassign less, things are going back down.

The challenge is how do we create a system that is efficient and fair for as many schools and students as possible, given that reassignment can sometimes help one school, but possibly at the expense of others. That's my view. And if Mr. Brice's idea gets off the ground, I think we may get to that place. I'm definitely in support of that.

===

Corey (or is it Professor John Nash?)

1. Your comments about the parents is exactly my point, you can't change them, but we can change children despite the failure of their parents/environment when their synaptic pathways are still very plastic. When parents don't uphold their end of the bargain we have a choice. We can give up on that student or pass the responsibility to someone else, or, we can do everything in our power to help that student. It sucks that measures have to be taken in today's age that might not have been necessary in the past, again, that's the reality and we must address it.

I agree we must, but my assertion has been that it doesn't have to be done at the citywide schools. Now, during this back and forth, I'm coming to see that maybe it doesn't have to be done in the classroom at the citywides, that there are alternatives that don't have to stop students' careers before they can really grasp what it is they'd be giving up. But I stand firm in my belief that the daily classrooms at the citywides should be hallowed grounds for learning, not retraining.

2. You're painting a false either/or situation in regards to keeping the disruptive students in class. How did you feel about my specific proposal that requires intervention when students are skipping school, not doing their work and/or being disruptive? It gives them a second chance to do what they're supposed to be doing, and if they abandon the plan set up at the intervention, THEN you move them elsewhere. A 1-strike-and-you're-out rule isn't even used on elite college campuses much less disadvantaged high schools. Giving students a second chance and enforcing responsibility are not mutually exclusive.

Well, if you were a student at an elite school and committed an act of arson, I'd hope you had a relative who was a rich alum and willing to help you out :) Those are the students I'm talking about. Not the occassional brush, but the chronic brushes. And yes, colleges will let you know that you're not in high school, that college is a different world than high school.

I also think that, students skipping like weeks of school simply don't want to be there. Maybe if I talked to the students on case-by-case basis, I'd learn otherwise. But the students' preferences are revealed in their actions. Something is more important than being in school right now.

BTW, I'm not all for blasting students out of a cannon when they're minimally disruptive and such. You come up with a program that addresses students at the start of school and keeps track of them, keeping them responsible and letting them know that there are consequences to their actions, I'd be able to support that.

But then again, I think such standards should apply to all BCPSS high schools eventually. In my opinion, the only difference between say City, Mervo, and the Lake Clifton schools would be the type (and in some cases, rigor) of education, that's it.

3. Your point about instilling the basic tenets of responsibility at the elementary level is a good one, but it cannot be the only answer when dealing with such a large and complex problem. Even if we enacted your policy immediately what would we do about the high school students who went through the old inferior and structureless elementary and middle schools? Do we just say to them, sorry you were born a couple of years too early? No, you attack the problem at every level!

No, that's what I said above. And I'm a pretty practical guy. So long as we remember what the citywides are there for. In fact, we really should extend it to say that we remember what school in general is there for.

4. Your point about interventions being handled by an outside organization, be it a church or non-profit is another good one. Teachers in the city are already asked to do too many things outside of teaching and can't be expected to be experts in fields that require specialized training. This is where the tie between a school and its surrounding community is so crucial, and why Sarbanes was brought in to focus on creating those ties. Ideally, a school should be able to tap into the non-profit community for a host of services. If there are disputes and behavior problems call on Community Mediations to handle an intervention with one or many students. For quality after school activities bring in The Y's Boost program. To incorporate service learning in a meaningful way call on Students Sharing Coalition, the non-profit I work for. The big advantage of calling on these various organizations is that they each specialize in a particular field and have a successful track record in what they do. Most importantly for the teachers, it takes one more thing off of their overcrowded plates, allowing them to concentrate on what they should be concentrating on.

You're giving me much more hope for the system. This is exactly what I was thinking when I made that comment. I really like what you've said. I'm in love with the idea of Coppin's school. I love these uses of alternative resources in the community, and as you probably know, there certainly are organizations there, ready to step in to provide assistance. I like it alot.

With all of that said, a principal's creativity is restricted when they only have enough money to pay their essential staff and not much else. As with all things, the BCPSS is in desperate need of funds to properly function and excel. Who wants to get into a debate about state help and where your tax dollars should go? Me neither!

On the message boards, that's a pretty controversial subject. But I feel like if we can rebuild Iraq, we can rebuild schools for the people who will be, after all, footing the bill.

I thought it might be useful to say what interventions City College has been involved with this year:

The lowest-performing students after the first quarter were assigned both a faculty member mentor and a peer mentor (the peer was a kid who had been through some struggles as a young high-school student and eventually made it through to success)

The mentor, parents (when available), and faculty advisor were required to have weekly check-ins and meetings, and incentives were given for attending tutoring (free tutoring is offered three times a week), coach class, keeping a log of classroom performance, and other strategies for success.

This continued for the school year, in addition to the parental contact teachers make, as well as tutoring, coach class, progress reports, and grade reports.

Several of these students did well with these interventions. Others continued to not show up to class, to act foolishly, or to show that they just didn't want to be at the school. One student on that list literally came to class once in the entire second semester; she wanders in the basement all day, despite all the interventions.

Magnet schools should have interventions in place to keep kids at the school. These interventions should be well-documented. But if these interventions don't do any good becuase the student's needs clearly aren't being met, then they should be re-assigned to an environment that can better reach the needs of the student.

And, on last miniature point to Bill's comments: teachers in neighborhood schools (and I've been there, though not in this system) often report re-assigned students from magnet schools as their best students; colleagues who have transferred over often tell this story.

Look at Chris going all point-counterpoint on us Alonso shills!

I agree we must, but my assertion has been that it doesn't have to be done at the citywide schools. Now, during this back and forth, I'm coming to see that maybe it doesn't have to be done in the classroom at the citywides, that there are alternatives that don't have to stop students' careers before they can really grasp what it is they'd be giving up. But I stand firm in my belief that the daily classrooms at the citywides should be hallowed grounds for learning, not retraining.

If the school is able to form enough outside connections to handle the load of problem students that would be ideal. If a school hasn't formed those connections they should make it a priority. Where we still disagree is in the latter case, where the ideal hasn't been met yet, as a matter of practicality I say put the responsibility onto the school staff. I'd rather have a teacher intervention than no intervention at all because the proper relationships haven't been finalized yet.

Well, if you were a student at an elite school and committed an act of arson, I'd hope you had a relative who was a rich alum and willing to help you out :) Those are the students I'm talking about. Not the occassional brush, but the chronic brushes. And yes, colleges will let you know that you're not in high school, that college is a different world than high school.

I also think that, students skipping like weeks of school simply don't want to be there. Maybe if I talked to the students on case-by-case basis, I'd learn otherwise. But the students' preferences are revealed in their actions. Something is more important than being in school right now.

BTW, I'm not all for blasting students out of a cannon when they're minimally disruptive and such. You come up with a program that addresses students at the start of school and keeps track of them, keeping them responsible and letting them know that there are consequences to their actions, I'd be able to support that.

But then again, I think such standards should apply to all BCPSS high schools eventually. In my opinion, the only difference between say City, Mervo, and the Lake Clifton schools would be the type (and in some cases, rigor) of education, that's it.

We agree more than we disagree. Students who miss over a week of class should be identified immediately for intervention. Maybe they don't want to be there, or maybe they had a problem at home. Again I think they all deserve a second chance (unless the misbehavior is really heinous), and if they blow that second chance, then you transfer them.

No, that's what I said above. And I'm a pretty practical guy. So long as we remember what the citywides are there for. In fact, we really should extend it to say that we remember what school in general is there for.

Training grounds to become professional athletes, obviously!

You're giving me much more hope for the system. This is exactly what I was thinking when I made that comment. I really like what you've said. I'm in love with the idea of Coppin's school. I love these uses of alternative resources in the community, and as you probably know, there certainly are organizations there, ready to step in to provide assistance. I like it alot.

Yea this was one of Alonso's major reforms as Sara's article today addresses, it's one of the main reasons I'm an Alonso shill. You would hope that a combination of the Baltimore non-profits, faith based organizations, and parents could provide enough of an outside resource for every school in the BCPSS, hopefully.

On the message boards, that's a pretty controversial subject. But I feel like if we can rebuild Iraq, we can rebuild schools for the people who will be, after all, footing the bill.

Well let me just say what a pleasure it's been to exchange with you here in a respectful manner. This is what debate should be, stick to your guns, but actually acknowledge the opposing point of view, and eventually map out where compromise is possible and where it isn't, and why.

I used to post on The Sun boards as "I Heart Miggy" but the style of debate there was so ugly, polarized, and unproductive that it made me nauseous. I'd rather doom my children to failure by sending them to Canton Middle followed by Walbrook than debate on The Sun boards. Thanks to Sara and this entire blog for creating such a wonderful forum.

P.S. Ladies, I'm only 23 and do not actually have children yet.

It's wonderful to see students' perspectives here. As for the comment that teachers at magnet schools shouldn't have to deal with bad behavior, I agree. It should go right to the principle at the school. Teachers need to focus on lesson planning, teaching, and grading. They can be supporters of students and can be there for help when students need someone to talk with. However, if a student sets a fire or threatens someone or physically hurts someone, immediately the principle and vice principle should be called to action and take the proper steps, which, in the case of all three offenses listed, should be expulsion. The students are right to be angry that such students are allowed to return to school.

Chris - thanks for your incredibly insightful thoughts.

Corey - hilarious, particularly "Ladies, I'm 23 and do not actually have children yet."

Magnet School Teacher - We'll have to agree to disagree on the experiences with transferring students (also I think it's important to distinguish between academic and behavioral). However, I think the interventions you mentioned sound pretty impressive and I'm glad to hear that some students responded positively.

Just a tidbit and I recognize that personal experience is not statistically valid. With that said, many charter schools that graduate students (that I have seen) get into Citywide high schools, taut high test scores and overwhelming acceptance to the citywide schools for their eighth graders as indicative of their success. I would say maybe 2 out of 10 of those that I have seen accepted to the schools are truly worthy based on effort and behavior. What they don't reveal is principals who force department heads/ team leaders to alter report card averages at HS application times, or change MSA answers to boost scores, or even override less then stellar letters of rec by writing a bunch of untrue nonsense. A good number of these students were habitual behavior problems, had many physical fights with peers (not reported), cursing at teachers, disruption of property (schools and other), sexual harassment, gang lingo on books, smoking weed in the bathroom. I have seen this go on at a "successful" charter school in Bolton Hill. Sweep it under the rug is their mantra as the principal tries to impress the board. I wonder how many kids get into those schools without truly deserving it. I do realize that this may not be common, but it seemed relevant.