City School Stories

Reflections:Then and Now

Submitted by Frank Murphy, Nov.11, 2010

“Hearing that a student has hit a teacher is terrible news.  Yet hearing Arthur’s name as the alleged attacker was worse news.  Of all the eighth graders, Arthur was one of the least likely to get into trouble….  I couldn’t comprehend the idea of Arthur intentionally hitting a teacher.  It had to be an accident.”

(Frank Murphy, in Confessions of an Urban Principal)

There was never a doubt in my mind as a school principal that it was my responsibility to ensure a safe school climate for all members of my school community.  When children disrupted the school environment I reacted immediately to their misbehavior.  I used my judgment as a professional educator when I responded to the inappropriate actions of a student.  It was also my expectation that my staff would do the same.  I considered the age of the child, my knowledge of the individual, and the seriousness of the infraction in determining an appropriate consequence.  The sanctions I imposed on students who misbehaved were based on common sense and were tailored to the need of each individual.

Zero tolerance policies for weapons offenses and serious assaults, established by states and district across the country, have made it difficult for school principals to use their professional judgment in responding to student discipline issues.  The belief behind these policies is that the consequences for these kinds of issues should be the same regardless of a student’s age or individual circumstances.  School administrators who use their own discretion in applying these zero tolerance policies do so at the risk of facing possible sanctions.

Like most school districts, the Philadelphia School District has created a code of student conduct. This code lists a variety of inappropriate behaviors that will not be tolerated in the school setting.  The offenses described range from minor infractions (e.g. failure to follow classroom rules/disruption/disrespect for authority) to major infractions (e.g. aggravated assault).  It also lists possible consequences for each of the listed violations of the code.  This code was a guide that I regularly consulted when handling student disciplinary issues.

In this code, the expectation was stated that school administrators would implement the student code of conduct and disciplinary procedures in a fair and consistent manner.  This I did do. But this did not mean that I considered equitable treatment to be the same thing as equal treatment in enforcing this code.  When I was faced with the situation that a seventh grade student had brought a knife to school with the intention of causing harm to another student, I pursued all of the actions that were prescribed in my district’s zero tolerance policy.  The police would be called.  The student would be arrested.  An immediate suspension would be issued.  I would recommend that the student be expelled from the district.

In the case of a first grader who brought a Swiss army knife to school in order to show it to other children in the classroom, I would pursue a different course of action.  Although bringing a weapon into the school is considered to be a zero tolerance offence, this does not mean that the consequence for this offense must be the same in every case.  There is a difference between being treated equally and being treated fairly.

In the case of the first grader, contacting the child’s parents might be all that is necessary to maintain a safe school environment.  This should be a decision that is left in the hands of school personnel.  Zero tolerance policies that require that the same consequence be imposed on all students regardless of the circumstances, treat children in ways that mimic the adult criminal justice system.

School disciplinary procedures that result in criminalizing student  misbehavior greatly increase the likely that these individuals will not graduate from high school.  Ninety percent of students who are involved in a crime drop out of school.  African American and Latin boys who already represent a disproportionately high percentage of all Philadelphia dropouts are further put at risk by these policies.  In consideration of these statistic, school administrators should think long and hard before reaching a decision that will place a child in this high risk category. Advocates who recently called for a review of the districts expulsion policy have expressed this same concern.

In some states, zero tolerance laws have been eased but in many schools a hard line is still pursued in dealing with the poor choices of some children. The inherent lack of fairness that is at the heart of zero tolerance policies is an issue that has long been a concern to me.  It is the main reason why I felt such a sense of apprehension when I heard that Arthur might have assaulted a teacher.  But before I took an action, which could have resulted in serious life altering consequences for Arthur, I sought the facts concerning this alleged assault.

I think it is always best to look before one leaps.

REFLECTIONS: THEN AND NOW

Submitted by Frank Murphy, Nov.4, 2010

“The result of a single high stakes test is how the federal and state government determine our success. Yet there isn’t one measure that can describe a school’s strengths or weaknesses.”

(Frank Murphy, in Confessions of an Urban Principal)

In order to support and empower schools that have been historically neglected and under resourced you need to provide supports that will help to strengthen a school’s community. The Department of Education proposes using one of the following controversial strategies to serve these schools: close the school; convert it to a charter school; make it a “turn-around” school ( i.e. remove the principal and at least half of the teaching staff); or remove the principal and provide intensive professional development to the teaching staff.  Except for the professional development model, these school reform options completely tear apart a school community.

In Philadelphia, Superintendent Arlene Ackerman has passionately embraced both the charter school and turn-around models as her preferred reform strategies.  At the start of this school year, 13 schools that were deemed as failures by her administration were converted into either charter schools or turn-around schools that have been titled, Promise Academies.  This process of deconstructing public schools in order to create experimental models of school reform is the centerpiece of the Imagine 2014 plan that was created by Ackerman shortly after she assumed leadership of the school district.  More schools that are characterized as being failures will receive the same treatment in the 2011-2012 school year.

What does it mean to be a failing school?  In Philadelphia it is almost all about test scores.  The School Performance Index (SPI) was created by Ackerman in order to place district schools on a ranking continuum ranging from “failing” to “exemplary”.  This system relies heavily on PSSA test scores as it main criterion for grading individual schools.  Ackerman claims that a variety of factors are included in deciding a school’s status.  However, this is hardly the case.

In Philadelphia, school failure is defined almost totally on the results of a yearly-standardized test result. Minimum consideration (10% of the total score) is given to factors such as student attendance, parent, teacher and student satisfaction, and parent survey response rate.  The greatest weight (90% of the total score) is based on comparisons of either the increases or decreases of a school’s test scores from the prior to the current year.

This is a narrow perspective upon on which to judge the success or failure of a school.  It ignores the strengths of a school community that impact on student achievement and future success, such as the presence of a strong and effective principal, intelligent and diligent teachers, community partnerships, and the connectedness that student and parents feel towards their school.

West Philadelphia High School is a prime example of a school that possessed a great degree of social capital but was harmed rather than helped by the school reform efforts directed towards it.   Its staff was committed to and focused on the needs of its students.  Students were connected to their teachers and engaged in the activities of the school.  Only a few years ago arsons were common and assaults of teachers and students were rampant at this school.  Yet in a short period of only three years, seemingly intractable climate problems were resolved and the school staff was able to concentrate on strengthening the instructional program.

Despite these accomplishments, West Philadelphia High was identified for inclusion in the School District’s “Renaissance” reform initiative in February of 2010.  During the course of several months after being identified as a Renaissance-eligible school, the inept handling of this school reform process devastated West Philadelphia High School.   Many teachers opted to transfer to other schools when it became clear that a final decision on the fate of the school would not be determined before the deadline for submitting teacher transfer applications.  The recommendation of the School Advisory Counsel regarding which provider should manage the school was delayed.  Ultimately the decision regarding the fate of the school was postponed till the next year.  Then abruptly during the summer break, the principal was assigned to another school.  The reason given was that the test scores of West Philadelphia High School student’s were unacceptable and urgent changes were required.

Other schools that will be subjected to the same reform experiment that West Philadelphia was subjected to are primarily located in the most under resourced and disempowered communities of our society.  The poor test results of the students served by these schools can be attributed to a wide variety of factors.  Some of these variables are ones that a school can positively affect.  Many are not.

To fairly measure how well a school community is doing, calls for a much more comprehensive evaluation tool than the one being used now.  The information provided by the results of one annual standardized test is not sufficient to fairly determine the success or failure of any school.