City School Stories

Reflections: Then and Now

Submitted by Frank Murphy, Sept. 28, 2010

A recent trend in school reform has been to restructure public schools deemed to be low performing on state assessments. Schools have been either “reconstituted” with mostly new staff and leadership or turned over to outside providers, such as charter schools. Smedley Elementary School is one of seven public schools in Philadelphia that have been turned over to outside organizations. Mastery Charter Schools is the service provider for Smedley. The chief executive officer of Mastery, Scott Gordon, has assured the Smedley parents that in three years their children will be reading on grade level.

There is a new administrative team at Smedley this year, consisting of a principal and three assistant principals. A central management team that is committed to helping to facilitate the success of every Mastery Charter School supports them. The entire teaching staff of approximately 42 teachers is new to the school. The initial commitment of resources to this reconstituted school is impressive. Mastery Charter has budgeted $500,000 to spruce up the building. This is on top of the repairs and improvements already being made by the school district. An additional $500,000 of Mastery funding will be used to purchase books, supplies and other materials.

When I became the principal of Meade School in February of 1997 it was a school that was quite like the Smedley School. Meade housed grades k through 4. Smedley is a k-5 school. The percentage of students reading on grade level at Meade then was as minimal as the number at Smedley today. The school climate was chaotic. Assaults on students and staff were commonplace. The school facility was in ill repair. Classrooms and the hallways were dingy and poorly lighted. These have all been sited as problems at Smedley

However, the resources available to me as I started my tenure at Meade were nowhere near the level of those that the Smedley administrative team has at their disposal. I was the only administrator. I could have budgeted for an assistant principal but the cost of this position would have required me to drop two teaching positions. I handled the administration of the school in partnership with my teachers. My responsibilities were enormous. In addition to being the instructional leader, I was also the director of fund raising, political lobbyist, police chief, conflict mediator, grant writer, therapist, part-time nurse and jack-of-all-trades.

Teams of volunteers organized by Philadelphia Cares helped to paint the building inside and out. It took several years to complete the job. Persistent nagging and badgering on my part resulted in major capital improvements such as an electrical service upgrade, new playground equipment, and the construction of a new library and science lab. By relentlessly pursuing partnerships with outside organizations, I was able to increase the amount of arts, enrichment and science programs that served our children. I also scoured the field for grant writing opportunities, a chore that opened up new revenue sources for professional development activities, summer programs, after school activities, and the purchase of many leveled storybooks that students could read in class as well as take home. Finding additional funding, forming community partnerships, developing and implementing staff development activities in addition to my daily duties as a principal, made my life quite busy.

It is heartening to see that the school reformers currently directing our public schools are recognizing that principals cannot do it all on their own. They need a team that will assist them at the school site. They also need a central administrative team that will advocate and look out for the school team. It is also terrific that much needed resources are being directed to the schools most in need. Mr. Gordon’s promise to get the children of Smedley School reading on grade level is more likely to occur given the amount of attention and funding they will receive. I am happy for these lucky children and their parents.

Now if the same amount of attention and resources were showered on every school in the district, then every child would have an opportunity to succeed in school. If this were the case, no one would have to depend on luck in order to get a rich instructional program. There would also be no need to restructure public schools.

Reflections: Then and Now

Submitted by Frank Murphy, Sept. 23, 2010

Right now schools throughout the city are hosting back-to-school nights. At these events, parents and teachers are provided with the opportunity to meet one another for the first time. This occasion, in addition to report conference nights, is usually the only time that most parents will have face- to-face contact with their children’s teachers.

Educators are well aware that when parents are positively involved in their children’s schooling, they have a strong effect on their children’s’ academic performance. To increase the likelihood of engaging them in the activities of the school community, schools typically provide parents with a variety of volunteer opportunities during the school day. Teachers request parents to chaperone class trips. They invite them to special classroom events and school assemblies. School concerts and award assemblies are scheduled throughout the year to encourage parents to come to school. These are but a few of the many ways in which a school’s staff might attempt to engage with parents.

During the course of the school year some parents will go on class trips, attend special events, and maybe even help out in a classroom. But in many urban schools, these folks are usually few in number. The majority of these schools’ parents have little direct contact with the staff. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not involved or supportive of their children’s school. They either have jobs that they cannot easily get away from or they cannot afford to take time off from work.

Working parents often participate in their child’s education in ways they are not easily observable to the school staff. At the end of the day, they will ask their children what happened during the school day. They will check on their children’s homework. Involved parents will talk to their children concerning the importance of school. They will be supportive of their children’s teachers.

When I was a teacher I didn’t have much face-to-face contact with parents. Most of the communication that I did have with a child’s parents took place through notes and phone calls. When I met with a parent at a time other than on back-to-school night or report conferences, the meetings usually concerned children who were seriously misbehaving or receiving failing grades. During my eighteen years as a classroom teacher, the parents I had the most contact with were the parents of these struggling children. Many of these meetings were stressful and emotionally draining affairs.

As the principal of Meade Elementary School, most of my interactions with parents were focused on dealing with problems. Usually the people I met with during the year were either pursuing a complaint or responding to my request to see them in regards to their children’s inappropriate behavior. Many of these meetings were less than pleasant.

Since Meade has consistently had a high rate of transient students, during the course of the school year, I would additionally meet with the caregivers of the students who were newly admitted to the school. Every year at least 70 new children would transfer into Meade School from other schools. Many of these new children were in the midst of a major life setback such as homelessness, placement in foster care or the separation of their parents. Parent conferences with these families were seldom short. Usually they would involve the school counselor, school community liaison, nurse and quite often the special education liaison. In the principal’s office, you often see parents at some of the worst times of their day.

Unfortunately, in these kinds of circumstances teachers and principals can easily lose sight of the positive contributions of most parents. School personnel need to be mindful that they often have limited opportunities to interact with their total parent community. We must be careful to not make unfavorable judgments of all parents based on our experiences with a fairly small subset of parents. When dealing with difficult parents, it is our responsibility and our challenge to avoid letting our resulting frustrations adversely color our view of all parents.

Parents are our partners after all. It is our job as educators to assist them in their efforts to securing a quality education for their children. We have a responsibility to be there for them as well as for their children.

Reflections: Then and Now

Submitted by Frank Murphy, Sept. 16, 2010

Vaux High School opened as one of thirteen Renaissance Schools in September of this year. It is being marketed along with five other schools, under the title of “Promise Academies”. These Promise Academies are considered to be turn-around schools that are managed by the School District of Philadelphia. A turn-around school is one that has been determined to be a low-performing school. Once identified, the school’s principal is replaced and a maximum of 50% of the former staff may potentially be “rehired”. The district is spending an additional $7.2 million on these six Promise Academies. This money will cover the cost of items such as new curriculum materials and additional enrichment activities. The students who attend Promise Academies will have an extended school day and school year.

Schools were selected to be Promise Academies based on their PSSA test results, climate data, and in the case of the high schools, graduation rates. It isn’t surprising that Vaux was included in this targeted group of schools. When examining its test scores, suspension rates and graduation rate, it is clear that it is a low-performing school.

Vaux is a small high school. Many of the students who are enrolled in this school were not selected to attend any of the citywide or magnet high schools. Vaux is their only high school option. These are the youngsters who either scored in the Below Basic range on the PSSA math or reading tests, received average or less than average report card grades, had poor attendance records, a number of disciplinary infractions or all of the above. These students are the most likely to become disengaged and disinterested with school and therefore, are at risk of becoming involved in serious misbehavior or dropping out of school. Given the homogeneous population of low achievers that it serves, it isn’t surprising that Vaux High School is among the lowest performing schools in the city.

Providing extra money, resources, and instructional time to the students of this school makes sense. These are the children who are most in need of experienced and capable teachers. If they are provided access to a talented and seasoned corps of teachers, they will make steady and incremental academic progress. They will also benefit from being members of a school community in which the teachers are experienced and knowledgeable about how to set and uphold clear and reasonable standards for appropriate behavior.

Access to teachers of this type is not what they will receive in a Promise Academy.
According to published accounts in the local media, 25% of the teachers who will staff these schools will be new teachers. At Vaux, the number of new teachers will be slightly higher than 50%. Only 28% of the teachers at the Promise Academies will have taught at the school in the prior year. Less than half of all current Promise Academy teachers taught in the district last year.

Interestingly, during the protracted contract negotiations between the School Reform Commission and Philadelphia Federation of Teachers in 2004, the main point of contention was the SRC’s determination to achieve the right for principals to choose their staff at every school in the city. It was communicated that site selection was an important tool that principals needed in order to put together a staff of experienced and effective teachers. The SRC won a partial victory as a result of that contract negotiation. It was agreed that a site selection process would be utilized to fill a minimum of 50% of the vacant positions at all schools.

In the current PFT/SRC contract, the number of positions filled by school site selection was expanded even further. In the creation of Renaissances Schools, both parties agreed that the site selection process would be utilized to fill all of the staff vacancies at these schools.

It is the belief of the district leadership that the negotiated contract language allowing for the creation of Renaissance Schools is a school reform victory. The resulting Promise Academies such as Vaux, will give the district the authority to place its most highly effective teachers in the lowest performing schools.

The implementation of Promise Academies is barely under way and it is already clear that few highly experienced teachers are being employed at these schools. For years, the school district’s leadership has argued that it was a high priority to redeploy its best teachers to the schools that most needed them. Now when they finally have the ability to do so, they chose to primarily employ new or relatively inexperienced teachers.

How ironic is this?

Reflections: Then and Now

Submitted by Frank Murphy, Sept. 14, 2010

For three years between 2002 and 2005, M.H. Stanton School appeared to be making great strides in improving student achievement. During this time it was one of 21 schools involved in a reform strategy managed by the School District of Philadelphia. The district’s Office of Restructured Schools was in charge of this effort. Under this arrangement, Stanton along with the other restructured schools, received additional funding, personnel and new instructional materials. In addition, academic coaches worked closely with the teachers at the restructured schools to help them plan and implement effective instructional activities. Poorly resourced schools that had long struggled to build a strong instructional program were finally given the tools they needed to create a better school program.

A research study conducted by the Rand Corporation and Research for Action concluded that student test gains in the restructured schools outpaced gains in other district schools during the time it was in operation. The test scores of M.H. Stanton were spectacular.

To acknowledge its success, in September of 2004, the ceremonial bell ringing for the opening of the school year took place at Stanton. On hand for the ceremony were then mayor, John Street and School District CEO, Paul Vallas. At this event, they proclaimed their pride and satisfaction concerning the tremendous increase in the PSSA test scores achieved by the students at this North Philadelphia elementary school. They said that the test score results of this school were proof that all children, regardless of life circumstances, were capable of high levels of academic achievement.

In a relatively fast sprint from 2002 to 2004, Stanton had raced to the top. However its moment of glory was fleeting. Five years later, this school was declared to be one of the lowest performing schools in the School District of Philadelphia. In February of 2009, it was placed on the “Renaissance Alert” list. This meant that it was likely to become a candidate for one of the school turnaround strategies that have been advocated by Secretary of Education Arnie Duncan and embraced by Philadelphia’s Arlene Ackerman in her Renaissance School plan. The possibility that Stanton will become a charter school or Promise Academy in the 2011 school year is high.

I first wrote about the tremendous success of M.H. Stanton School in raising its PSSA test scores in my book, Confessions of an Urban Principal. In 2004, I wondered why no substantive explanation was offered as to how this feat was accomplished. When I later considered the improvements that Stanton had demonstrated within the context of the restructured school’s effort, I was inclined to be a little less skeptical of this example of school improvement. There was the beginning of a research base with the publication of the RAND-RFA report that indicated that there was some validly to the Office of Restructured Schools reform strategy. So I wonder why was this restructuring effort that appeared to work, so abruptly abandoned in 2005? Most likely, the cost at that time was not sustainable.

The school district’s budget has significantly increased over the last two years. An increase in the percentage of the state’s basic education allocation to our district and the availability of stimulus funds has provided Dr. Ackerman’s team with a substantial amount of money to spend on pursuing their reform ideas.

The success of the restructured schools offered proof that the students who attended schools located in our poorest communities could be academically successful. The abandonment of the restructured schools effort also demonstrated how quickly the progress of children could regress when supports were withdrawn.

So as the members of Dr. Ackerman’s team move ahead with their efforts to reinvent our school district, I have one simple suggestion for them. Build on and continue to do what has already worked. Utilize the expertise of the district employees who have demonstrated that they know how to improve schools. It isn’t necessary to completely reinvent our district.

The large sum of money that is currently available to the school district represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The district should use it wisely to make changes that will endure over time.