Monday, June 29, 2009

Reform 2.0: Prichard Goes Back to School

“The quality of an education system
cannot exceed the quality of its teachers”

“The only way to improve outcomes
is to improve instruction.”

“High performance requires
every child to succeed.”

--Michael Barber of McKinsey & Co.

The Prichard Committee has been looking to recalibrate its approach to school reform in Kentucky in the aftermath of Senate Bill 1.

To do so, they're going back to the very fundamentals Ed Prichard professed. It's all about quality teaching. And, nothing in the system should get in the way of the teacher or the student. This is clearly the right focus. (No mention of block schedules, multi-aged grouping, or assessment systems that measure school progress.)

To hone their views, Prichard turned to McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm that has studied the achievement gap and its impact on the American economy. And they've been reading McKinsey's "How the World's Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top."

The attempt here is to identify the most successful practices of the world's most successful schools, including:

In a Prichard press release: Bold actions for education improvement, the Committee expanded upon McKinsey's focus calling for:

  • Quality teaching in every classroom
  • Principal leadership in schools
  • Ongoing education for teachers, principals and superintendents
  • An expansion of early childhood education (an on-going Prichard Committee focus)
  • Engaging parents and communities in school improvement (Prichard's central approach)
  • Raising expectations and changing school and community culture to reflect the changing world, and using technology as a tool in that work

The press release closes with these "building blocks of a world-class education system,"

Standards and Accountability: Globally-benchmarked standards; Good, transparent data; Every child is always on the agenda to challenge inequality

Human Capital: Recruit great people and train them well; Continuous improvement of pedagogical skills and knowledge; Great leadership at the school level

Structure and Organization: Effective, enabling central department and agencies; Capacity to manage change and engage communities at every level; Operational responsibility and budgets significantly devolved to school level

Note: The Prichard Committee clearly understands that charter schools and school councils - while complimentary concepts - are not the same thing. Perhaps they mentioned this to the governor in a report they recently sent, but they stop short of putting charter schools on their agenda despite McKinsey's recommendation.

2 comments:

SPWeston said...

Richard,

I commend page 11 of the McKinsey report to you (using the giant numbers in the left margin). In short order, the report says that:

• Charter data just doesn't show consistently higher results.
• Cross-Cities interviews suggest that SBDM is not strong enough to alter teaching quality.
• Class size doesn't affect outcomes except in the earliest grades.

The central message of the report is that you can't sneak up on good teaching. You can't work on related issues and hope the classroom element will grow on its own. To get world-leading results, a school system has to make teaching quality itself the main strategy.

Richard Day said...

Susan,

Thanks for the comment and citation.

High quality teaching is what we have to offer the public and there are no substitutes for that. You all are promoting the right stuff.

A point: Jencks showed small class size outcomes lasted into high school. I also agree with the assessment of SBDM and teacher quality.

And McKinsey's assessment of charters seems correct - although, the same might be said for some number of Kentucky schools that have also failed to show consistently high results.

But given the current circumstance, where does Prichard stand on a charter school law?

Should Kentucky stand on principle, and reject hundreds of millions of potential federal dollars because charters are neither consistent nor perfect? We accepted much less when we went along with NCLB and pretty much destroyed CATS in the process.

Duncan's office tells me that we're likely to be at a competetive disadvantage unless all of the other states suddenly do away with their charter schools. I don't see that happening.

Thanks for your reporting. You're doing a nice job over there.

Richard