Imagine Schools, Inc., a district that serves around 40,000 students nationwide, is closing several St. Louis schools this upcoming year. This decision made by the Missouri Board of Education, will affect 3,500 students, and is said to be the result of their performance on the state’s standardized tests and issues that include rent and administrative costs.
Upon reading this article, with the mention of their state’s standardized tests, I was curious about the methodologies and educational approaches used by this network of charter schools, and what I found was interesting.
At their website, www.imagineschools.com, their educational approaches are listed. When clicking, “Core Knowledge” Missouri, is not listed as having this approach utilized within their schools. Likewise, the “direct instruction,” approach, touted by the essentialists, is M.I.A; missing.
From there, I naturally wondered how their schools in Arizona were fairing; the state in which I reside. Sure enough, of the 11 Arizona schools, only 4 schools, 36% of them, received a "B" on the state’s recently instated, A-Z scale, and the other 7 schools, 64% of them, received either a "C" or a "D." I again wondered why, and subsequently found that in Arizona, the Core Knowledge sequence and, "direct instruction," instructional approaches again, weren't listed for their Arizona managed schools.
While I don’t know everything about the approaches of Imagine Schools, only what was listed on their website, I “do” know that the major themes of essentialism aren’t listed for these states in question. Seeing as this is the case, I challenge you to answer this question. Is the standards-based curriculum approached, listed as being used by Imagine Schools in both Missouri and Arizona, enough? Sound off!
Original Article:
Well, obviously something isn't working for them. If they are closing in Missouri because of being a set of failing schools, then they are not doing what they claim. Are they claiming to follow the Core Knowledge sequence? If they are following the Core Knowledge curriculum, and they are providing direct instruction from the teacher (and not letting the students lead the path), then (in theory) they would have better scores. Where did you look up the schools besides on their website? ** After writing this, I went and looked at their website and was rather unimpressed by the "About Us" part of the website (http://www.imagineschools.com/about-us/joy-at-work/). Who thinks that it is a good idea to take something that works in the corporate world and apply it to kids? That won't work!
ReplyDeleteStudents need direction. There is something to be said for the "hands on" approach. Some students really benefit from this approach, but how can you appropriately teach reading, writing, and math without teacher direction? I have tried. It doesn't work. Another school I worked for would not allow for direct instruction and the students suffered. The students were confused as were the staff. Why do we go to school and earn multiple degrees if the students are then going to lead their education? How can students know what they need to learn without teachers leading them? From what I read on the Imagine Schools website, they feel that students need to direct the instruction because they are closest to the problems. I feel that if the students are leading the instruction, they will not learn what they need to learn and the school will become a failing school, as happened with the Imagine Schools. Kids need direction! They are not the professionals.
Hi Kim,
DeleteI have to disagree and say that I do believe that something that works in the corporate world, could effectively be applied to kids. For example, if there were to be a competition, or some type of gain, and children were to be given monetary incentives, I bet we'd see a strong repeat performance! This type of capitalism set up, directly from the corporate world, would indeed work. There are other examples too.
The real question here is that the schools that are closing are not listing two critical teaching methodologies; Core Knowledge, and direct instruction. Those lacking pieces, are probably more of their issue.
I agree with you, that the kids are not the professionals, and this is possible that this is what you meant when you said that, "something that works in the corporate world, when applied to kids, won't work." Kids shouldn't be in charge. Years ago, there was a reality show titled, "Kid Nation," I believe. The kids didn't know what to do with out direction and adult intervention. They need guidance, and direct instruction isn't such a bad thing, unless one is a progressive educator.
The standards-based curriculum approach is obviously not good enough. If it was they would have scored better on their tests and would not be closing schools as a result. I would think the curriculum provided by the state (Core Knowledge) would be created to ensure that the students have the knowledge needed to do well on the test. It seems like it would be beneficial for schools to use the core knowledge. I'm glad my school uses it, and it would behoove other schools to do the same thing if possible.
ReplyDeleteCurriculum selected for use by a district/school is done to meet the academic needs of the students that school serves. Standards-based curriculum or any curriculum is “enough” if it provides growth in the students receiving instruction using the curriculum. As stated, the Imagine Schools are not meeting the needs of their students, they are not living up to their responsibility of educating the students that were entrusted to their care. The ranking of the schools that are closing is low, why would any parent want their child in a C or D rated school? Standards must be set and met in order to stay in business. The 3,500 students will be absorbed into other schools and parents will be able to find the right “fit” for their child(ren).
ReplyDelete"When the going gets tough, the tough get going".
And they should, "go" with a more systematic, explicit approach...essentialism!
DeleteI agree with the previous comments that standards based instruction isn't enough. The schools need to also implement a set of procedures and routines that the teachers should follow. If the standards were enough then the schools would be staying open and the students would score higher. I do believe that a teacher should have flexibility to teach their own way and have creative freedom. I also believe that within that freedom they need to ensure mastery of the material and that they are teaching what they are supposed to teach.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated before I believe that teacher centered instruction is important and that children are not the educators. I do believe that teachers should try to implement subjects and ideas that are interesting to the students and that they can relate to. I believe that children need to see the real life connection when learning new material. I think that the students are more likely to remember the information if they can see the benefit for them.
Education is ever changing and I think that sometimes we need to look at what was successful in the past and not be so quick to jump on the band wagon of the next great idea!
Look at what was successful in the past? Look at what was successful in the past? Good idea. Start with the Common School. The entire nation needs to start there.
ReplyDeleteP.S. In looking at the past, as you said might be helpful, "project based learning" has not demonstrated vast academic success, and I agree, that if we're to look at the past, for indications of success, there is very little, if any, evidence about progressivism educational initiatives, making a huge impact on schools.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, just because these types of projects are, "fun," it's not enough that teachers and students, "like" to do projects (another comment you made) if it gets us little ground. What should matter is what works for hightened academic achievement, and the fact that teachers enjoy them is here nor there. I'm not sure that lawyers enjoy writing briefs, or memos, however, they get the job done, and teachers should be held to that same standard, if not higher, dealing with our nation's future.