Hugh B. Price
President
National Urban League

The Aim of Urban School Reform: Successful Schools, Not "Systemic" Reform

Economic Club of Indianapolis

October 22, 1999
Last weekend, the College Board released a profoundly disturbing report, which declared that African-American children lag behind whites academically at every level of education, from kindergarten through college. The academic achievement gap even extends to middle class suburbs, like Shaker Heights, where our children lag noticeably behind their white classmates. I hunch the same is true of Latinos.

This was a bitter pill to swallow for a proud people who’ve clawed our way to freedom and come so far so fast. However disagreeable we find the message, though, it’s utter folly to deny the facts. Folly for the black community. Folly for society at large, which has a stake in bringing everyone into the mainstream. It’s folly for the business community, which is increasingly dependent on a diverse and well-educated workforce.

This situation is unacceptable and unsustainable. The assault on affirmative action is squeezing minority students out of selective colleges. The race to get into less competitive colleges is stiffer today than ever before.

For instance, applications to San Diego State University soared by 28 percent this year alone. To cope with the crush of applicants, it raised the minimum grade point average for applicants from 2.5 to 3.2.

So the days of skating through high school into college are over. Employers expect workers with higher skills and increasingly insist on scrutinizing school transcripts.

Achievement matters more than ever before. Public schools, especially urban districts serving low-income and minority youngsters, are under withering pressure to improve student performance.

Like it or not, ready or not, states and school districts are holding students to higher academic standards and stricter account. They\'re even willing to take the political heat for holding pupils back in grade and denying them high school diplomas.

I\\\'m proud to report that the National Urban League and the Indianapolis Urban League are doing our part to spread the gospel that "Achievement Matters". In partnership with the Congress of National Black Churches and two dozen sororities, fraternities and civic groups, we\\\'ve launched the Campaign for African-American Achievement.

Together we\\\'ve designated September as Achievement Month. Last month, on September 19^th, more than 50,000 youngsters and parents participated in our events nationwide to celebrate children who are doing the right thing.

A year ago, the CNBC and the League launched a national achievers society for youngsters who excel in school. I think of it as our national achievement gang, complete with its own rituals and regalia.

Already we\\\'ve inducted over 5,000 academic stars and challenged them to spread the gospel to their siblings and buddies that achievement is cool.

In Columbia SC, the Urban League joined forces with State Farm Insurance Company to stage an SAT awareness rally. Can you imagine a more boring subject? If you had asked me, I\\\'d have said teenagers would avoid this event like the plague.

J. T. McLawhorn, our CEO in Columbia, originally hoped to attract a couple hundred kids to the rally. Guess what? Seven hundred showed up. They had to move the event to the chapel at Benedict College.

Young brothers were there in jeans and dreadlocks, the sisters in their designer clothes. Why? Because they know achievement is cool and because they\\\'re determined to get into college.

So our message that "Achievement Matters" is spreading like wildfire. But we have lots more work ahead.

We’ve called upon every black organization must step up to the plate. We must assume collective responsibility for the fate of our children because our collective future is at stake.

For starters, every church, every pastor, every chapter of the Eastern Star and the Links, Phi Beta Sigma and Delta Sigma Theta, the Beauticians, Barbers, and the Boule -- must make certain that the children in their own flock are squarely on the achievement page. That they learn to read on time and stay on course academically.

We’ve called upon our groups to get their children to read newspapers to polish their reading skills and stretch their vocabulary. We want their members to keep an eagle eye on how their youngsters are doing in school.

Use their own publications to spread the gospel that "Achievement Matters" among their members. Get their church or sorority to sponsor after-school tutorial programs and SAT prep courses in partnership with other groups.

We will preach the gospel of achievement until it reaches every African-American household, every organization, every pulpit and place of worship, every publication and broadcast program we control.

We will preach until the gospel of achievement permeates the consciousness of every black child -- and every educator who has charge of our children. We will preach this gospel until our people understand why we Urban Leaguers say: Our Children = Our Destiny.

But let’s be clear and let’s be fair. The burden of improving achievement isn’t ours to bear alone. The public schools, which serve 90 percent of our kids, must uphold their end of the bargain. These days they’re letting us down.

Tough love was about the only remedy for low achievement that politicians and school administrators seem to be able to come up these days. End social promotion, they proclaim. Send the laggards to summer school and hold them back if they still cannot cut it academically.

These tough love measures are too timid structurally and off target pedagogically. Ending social promotion alone won’t educate all youngsters to their fullest potential. America’s most vulnerable children — in low-income urban and rural communities — will bear the brunt of this educationally bankrupt policy because, as things stand now, they’ll be left behind by the millions.

What’s urgently needed is a radical reform that structures public education so that its sole raison d’etre is student success.

Successful schools produce successful pupils. Not a smattering superstars per building, mind you, but the bulk of the student body.

After a generation of research and experimentation, examples abound of urban and rural schools that serve low-income youngsters quite admirably, with some even outperforming their more affluent suburban counterparts.

Yet try as big-city school boards and administrators might, few if any urban districts can honestly claim that they educate the vast majority of kids remotely up to their potential. The best that a mere handful of urban districts can claim is modest increases in test scores.

The pace and scope of progress is unacceptable and the reform prescriptions in vogue these days are too feeble for the task ahead. Today I want to talk about three key challenges that confront urban schools:

1. The need to impose real-world standards;
2. The folly and unfairness of vouchers; and
3. The urgent need to focus on creating successful schools.

Real-World Standards
The rush to impose rigorous standards begs the question of where the standards should be pegged. It was startling to hear several governors at the recent National Education Summit confess that in their haste to get tough, their states probably had given less thought than they should have to the actual content of the standards.

In my view, the standards students are expected to meet should be pegged to the proficiencies that real people need to succeed in the real world. They shouldn’t mirror the admissions standards for selective universities.

It isn’t anti-intellectual to acknowledge the reality that most Americans never obtain college degrees. What’s the point of placing the bar for graduation so high that it denies high school diplomas to conscientious youngsters who nevertheless aren’t college bound?

What’s the point of writing off future truck drivers, deliverymen, short order cooks, chefs, train conductors, newsstand operators, construction workers and artisans as unworthy of high school diplomas?

Kate Maloy of the University of Pittsburgh puts it best:

"The purpose of every school, whatever its setting or resources, is to educate children for what lies ahead of them -—further education for some, jobs for most, citizenship, somewhere, for all."

That is why the standards imposed by states shouldn’t be designed by academicians alone. States and school districts should assign this chore to a task force of thoughtful representatives of such sectors as business (big and small), organized labor, higher education and community organizations.

As I reflect on my own professional career and life experience, it strikes me that six clusters of competence are critically important:

• Literacy — workable command of reading, writing and speaking in English
• Mathematics — command of the basic computational skills required in the workplace and everyday adult life
• Reasoning and critical thinking — capacity to ferret out information, find answers and solve problems
• Science — appreciation of the nature and uncertainties of the scientific inquiry
• Citizenship — understanding of the primary historical, cultural, demographic, political and economic forces and values that have shaped this country. Appreciation of America’s relationship to the rest of the world, as well as the major forces shaping the other hemispheres.
• Technological literacy

This educational platform should be placed beneath every youngster. Beyond these basic proficiencies, the remaining courses that students choose should be shaped by their aspirations and ability. Those headed straight for the labor force may opt to specialize in certain workplace skills suited to their interests, while college-bound students could elect more advanced academic courses that equip them for higher education.

The Folly of Vouchers
Low-income and minority parents who are fed up with lousy public schools find vouchers increasingly alluring. Their impatience is perfectly understandable. Parents cannot be faulted for seeking the best for their children.

There’s no question that parents of youngsters receiving vouchers are pleased to have a choice of public or nonpublic schools. In effect, vouchers subsidize the escape of motivated parents from the public schools.

Even so, vouchers do not necessarily improve the academic achievement of children who use them. The evidence on this critically important point is mixed.

Equally troubling, non-public schools enjoy decisive advantages over public schools. By law, public schools must admit all comers. Non-public schools can be choosy. Public schools are severely constrained in meting out discipline; non-public schools are considerably less restrained. Public schools cannot suspend or expel with impunity; non-public schools can.

Public schools must report their results. Non-public schools do not. How ironic it is that that in name of education accountability, vouchers and education savings accounts would shift precious public resources to non-public schools that are completely unaccountable to taxpayers for their academic results.

Advocates of vouchers argue that competition is healthy for public schools. But the rules of competition are rigged against them. So trumpeting vouchers as the answer to what ails public education is both dangerous and specious.

All of the ferment, the pressure and the reforms focused on urban education are starting to pay off. Some school districts report encouraging gains in reading and math scores. This is important because it helps restore public confidence in urban schools.

But let’s be clear. Modest gains in test scores help politically. But inching ahead won’t prepare our children adequately for the unforgiving world that awaits them after graduation from high school.

After a generation of urban school reform, it can be said with certainty that there are hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of high performing schools serving poor and minority youngsters all across the country.

This spring the Education Trust, a highly respected research and advocacy organization, released a revealing survey of several hundred high performing schools around the country that serve minority and low income children. Many of them even outshine suburban schools on state tests.

These stellar schools share certain attributes, among them:

• These schools use high academic standards to design their courses, assess their students and evaluate their teachers
• They devote lots more time than the typical school to reading and math instruction, even if that means lengthening the school day
• They invest heavily in professional development so that their faculty stay on top of their game and focus on teaching methods that help their students meet tough academic standards;
• These highly successful schools monitor their students closely and intervene quickly if they falter. They don\\\'t dawdle during the school year and then impose massive doses of summer school after the students fall way behind;
• They get parents involved, not just with staging bake sales but with helping their children to do better in school and meet the standards; and
• They place the onus for improvement mainly on the educators, where it belongs.

The evidence is clear that urban principals and teachers know how to create schools that enable low-income and minority youngsters to achieve at very high levels. But no one has figured out how to create successful urban school systems.

So it is time to stop trying to reform public school "systems." I say we concentrate instead on creating successful public schools throughout the system.

According to the legendary educator Anthony Alvarado, the sole focus of the educational enterprise should be student learning. Everything else, he argues, is "details." "A typical educational system is so top-heavy with details that learning can suffocate under the tonnage."

The thrust of federal, state and local education policy from this day forward should be to remove the tonnage so that educators can practice their profession and children can realize their academic potential.

Here is the National Urban League’s reform agenda aimed at transforming all urban schools into high performing schools:

1. Assert no-nonsense state leadership — and responsibility
   Conventional wisdom holds that public education is a local responsibility. But the reality is that the quality of school graduates is a compelling societal concern that justifies aggressive leadership by states and by the federal government.

   In the agricultural era, youngsters tended to live where they were reared. But contemporary children often grow up in one town, only to live and work elsewhere. Employers and society at large have the overriding stake in the caliber of education delivered by every school. America’s very civility and competitiveness depend on it.

   In recent years, states have stepped up to the plate to impose loftier standards and high stakes tests.

   Having set the bar, states now bear the primary moral, financial and, I’m convinced, legal responsibility for seeing to it that all children have a fair chance to clear it.

   No longer should poor and minority children be held hostage to communities with low tax bases, weak commitments to quality education, and skinflint taxpayers who oppose providing adequate support for local schools.

   No longer should the children be crippled by school districts riddled with unqualified teachers, insufficient books and antiquated schools. Having imposed high standards on all children, the states must step in and guarantee high quality education for every child.

2. "Charterize" all urban schools
   Urban schools should be liberated from the stifling central school district bureaucracy and given the latitude to operate the way independent secular schools do.

   Under the scenario I propose, each school would be overseen by a governing board comprised, say, of local business and community leaders, educators and alumni who view student success as its paramount mission. The boards should be self-perpetuating so that they are spared the potential turmoil and unpredictability of elections.

   Each school would be run by a principal, or headmaster, hired by the board. The principal would serve at the pleasure of the board, subject to due process. The principal in turn would assemble the faculty, who would serve at the pleasure of the principal and board, subject again to due process.

   The local school district superintendent would grant each school a revocable contract — or charter -- to operate for ten to fifteen years. The school would be accountable for seeing that, say, 75 percent of its students meet the state’s real-world proficiency standards.

   If the school meets this standard, it retains its charter, which can be renewed. If the pass rate falls below this threshold, the school would be placed on a watch list and required to come up with an improvement plan.

   If after a reasonable period it fails to boost its performance, then the charter can be revoked. In effect, this means that the governing board and faculty responsible for operating the educational enterprise in that building can be dismissed and replaced with a new team. If need be, the facility itself can be shuttered temporarily or even permanently.

   Given the public nature of the school, pupils should be chosen via a mix of self-selection (application) and lottery. This will prevent the creation of what are perceived as "loser" schools that are filled with students who weren’t chosen by some other school.

   The state would allocate an annual amount to each school based on its enrollment. The allocation formula should be sufficiently generous to guarantee small classes, modern facilities and equipment, sufficient supplies, and abundant high quality professional development.

   The state education agency can negotiate purchase agreements with vendors of textbooks, food and supplies so that individual schools get an advantageous price. The states would also assume responsibility for ensuring that individual schools are properly sized and furnished. And for guaranteeing that there is no disparity -- in resources, teacher quality or physical plant -- between urban, suburban and rural communities.

   Once each school’s allocation is set, the actual utilization should be left entirely to the board and professional staff of each school. In other words, schools should be accountable for how many students they graduate, not for how many gallons of paint they purchase.

3. Professionalize the teaching profession
   Given the projected shortage of principals and teachers, plus the need to increase teacher quality in urban and rural schools serving low-income children, the compensation offered education must be improved dramatically in order to create a strong demand for these jobs.

   This can be done by increasing salaries to levels comparable with other professions and by offering attractive inducements like generous student loan write-offs for graduates who enter the profession.

   Why not offer young people with masters’ degrees the same initial salaries as young MBAs, attorneys and engineers? Since most urban and rural districts are strapped financially, the federal and state governments should take the lead in financing the economic incentives needed to attract stronger educators to these school districts.

   These special incentives should only be available to educators with masters’ degrees who are certified by the state and who sign up to teach for at least five-to-ten years in low-income communities. If they leave the profession early, the loan relief would cease.

   The critically important quid pro quo for paying educators like real professionals is that they in turn must relinquish those contract-based protections that other professionals do not enjoy. I speak of tenure, seniority, overtime, guaranteed class size, length of class periods and other provisions that severely impede the ability of principals to run their schools in the best of children.

   The other day, just across the Hudson River from the National Education Summit, the City of Yonkers was roiled by a rancorous school strike. At issue was a instructionally-sound proposal by the new superintendent to devote more classroom time per day to fewer core subjects. The local Federation of Teachers cried foul; the school board called their bluff; and the union walkout was on.

   The grown-ups in charge of the school district made a sorry mess of a solid idea that principals and teachers probably could have sorted out rather easily in their respective schools.

   If governors and state legislators truly believe their assertion that states are the engines of school improvement these days, they should muster the political courage to grant individual school boards and principals the discretion they need to run their schools.

   Unions should be allowed to bargain district-wide, indeed state-wide, over salaries and fringe benefits. But, subject to appropriate oversight by their boards, principals should make all personnel decisions, such as whom to hire and for how long, as well as the standards for measuring staff performance and the consequences if they fall short.

   It isn’t realistic politically to expect school districts to redefine the scope of union agreements this radically. So it’s up to governors and state legislators who profess to care about children to override existing agreements and impose these conditions.

4. The 21^st century superintendent -- accreditation, not operation
   Local school boards and central administrators operate their school systems today. As such they represent a major source of the "tonnage" that cripples the schools.
   
   Rare is the school board — elected or appointed -- that would be considered an asset to the educational process from the perspective of poor and minority children. Superintendents come and go so quickly that they seldom leave a lasting mark, much less a favorable one. Just below the surface, the central school bureaucracies rule — and stultify.
   
5. So what is the solution? The oversight of public schools needs to be professionalized and depoliticized. To cite Anthony Alvarado again, his experience indicates that urban youngsters can learn at high levels. But, as he cautions, "It takes time, continuity, concentration of focus."

Revolving door school superintendents, ongoing rhetorical battles between mayors and superintendents, mayoral use of fiscal support to hold school boards hostage — all contribute chaos and confusion, instead of continuity and concentration, to the educational enterprise. Our children and our community are the victims.

The role of the local school superintendent should be converted from operations to accreditation. In other words, the school superintendent should be responsible for awarding -- and revoking -- the charters and reporting to the public on whether the individual schools meet their targets.

If they do, the superintendent can extend the charter. If they fall short, the superintendent can monitor the school’s revitalization plan, revoke the charter if need be, and award it to a new educational team.

Given the state’s dominant role in ensuring education quality, the local school superintendents should be appointed by and ultimately accountable to the state education agency. The superintendent in turn can be assisted by a local board of advisors, chosen by the superintendent and drawn from such sectors as parents, business, organized labor, the religious community, higher education and community organizations.

The National Urban League’s school reform agenda is premised on what we know can work — individual public schools that are given the wherewithal and room to succeed. Our agenda parts company with the failed efforts to reform urban school systems.

When the clock strikes midnight this New Year’s Eve, the policymakers, administrators, educators and unions that share responsibility for public schools had better leave all those excuses — and all that bureaucratic tonnage — in the litter baskets along with the noisemakers.

It will be a new millennium for humankind. If urban public education is to survive in the 21^st century, it’d better be a new day for urban children.