The Education Gadfly Weekly

With so many voices singing KIPP’s praises over the last few months (see here, here, and here), it bears asking what impact KIPP might have on numerous other education systems. One answer may be found in KIPP’s School Leadership Program. And if this program offers a glimpse of the next generation of educational leadership in America, the future seems promising both for KIPP students and for those in any other schools willing to foster a similar ethos of education.

Readers of the Ohio Gadfly will know that Fordham plans to sponsor a KIPP charter school (or schools) in Columbus starting in 2008 (see here ). As part of this effort, I was invited by the KIPP Foundation to Houston to meet 22 finalists (culled from over 300 initial applicants) for slots in their 2007 Fisher’s Fellowship Class. Candidates selected to be Fisher Fellows will open new KIPP schools in 2008 in identified communities across the United States.

Exactly who applies to be a KIPP school leader? The 22 candidates that gathered in Houston for this three-day weekend hailed from a variety of backgrounds. Some were senior Teach for America members teaching in places like the Mississippi Delta or the toughest neighborhoods of New York City; some were vice-principals in traditional district schools or charter schools; some were former teachers, now working in business or government, yearning to return to education; and others were teachers or administrators in existing KIPP schools.

All candidates sat for a series of intense interviews, led by current KIPP school leaders from San Francisco, Atlanta, New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, Houston and Helena, Arkansas. The interviewers peppered the prospective school leaders with hard and probing questions about their experience, suitability, and educational philosophies. These sessions culminated on Sunday morning (at 6:30 am sharp) in make-or-break interviews with KIPP founders David Levin and Michael Feinberg.

As an observer to KIPP’s leadership selection process, and during our brief moments of shared free time, I was able to speak with many of the candidates individually. Despite their diverse backgrounds and set of experiences, there was unanimity among them with regard to the weekend’s benefits--regardless of who would become a Fisher Fellow.

In fact, what made the experience so worthwhile for all involved--and the decision-making for KIPP no doubt arduous--was the fact that candidates had come from far and wide for a common cause, and that all of them shared, in varying degrees, the same core educational values and traits:

• they fervently believe all children can learn;
•  they have a passion for education and see education as key to greater social justice;
•  they are some of America’s very best and brightest, and could be successful in any field they choose;
•  they want to spend their lives making a serious difference in their communities and in the lives of children;
•  they believe in high standards and personal accountability;
•  they believe success for teachers and school leaders is measured by significant gains on standardized tests (1.5 or 2-years of academic growth in one year, for many low-income students, is considered “mediocre.”);
•  they work incredibly long hours for relatively low pay; and
•  they take criticism well and actually seek it out.

It’s fair to ask what they desire in return for a chance to be a KIPP leader. For dedicating their careers, and indeed much of their lives, to educational leadership, most were seeking the professional autonomy and independence to do what’s best for students, including:

• control over all curriculum and instruction issues;
• the freedom to hire, deploy, compensate and release teachers and other staff as needed;
• the freedom and resources to implement a longer school day, school week, and school year;
• the freedom to spend time (up to 50 percent of it) in classrooms as instructional leaders; and
• a rigorous “no excuses” accountability system in which the buck stops with them.

If these candidates’ qualities seem rare, they are only exceptional because too many school cultures fail to foster them. As Ohio and the nation prepare to search for the next generation of educational leaders, there are undeniable lessons in KIPP’s process for organizations looking to recruit talented, results-oriented educators.

Consider why, at heart, these individuals “chose” KIPP. The candidates who journeyed to Houston did so because KIPP empowers and liberates young educators to take ownership of their schools and do what’s best to meet the learning needs of students. They did so because they are utterly aware of the realities of compliance burdens, angry parents, needy staff, hungry children, and the innumerable other factors that impact a typical school day in America. They did so because KIPP is one of several school models that, implemented well, can minimize these externalities so leaders and staff can focus on the instruction of children.

From 300 applicants, only a handful will become KIPP school leaders. Yet just as important as the candidates who will become KIPP school leaders are the young educators who will not. After all, they will not go home empty-handed; most will take the experience, along with the same values and desires that brought them to Houston, back to their current schools and organizations. One hopes these candidates will be given the chance to use them. For it is these values and desires that educators, administrators and policymakers must harness, and then turn loose, in Ohio and across the United States if we are to provide all of our children with an exceptional education in the years and decades to come.

Internet schools or “e-schools” are a rapidly expanding sector of Ohio’s charter schools. Taking their inspiration from myriad distance learning programs across the country, the state’s e-schools provide parents another viable option for educating their children. Currently, there are seven statewide e-schools serving 21,000 students--and another 35 intra-district programs offering online courses to hundreds more.

Because instruction takes place in a “virtual” classroom and students often work from home, many people have only a vague notion about what e-schools are, who enrolls in them, and how they operate. To shed some light on Ohio’s e-school programs, Gadfly asked Susan Stagner, Head of School at Ohio Virtual Academy (OHVA), to answer a few questions about the Buckeye State’s newest--and fastest growing--type of school.

________________________________

Gadfly: Describe a typical day in the life of an e-school student and teacher.

Stagner: An e-school student spends, on average, five dedicated hours to academic work each day--with some flexibility regarding when they complete their work. For instance, students may work for four hours on some days and seven hours on others. Each day, a student may be introduced to new material through a variety of mediums including traditional textbooks, online courses, live web courses, face-to-face tutoring sessions, or a combination of these. Students may also join their peers on a field trip to a museum or outdoor metro park.

A typical day for an e-school teacher is spent conducting a variety of instructional activities. Teachers hold scheduled live instructional lessons over the web whereby a group of students interact with the teacher in a virtual classroom. Other times, teachers may initiate a web tutoring session to provide individualized or small group instruction.  In addition, teachers hold conference calls to parents and students to discuss student progress, lesson planning, subject-specific questions, and the evaluation of student work. Teachers may also communicate with families, administrators, and other teachers through email or through web conferencing tools; they utilize other online tools to record student attendance, monitor student progress, and review student lesson assessments for gaps or difficulties in student learning.

Gadfly: In what ways are e-schools held to the same standards of accountability as other schools?

Stagner: E-schools are held accountable for student academic achievement like every other public school in Ohio. They are required to meet federal No Child Left Behind standards as well as the state of Ohio’s academic accountability standards. All e-school students are required to participate in the state-mandated diagnostic, achievement, and Ohio Graduation Tests. 

Additionally, e-schools are subject to several different audits (fiscal, special education, federal grant, etc.) like other public schools to ensure they comply with state law.

Gadfly: Why do you think a growing number of Ohio students are choosing to attend e-schools? What students are choosing e-schools?

Stagner: Ohio parents choose to enroll their students in e-schools for a variety of reasons. Often parents are dissatisfied with their child’s previous school--because their child(ren) was bored, bullied, or falling behind academically. Some parents say their child could not focus on learning in the previous classroom setting due to a personal health issue or peer distractions. Others may be concerned with the lack of discipline in their child’s previous school.

Many older students are choosing e-schools because they want the flexibility that an e-school offers. If disciplined, high school students who want or need to work can balance both more easily in an e-school environment than in the structured schedule required by a brick-and-mortar school. E-schools can also offer more individualized programs that help students fill learning gaps from their prior educational experiences.

Gadfly: How do e-schools get their funding? Should e-schools be funded at the same level as brick-and-mortar charters? Why or why not?

Stagner: In Ohio, e-schools are funded primarily by state foundation funding and like their brick-and-mortar counterparts, do not receive any local funding from property or income taxes. E-schools are eligible for federal and state grants but do not receive parity funds for economically disadvantaged children, gifted funds, or career technology funds.

E-schools should be funded at the same level as brick-and-mortar charters. While e-schools don’t have buildings, they do have teachers, technology and instructional transportation costs. A high quality e-school has to invest in state-of-the-art online and offline curriculum, sophisticated communication tools using a variety of technologies, computer server farms that require ongoing maintenance and support, and computer equipment for students and teachers.

E-school student funding is a matter of equity and fairness. Ohio is charged with providing access for all children to free and appropriate public education, not just some students.

Gadfly: The report Halfway Out the Door , which Fordham released last year, noted that only 21 percent of surveyed Ohioans think schools that “get state funding and allow students to do their work at home over the Internet, under adult supervision” were a good idea. How would you respond to this finding?

Stagner: E-schools are a new and very innovative way to attend a public school and will not be every family’s school of choice. Many people who have had no exposure to a quality e-school will find it hard to envision such programs. But when people experience quality e-schooling through a personal demonstration, most understand it and are excited about the opportunities to individualize learning paths for their children.

About OHVA
OHVA educates 3,800 students from across the state in grades K-12 and was rated “Effective” (the state’s second highest rating) in 2005-06 under Ohio’s accountability system. OHVA’s curriculum is supplied by K12, Inc., a national provider of online curriculum and academic support materials. (Note: Fordham president Chester E. Finn, Jr., sits on the board of K12, Inc.)

With so many voices singing KIPP’s praises over the last few months (see here, here, and here), it bears asking what impact KIPP might have on numerous other education systems. One answer may be found in KIPP’s School Leadership Program. And if this program offers a glimpse of the next generation of educational leadership in America, the future seems promising both for KIPP students and for those in any other schools willing to foster a similar ethos of education.

Readers of the Ohio Gadfly will know that Fordham plans to sponsor a KIPP charter school (or schools) in Columbus starting in 2008 (see here ). As part of this effort, I was invited by the KIPP Foundation to Houston to meet 22 finalists (culled from over 300 initial applicants) for slots in their 2007 Fisher’s Fellowship Class. Candidates selected to be Fisher Fellows will open new KIPP schools in 2008 in identified communities across the United States.

Exactly who applies to be a KIPP school leader? The 22 candidates that gathered in Houston for this three-day weekend hailed from a variety of backgrounds. Some were senior Teach for America members teaching in places like the Mississippi Delta or the toughest neighborhoods of New York City; some were vice-principals in traditional district schools or charter schools; some were former teachers, now working in business or government, yearning to return to education; and others were teachers or administrators in existing KIPP schools.

All candidates sat for a series of intense interviews, led by current KIPP school leaders from San Francisco, Atlanta, New York City, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, Houston and Helena, Arkansas. The interviewers peppered the prospective school leaders with hard and probing questions about their experience, suitability, and educational philosophies. These sessions culminated on Sunday morning (at 6:30 am sharp) in make-or-break interviews with KIPP founders David Levin and Michael Feinberg.

As an observer to KIPP’s leadership selection process, and during our brief moments of shared free time, I was able to speak with many of the candidates individually. Despite their diverse backgrounds and set of experiences, there was unanimity among them with regard to the weekend’s benefits--regardless of who would become a Fisher Fellow.

In fact, what made the experience so worthwhile for all involved--and the decision-making for KIPP no doubt arduous--was the fact that candidates had come from far and wide for a common cause, and that all of them shared, in varying degrees, the same core educational values and traits:

• they fervently believe all children can learn;
•  they have a passion for education and see education as key to greater social justice;
•  they are some of America’s very best and brightest, and could be successful in any field they choose;
•  they want to spend their lives making a serious difference in their communities and in the lives of children;
•  they believe in high standards and personal accountability;
•  they believe success for teachers and school leaders is measured by significant gains on standardized tests (1.5 or 2-years of academic growth in one year, for many low-income students, is considered “mediocre.”);
•  they work incredibly long hours for relatively low pay; and
•  they take criticism well and actually seek it out.

It’s fair to ask what they desire in return for a chance to be a KIPP leader. For dedicating their careers, and indeed much of their lives, to educational leadership, most were seeking the professional autonomy and independence to do what’s best for students, including:

• control over all curriculum and instruction issues;
• the freedom to hire, deploy, compensate and release teachers and other staff as needed;
• the freedom and resources to implement a longer school day, school week, and school year;
• the freedom to spend time (up to 50 percent of it) in classrooms as instructional leaders; and
• a rigorous “no excuses” accountability system in which the buck stops with them.

If these candidates’ qualities seem rare, they are only exceptional because too many school cultures fail to foster them. As Ohio and the nation prepare to search for the next generation of educational leaders, there are undeniable lessons in KIPP’s process for organizations looking to recruit talented, results-oriented educators.

Consider why, at heart, these individuals “chose” KIPP. The candidates who journeyed to Houston did so because KIPP empowers and liberates young educators to take ownership of their schools and do what’s best to meet the learning needs of students. They did so because they are utterly aware of the realities of compliance burdens, angry parents, needy staff, hungry children, and the innumerable other factors that impact a typical school day in America. They did so because KIPP is one of several school models that, implemented well, can minimize these externalities so leaders and staff can focus on the instruction of children.

From 300 applicants, only a handful will become KIPP school leaders. Yet just as important as the candidates who will become KIPP school leaders are the young educators who will not. After all, they will not go home empty-handed; most will take the experience, along with the same values and desires that brought them to Houston, back to their current schools and organizations. One hopes these candidates will be given the chance to use them. For it is these values and desires that educators, administrators and policymakers must harness, and then turn loose, in Ohio and across the United States if we are to provide all of our children with an exceptional education in the years and decades to come.