 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
The “bigger picture” requires us to form an image of a school which includes but is not limited to teacher quality, student achievement, and strong curriculum programs. Such an image draws together every aspect of a school to provide a just and comprehensive picture of the organization, to guide the organization’s future goals, strategic plans and institutional health. If the sum is greater than the parts, we need to have ways to recognize "the sum." In the U.S., we have no mechanism to recognize “the sum.” It is one thing to see the dynamic elements of a school as a school leader; it is another thing to represent these dynamic elements to outsiders and other participants in the school. However, the sheer activity of providing a “just” picture of our schools will move us closer to establishing quality schools, by allowing us to make explicit some of the implicit relationships that define each individual school personality. What do I mean by “just”? For the ancient Greeks, justice reflected the appropriate proportion between elements. For Plato, a just soul balances the tensions between the three aspects of our human personality: the rational, the spirited or courageous and our appetites or desires. In this view, education ushers us into the constant maintenance of a balanced relationship between these three elements. For Aristotle, a just person is able to choose a moderate action, by balancing the extreme elements of his personality with their opposing force. An aggressive person, for example, would guide her actions with a dose of timidity. In so doing, she becomes virtuous, the ultimate mean between the extremes of the human personality. In these examples, virtue and excellence derive directly from how we relate elements in tension, not whether or not we have the elements. Too often, accreditors and school evaluators have a checklist to identify the presence of certain elements within a school. This is not enough. To put it crudely: it’s not what you have; it’s how you use it. |
What do I mean by a “just picture” of the organization? While a school must examine their actions in relation to mission, governance, assessment, teacher quality, professional development, special education, supplemental program, finances, facilities and curriculum; a school must also examine how to balance these elements. A picture, strategic plan or school improvement plan must depict how the school leader addresses elements in tension to strive for excellence within the whole institution. This picture of the organization not only looks to student achievement but truly reflects and examines the relations between areas of school performance. For example, how does Governance relate to Teacher Quality? How does Curriculum relate to Assessment? Does governance function to support teacher quality, or do governance practices undermine teacher quality? Which priority should win the day? We must examine the relationships between these areas and identify exactly how they function. It is not enough to be satisfied linking teacher quality (and/or merit raises) to assessment; we must consider all the elements as they constitute the whole. The school culture will derive its distinct individuality from how school leaders and stakeholders creatively link together the different foundational ingredients of the school.
In a new school, the entrepreneurial faculty and staff are building out each area. In a more developed school, a number of the assumptions of the institution are bound within how different areas relate (or fail to relate) to one another. A fantastic school outlines how these areas work together to create a harmonious whole. The fantastic school “tunes” each of the elements on a regular basis, not only so that each element is properly organized but so that the whole “harmonizes” and discordant elements are either accepted and incorporated or addressed and adjusted.
While standardized tests provide essential information, these scores may reflect, but fail to describe, the many exciting, dynamic relations between all the elements of the school.
In order to improve our schools, we must be able to create mechanisms that allow us to recognize whether a school has been able to “create the harmonious whole,” whether they have successful parts that do have not yet been attuned to one another, or, if a school is still working on tuning the discrete parts and, if so, which parts need the most assistance. While standardized tests provide essential information, these scores may reflect, but fail to describe, the many exciting, dynamic relations between all the elements of the school. We need mechanisms to demonstrate how creative school leaders have carefully linked professional development to governance, teacher quality to supplemental services or curriculum to facilities.
The student achievement data provides a measure of success but does not indicate where, why and how a school addresses all responsibilities. Further, it does not recognize the unique innovations characteristic of the very best charter schools (and thus the opportunity for replication.) Nor do scores provide an opportunity to evaluate all areas within a school in order to determine how these work together to bring (or fail to bring) successful results. After all, even if a school is achieving outstanding scores, it still can be closed due to financial mismanagement. Quality, after all, means a “property” associated with excellence. How can we even begin to assess quality if we limit our notions of excellence to school goals based primarily on yearly numeric data? As Bryan Hassel recently reported, “we need better research on how well students in charter schools are performing.” We also need comprehensive information on what causes charter school students to succeed. I champion an idea of accountability that examines comprehensive school performance and studies how the fantastic schools are succeeding. I am not talking about recognition for school success through awards programs, but quantification and evaluation of what enables a school to be worthy of awards.
In this respect, we are at a threshold. Charter leaders can begin to contribute to building and defining such broad accountability practices or they can defer to someone else (federal and state government) to define standards, delimit expectations and create tools for documenting school "success." Unfortunately, many charter leaders have plenty of work to do within their schools, especially in polarized communities. Still, accountability practices should engage leaders in the conversation regarding what is good and right for her/his school. A healthy program engages the entire school community, on a regular basis, in discussions surrounding school quality.
Genuine school quality reflects far more than the results of one year’s test scores but, rather, school leaders hard at work to attune the elements within the school, just as a conductor might lead a symphony. By finding ways to depict the “bigger picture” school leaders will be able to provide outsiders with a “just picture” of their school, appreciative of how each area contributes to creating a hum, a harmonic, a fullness of life that draws the community together.
Dr. Sarah Cunningham currently serves as Director of the Charter School Accreditation Program at the American Academy for Liberal Education. She was the founding Dean at The Oxbow School in Napa, CA and has trained teachers through The Bernstein Center and Vanderbilt's Center for Teaching. She has taught philosophy at Vanderbilt, University of Maine and Belmont University. She regularly presents papers on education and aesthetics at conferences nationwide. Sarah received her BA from Kenyon College and an MA from Vanderbilt University. She recently completed her PhD on the relation between analytic thinking, education and the arts.
