If we can't teach them, then neither can you.

Yesterday's post explored a potential chartered school bill in the context of Maine's recent consolidation initiative - and made the case that start-up small PUBLIC schools need to be a vital part of any next round. In addition to taking a another swipe or two at the black vs. white/public vs. charter argument, I also tried to shift the focus to the situation school districts find themselves in. Understanding that can help us rethink whether the schools we have are the schools we need. For instance, one of the situations that now presents something of a challenge but that could present an opportunity is the thriving but highly idiosyncratic landscape of school choice in Maine.

But before we delve into school choice, we should make clear the role played by some other choices we make, or don't. Not only is the real cost per student in most Maine systems SUBSTANTIALLY higher than in other states, but when you factor in the many dollars that are disbursed for the benefit of children through the social services and health care systems, every child who becomes WELL-educated at a publicly chartered school is a long-term bargain (or investment) for the state of Maine.

Compared to other so-called civilized societies, the choices we make about how resources are currently allocated do NOT support quality child care and public education, but are allocated at older ages on social services, incarceration, health care, and other “entitlements.” If we were to measure by cost per graduate, which can include all of the costs that accrue to a community and state when it's young people are unable to envision a future for themselves, it doesn't matter whose economic projections you use: the results are the opposite of what we hope for - and promise - our young people.

For the most part, though, we are not talking about those choices, but instead how we can all hang on to our piece of the pie - no matter how unsatisfactory that piece is. The folks who run the public schools in Maine so far have kept it that way - and by that I mean the state Ed. Dept, the Superintendents, the Maine Principals Association, and the MEA, and to a lesser extent school committees, who in many cases have no practical choice but take the "experts" at their word.

So in terms of choice, we face some real ones - we cannot simultaneously prop up the entire old paradigm while we redirect resources to a new one. In order to make a brave new world, we need to incrementally dismantle the old one - which means making some choices, and therefore some changes. And the one thing you can count on anyone on the verge obsolescence saying, or doing, is fighting for survival.

For instance, a brief examination of the process of giving parents and students in Portland the "choice" of Casco Bay High School - a 400-student, public high school that designed to serve the needs of learners not well served by the two 1000+ high schools, Portland High and Deering - shows both the promise and the challenge of re-allocating resources for better outcomes.

I was working with the Mitchell Institute for a short time with the Great Schools Project (trying to do largely the same thing as I am now) during which time teachers and others who worked at the large schools we would work with often said, in one way or another, "I/we just can't teach these kids." Despite teachers who individually were a talented, passionate and dedicated lot, waves of "reform" had rolled in and through both schools over the years, Portland High in particular earning a reputation for swallowing school reformers alive and spitting them out shaking their heads.

When $600,000 of Gates Foundation money (passed through Expeditionary Learning Schools) opened Superintendent Mary Jo O'Connor's eyes to the potential of being one of 20 nationwide Expeditionary Learning "Delta" schools, Scott Hartl, then Field Director for Expeditionary Learning Schools called and asked if I would lead the charge. The Gates money was intended, in part, to cushion the short term costs incurred in getting from what we had (Over 2000 students in 2 schools) to what we needed (same students, 3 schools, existing space and teaching staff reallocated.)

And here's were the fun began. We knew from a exhaustive study circle process that many parents had essentially heard the school system say to them, "we can't teach your child, " But when, in the guise of an Expeditionary Learning High School, a new "we" essentially said, "OK, we'll teach them then," teachers from Portland's two High Schools were adamant that we were "taking resources from the other two high schools." Eventually, the school committee voted (chose) to make the necessary changes.

Now, more than six years later, Casco Bay continues to demonstrate that it graduates remarkably accomplished, experienced young people (with a cap of 280 students, 120 fewer than the initial MOU specified). In this year's gubernatorial election, the only thing Eliot Cutler and Libby Mitchell had in common was praise for Casco Bay High School. Though CBHS veered sharply from the "dollar-per-student" metric that I had negotiated at the time of the initial agreement, it is by every available fair measure a better investment of taxpayer dollars for those students who've chosen it than the other choices would have been.

So yes, creating more effective schools means reallocating resources. Done well, it will mean more schools in more towns - but smaller ones that employ "21st century learning" techniques.

And it certainly means not building more and more, larger and larger schools that put all of a regions eggs in one basket - a basket, that, as far as we can tell, is pretty hard (might I invoke the noted efficiency expert Jack DeCoster here?) on many of those eggs.

Given that the current promoters say give it five year and if it doesn't work the charters will close, what schools will the students go back to if we have had to close more schools?

One of the signs of a well-written charter law is that schools that are not meeting clear targets do not get "re-authorized." In states that authorized more loosely (think more mom and pop, more hang-out-shingle, more voucher-y) quality was much more of a problem. Newer laws in later-adopting states are taking that into consideration, and early adopting states like Wisconsin are revising their laws to address this. "Replication" models (Expeditionary Learning, Met Schools, KIPP, Green Dot) out there are building a much better track record overall. If we set the standard high enough for handing the charters out in the first place, we should not have a wide-spread closure problem.

(I should add, too, that I advocate a stronger set of authorizing mechanisms that those in the lastest version of the MACS sponsored LD 1438.)

Over the weekend, I'll post a response to the last of Rep. Lovejoy's questions that will get us to the heart of a potential authorizing bill: how to ensure that charters are granted equitably and make change were change is needed most.