Education: Leaders React To Proposed Diploma Changes

Originally Appeared at GoLocalProv in January, 2011

Education Commissioner Deborah Gist and the Board of Regents are pressing forward with a plan to implement a three-tiered high school diploma system that would reward students who perform better on the NECAP by 2013.

But skeptics argue students from poor performing urban school districts will have virtually no chance to receive a top tiered diploma. They say the three-tiered system will do nothing more than highlight the wide achievement gap between white and minority students.


Gist fired back Thursday, criticizing a Providence Journal story she felt was incomplete and dispelling the notion that any students in Rhode Island would receive a certificate in lieu of a diploma. The second year Commissioner defended the initiative and blamed the current culture for allowing partial proficiency to become the status quo.

A Culture Problem
More stringent graduation requirements are nothing new to Rhode Island. Gist said the Board of Regents agreed to make changes to the system in 2003 and again in 2008. Under the new proposal, which is likely to be voted on in March, a Rhode Island diploma would be given to those students who do not pass any portion of the NECAP, but still pass in school. A Regents diploma would be awarded to those who demonstrate proficiency on the test and an Honors diploma would be given to those who score highly.

Gist said incentives like the advanced diplomas could help raise the bar in some schools.

“If we have a culture where people are offended by higher performing students,” she said. “Then we’ve got a problem with the culture. Too often we aim to hold everyone to the lowest standard. This has always been partial proficiency, so it has become the standard.”

System Only Enhances Differentiation of Students
In an e-mail forwarded around earlier in the week, President and CEO of the John Hope Settlement House Peter Lee said the three-tiered diploma proposal “only enhances the differentiation of students” and “It does not implement additional supports, nor does it establish a climate in which academic success is attainable and rewarding for all.”

The subject of the e-mail was titled “Race, Equity and the Achievement Gap…” Lee also questioned the point of the plan and asked if it will really provided great support for students.

“I believe the proposed plan, for all its good intentions, is short-sighted. I believe there are strategies we have not yet fully embraced that can make a difference for our children. Across the country, we hear superintendents saying that districts can’t do ‘it’ by themselves. But has the ‘it’ been clearly articulated?”

The College Factor
Another concern expressed by naysayers has been whether the three-tiered diploma system will effect college admissions. GoLocalProv contributor and Founder of College Admissions Advisors Cristiana M. Quinn said the new system probably won’t change much of anything when it comes to what colleges are looking for.

“I don’t see the three-tiered diplomas playing a significant role when it comes to admissions outside of Rhode Island,” Quinn said. “But it may for some of the state schools.”

The concern has been that students graduating with the third-tier Rhode Island diploma might be looked at in a negative light for not achieving a higher-tiered diploma. But Gist has made it clear that the Rhode Island diploma would be exactly the same as the one students receive today.

“One doesn’t count any more than the others,” Gist said. It’s just a reflection of [the students’] performance. The majority of Rhode Island students go on to Rhode Island schools. I’d actually like to see a day where maybe the Honors diploma means you get automatic admission or that you earn some sort of scholarship.”

Read more...

Education: Waiting For Superman Review

Originally Appeared at Rhode Island's Future on 10/3/2010

Last Wednesday evening, I had the opportunity to view a screening of Davis Guggenheim’s “Waiting for Superman” hosted by Harvard’s Center for Public Leadership. What I learned was this: Watching a documentary about education reform with a bunch of Ed School students is a lot like watching a Sox game at the Cask’n Flagon. Everybody thinks they’re an expert, which means a good discussion can quickly turn into a heated argument.


But that’s not what Guggenheim’s film is meant to do. Its target audience isn’t people who receive education-related Google alerts. Its objective, contrary to what some may think, isn’t to inspire hatred for teachers, unions, lunch ladies, recess or that damn recorder so few of us ever learn to play. “Waiting for Superman” is simply supposed to start a broad conversation amongst the general public about a topic we should all be paying more attention to. In that respect, Guggenheim passes with flying colors.

The film has two distinct tracks – one focusing on a system filled with thousands of “dropout factories” across the country and the other following the heart-wrenching story of five children applying for admission into a handful of high-performing charter schools.

As we learn about a system that has more than doubled its spending per student over the past 40 years while falling far behind in performance compared with other developed nations, we’re introduced to two central characters: One is real-life superhero Geoffrey Canada, founder of the Harlem Children’s Zone, who proclaims that while he was studying at Harvard, he figured it would take two, maybe three, years to fix education in the United States. That was over three decades ago. The other is D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, whose portrayal leaves little question as to why she is just as despised as she is revered. Often coming off more heartless than passionate, we see Rhee terminating a principal and displaying contempt for union leadership uninterested in bargaining with her.

If Canada is the visionary, Rhee is the Donald Trump-esque executive ready and willing to yell “you’re fired” when she doesn’t see optimal results. Together, the dynamic --and controversial—duo are the quasi-leaders of the new education reform movement in love with charter schools and convinced that a flawed system, with its rubber rooms and unearned tenure, is to blame for the majority of our students’ woes. That explanation oversimplifies things, of course. But the film does leave you wondering why traditional public schools aren’t adopting some or all of the tactics that high-performing charters have proved effective.

A documentary about education wouldn’t be nearly as thought-provoking without hearing from students, which makes the five children featured in “Waiting for Superman” the most important characters of all. Interestingly enough, only three of them are applying to charters because their neighbor schools are failing. For Emily, an eighth grader from an affluent family, it’s because she doesn’t want to attend a high school that uses a “tracking” system. And for Nakia’s mother, the inability to afford Catholic school any longer is the reason she hopes the stars align for her daughter.

Which brings us to the most disturbing part of the movie – the lottery. Hundreds of families huddling inside gymnasiums and auditoriums to find out if their children will be the chosen ones might create great drama, but the aftermath leaves you nauseous. And while a sigh of relief comes from knowing that the children are at an advantage simply because their parents or guardians took the time to apply for charter schools, you can’t help but feel like the deck has been stacked against the ones who don’t hear their number called.

In the end, “Waiting for Superman” leaves you with eyes full of tears, a head full of questions and most importantly, a topic you can’t stop talking about. The film is by no means perfect (its greatest flaw being that of all the educators featured, not one of them is currently in a classroom) but the kind of discussion it will undoubtedly create means Guggenheim has once again done his job.

Let’s just hope the sequel has a happier ending.

Read more...