Can we expect kids living in impoverished central cities to have the same levels of educational success as other kids?<\/p>\n
\u201cYou betcha,\u201d answered Michael Casserly.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m reluctant to reduce three hours of insightful conversation about urban education to two words, but more than a week later, that phrase is among several that sticks with me from \u201cLessons from Elsewhere: What Milwaukee Can Learn from Work on Improving Urban Education Systems Nationwide,\u201d a conference at Eckstein Hall sponsored by Marquette Law School and Marquette College of Education.<\/p>\n
Nobody among the speakers nor in the audience minimized the challenges of raising the overall achievement in schools in Milwaukee. But there was a widespread feeling of commitment to taking on the job, and even some optimism that it can be done.<\/p>\n
Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a Washington-based coalition of leaders of urban systems, amplified on his confidence that low income kids can succeed. \u201cJust because a kid is poor doesn\u2019t mean that that kid can\u2019t learn. What it means is that we have to do things different, more intensely, maybe over longer periods of time,\u201d he told the Law School\u2019s Mike Gousha, who moderated the conversation. Casserly said one reason urban district leaders are big proponents of the Common Core learning standards movement is that it sets high standards for everybody, no matter what their background.<\/p>\n
Overall, Casserly said he\u2019s more optimistic now than at any point in his past. There are districts making significant improvements, he said, and understanding is increasing of why they are improving and how to get better results more broadly. \u201cI know the public perception of urban schools often is that we\u2019re a hopeless basket case, . . . but the truth of the matter is that across the country, urban public schools are often the sites of some of the most interesting reforms and innovations going on any place in public education across the nation,\u201d he said. He mentioned Boston, Los Angeles, Atlanta (even with its cheating scandal), and Denver as places where improvement was clear. Education programs in such places had clear, rigorous goals, well-executed programs for development of teachers and teaching practices, and persistent, high-quality leadership, among other traits.<\/p>\n
Asked by Gousha whether people should be patient or impatient with efforts to raise student success in Milwaukee, Casserly said the need is to be \u201cimpatiently patient.\u201d While tackling needs with urgency, people need to understand change doesn\u2019t come quickly, he said. Often, people cut off good steps because they get too impatient. \u201cWe can\u2019t keep swapping out our leadership all the time, we can\u2019t keep changing up our theory of action all the time, and expect that we\u2019re going to get long term progress,\u201d Casserly said.<\/p>\n
Paul Hill, founder of the Center for Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington Bothell, was not as optimistic as Casserly about the overall urban education picture. \u201cWe still don\u2019t know how to solve this problem, although we\u2019re working at it and there are hints,\u201d he said in a conversation that I moderated. Hill is a leading figure in the charter school movement and in advocating for \u201cportfolio\u201d school management. In a portfolio system, an overall authority allows a wide range of schools to operate, while aiming to constantly weed out low quality schools and encourage high quality schools.<\/p>\n
In Milwaukee, Hill suggested, each major stream of schools \u2013 MPS, charter schools, and private voucher schools \u2013 \u201cis staying in its lane\u201d and defending itself. \u201cWhat we\u2019ve gotten to is a very slightly higher equilibrium than we had before, but there is no mechanism to drive this continuous improvement,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Nationwide, Hill said, \u201cthere\u2019s not enough continual search for something better. Unless we do that, we\u2019re not going to get the problem solved.\u201d For Milwaukee, he urged MPS to give more opportunities to people sufficient autonomy to build good schools, the charter sector to get \u201cmuch more self-critical\u201d and to prune low-performing charters, and the voucher sector to reduce the number of participating schools, with a priority on quality control.<\/p>\n
Casserly\u2019s \u201dyou betcha\u201d wasn\u2019t the only short phrase from the conference that stuck with me. Three other quotes formed an important subtext. In opening remarks for a panel discussion he moderated, Dean Bill Henk of the College of Education said that the audience was a who\u2019s who of Milwaukee education. \u201cThis is like a family reunion,\u201d Henk said.<\/p>\n
But panelist Larry Miller, a member of the Milwaukee School Board, said that, while some might see a family, \u201cI might see the Hatfields and McCoys.\u201d He strongly criticized those working on education efforts outside of the Milwaukee Public Schools system. When an audience member said that she was concerned about how angry he seemed, Miller replied. \u201cI don\u2019t mean to disappoint you, but I am angry.\u201d<\/p>\n
Nata Abbott, community relations director of GE Healthcare, said as the discussion closed that she had been taught years ago in training by GE that \u201cyou can only move at the speed of trust.\u201d While there were signs of broad willingness among those at the event on working together on Milwaukee\u2019s education needs, Miller\u2019s comments left many wondering what the speed of trust could be here.<\/p>\n