Special Ed, Not For Profit
In the wake of yesterday’s post about Educational Services of America, a Nashville-based for-profit company and the issues raised—-who most “profits” when a private entity owns and operates schools for special needs children—is this post, about a public school that works. The Anthony Carnevale Elementary School in Providence, Rhode Island, has four autism classsrooms, and its student population is 64 percent Hispanic; 24 percent of the students receive special education services, and some 25 percent receive English as a Second Language services. A September 9th column attributes the school’s success in large part to the extent to which the students’, and the staff’s, families work in “partnership” with the district and with each other:
Academically, Carnevale is outperforming almost all other Rhode Island schools with similar demographics, and the staff puts that success squarely on the partnership they’ve forged with the kids’ families. Yes, they have a long list of academic initiatives they’re also proud of, but “family” is the word they use repeatedly.
Carnevale opened the doors of its shiny new building five years ago. Because the school had no faculty or history of “it’s-always-been-done-this-way,” the newly assembled staff members were empowered to be “site managed,” which means they make their own decisions on most issues.
Providence schools generally can make few decisions and instead follow the dictates of “downtown.” Self-managed schools must meet the district and state academic goals, but how they accomplish those goals is up to them. When these faculties cohere as teams, site-based management brings out the best in everyone. So instead of being hired according to seniority rules, the Carnevale teachers were interviewed and selected to form a like-minded team responsible for creating a high-performing urban school.
The ability to make decisions at a “local” level—at the school itself, rather than by administrators whose offices, and understanding of the situation, are distant—is also shown to be key to the Carnevale School’s achievements.
I am only going by what is said about the Carnevale School in Providence, Rhode Island, in a September 9th column by former Providence school board member Julie Steiny. Nonetheless, if the two factors highlighted here—regular and equal family involvement and input, and allowing decisions about the school to be made by teachers who actually teach the students——are potential ingredients for school and for student success, one has to wonder even more about the sort of education offered by a company like ESA whose website specifies that it is “the nation’s leading provider of K-12 and post-secondary alternative and special education prorgrams.” What does “leading” mean here and where is the evidence?
4 opinions for Special Ed, Not For Profit
amy
Sep 9, 2007 at 2:53 pm
:) after this I’m going outside –
“Leading” probably means “biggest by some financial or headcount number”. But I bet they’ll tell you if you ask. Actually it’d be interesting if you introduced yourself as the author of this blog and requested tours and/or info on how ESA works with schools on taking care of the legal end of shifting students to them. Just to see what kind of reaction you’d get.
Let’s see, Providence…it’d be interesting to see Bessette in action. Providence is a notoriously corrupt city with a strong blue-collar/union/graft culture. Big gap between haves and have-nots. It’s absolutely true that the family outreach — and drag-in — is important there because frankly so much is broken. You get a lot done by forming a ring around the kids, and it’s not that easy to do. One advantage they have is that people there have a strong sense of loyalty and respect authority, esp. when authority takes care of them. Family culture is still unusually strong there, too, generations living close. Not true of everyone, of course, but true of a lot.
Maybe the message is not so much “follow the Carnevale model” — it’s no accident, for example, that Steiny keeps talking about Mom, because Prov is by no means a feminist environment — but “use local assets, whatever they may be.”
And if you do that, again, maybe you shrink the market for outsiders. But before deciding ESA is bad — and bad, especially, relative to district efforts — maybe you ought to take a closer look, Kristina. It may be a complicated story.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Sep 9, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I think a lot is hidden between the lines in this article about the RI school (the article is by a former school board member) and also about ESA.
joycemocha
Sep 9, 2007 at 8:36 pm
I see several important factors in the original story.
1.) The school is considered to be a self-managed school. Don’t underestimate that factor, because if you have a good staff team, then management on the local level without interference from bureaucracy is effective.
2.) The school culture is about family and school pride. An inclusive school culture is important.
3.) (and most important in my book) they have an absolute gem of a principal.
Without a good administrator, a school is sunk. Period. That’s my experience as both parent and professional.
Liz D.
Sep 11, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Public or private, my experience in schools echo’s Joycemocha’s. A successful school needs a strong mission, and strong leadership to ensure that there’s no “mission drift” or expediency.
Small world department: Julia Steiny was a year ahead of me in a small California high school that did have a strong mission. And mostly strong leadership. I’ve been reading her stuff for years–she doesn’t hesitate to chop public schools down if they aren’t doing the job.
And, as I wrote earlier (and elsewhere on my own blog) I am deeply suspicious of the long-term success of for-profit schools of any kind.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: