LETTERS - Letter to the Editor

School Administrator, April, 2000

Wagner's Principles Apply

Of the 16 articles about the future of education presented in the December issue, Tony Wagner's contribution ("Reasons to Learn in the New Village Schoolhouse") was the most concurrent with my philosophy as a superintendent of education. He offered an excellent pathway of what I believe should be the delivery system for public education.

I serve in Maricopa County, the fastest-growing county in the nation, and we are in the process of building a new "world-class" high school to open in 2001. In dealing with the various publics over programming issues at the new school, I hope to use Wagner's principles for school redesign.

His model has great potential value to our school district.

HENRY E. SCHMITT

Superintendent,

Buckeye Union High School District 201,

Buckeye, Ariz.

Entertaining Elsberry

I can't tell you how much I enjoyed Mike Elsberry's guest column ("You Know You're a Small Schools Superintendent If ...," October 1999).

As the chief school administrator of a small, rural K-8 school district with 225 students, I can certainly relate to his remarks--and easily add a few examples of my own. The only reason that I finally have time to write is that there are no teachers or students in school today due to the statewide teachers convention in Atlantic City.

BARBARA DEMORE

Superintendent,

Oldmans Township School District,

Pedricktown, N.J.

We Don't Undermine Morale

In his article "Prepackaged School Reform" (January 2000), Jay Mathews poses a dilemma. Success for All and Direct Instruction use carefully structured, prescriptive methods to ensure that every child learns to read. A huge body of research says they work, yet many educators are concerned the structure of these programs inhibits creativity and undermines teachers' morale.

The article, like many before it, starts with the assumption that high structure equals low morale. But did anyone ask the actual teachers? Mathews did, and the teachers he talked to were quite supportive. It was college professors, not teachers, who were critical.

In our Success for All program we go to great lengths to make certain teachers know exactly what the program is, and then we require a vote of at least 80 percent by secret ballot. If teachers found the structure repugnant, they wouldn't vote for it. Further, three studies examined teachers' attitudes in experienced Success for All schools and found that 78 percent to 92 percent of teachers favored the program.

In San Antonio, a budget shortfall led the school administration to try to remove a number of restructuring programs unless the schools' staffs voted overwhelmingly in favor of keeping them. Across 24 schools, the vote in favor of Success for All averaged 81 percent positive; the vote for five much less structured programs in 37 schools averaged 36.5 percent positive.

Many of our critics underestimate teachers. Our experience suggests they are pragmatists who care deeply about children and will use and support programs that work, whether or not they are structured. Obviously, some teachers don't like Success for All, but plenty do. If this were not true, we would not be working with more than 45,000 teachers in 1,500 schools.

ROBERT E. SLAVIN

Co-Director,

Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk,

Johns Hopkins University,

Baltimore, Md.

Ridicule of Structured Programs

The problem with public education is illustrated perfectly in Jay Mathews' article.

Mathews, who is clearly prejudiced against prepackaged curricula despite their proven success, closes his article by demonstrating how Success for All gets its well-deserved comeuppance: A group of teachers, having no competition and therefore nothing to lose, votes against the program and instead builds its own homegrown system.

No doubt most educators loved this conclusion, but as the proprietor of an after-school reading program I can tell you this decision had more to do with the teachers' own personal preferences than with any concern for the welfare of their students.

If a private company were to select its tools according to the personal preferences of its first-line employees, it probably would go out of business quickly. Yet within the comfy confines of public education, this process is used year after year, much to the joy of everyone within the system and the distress of everyone outside. If customer preferences ruled our school system (as they do the rest of our economy), no school anywhere could afford the luxury of avoiding the use of proven methods and materials.

Your editors seem to agree with Mathews' distaste for packaged curricula. The ridiculously unflattering illustration on your cover--depicting the tragic effects of prepackaged curricula on a teacher and her students--really says it all. Too bad the picture has absolutely nothing to do with the real experience of using a successful prepackaged product.

DAVID ZIFFER

Owner, I Can Read!,

Batavia, Ill.

Class Size Is What Matters

In his generally positive discussion of Success for All, Jay Mathews overlooks a key point, even though it crept into his article in dribbles through references to "20-minute daily tutoring," "class size ... kept at about 15 students," "class sizes ... kept at about 20 students."