House of Commons - Education and Employment

Select Committee on Education and Employment Second Report

Boston Renaissance School

Roger Harris, Principal, and colleagues

55. Members of the Sub-committee met a range of staff from Boston Renaissance School's senior management team. These included representatives of teaching, non-teaching and business development staff. Roger Harris, Principal of Boston Renaissance School, explained that charter school development in Massachusetts had arisen from dissatisfaction with standards of education in public schools, especially in areas of urban deprivation. The development of charter schools was intended to create greater school diversity which might improve standards of achievement in both charter schools and public schools. Dr Harris believed that, in Massachusetts at least, it was too early to tell if charter schools had succeeded in raising standards of achievement. He was confident that charter schools had created greater diversity within the education system, and had increased parental involvement and expectations of the education service. Dr Harris believed that there were approximately 30 for-profit companies involved with charter schools across the USA. Some adopted a standard approach to the provision of education, such as Advantage Schools, while others operated a more bespoke system reflecting local needs. He believed that Edison schools fell between these two extremes.

56. Dr Harris noted that Boston Renaissance School was a large school, but that most learning took place in smaller 'Academies'—schools within the school—ensuring that the size of the school did not deter effective learning. Each Academy was also sub-divided into 'houses', each with a lead teacher for pastoral care. This was an approach adopted by the Edison Project for all its schools Dr Harris noted that although Boston Renaissance School was a large school, demographically it was similar to other local schools. Dr Harris argued that because Boston Renaissance School was not "handicapped by collective bargaining", the school was able to offer a more flexible curriculum, a wider range of teaching styles and a longer school day and year. He noted that although the Edison Project provided a broad educational framework for its schools, this allowed for some degree of local flexibility. For instance, the previous year the school had identified weaknesses in students' mathematics achievement, and, with Edison's approval, had committed additional resources to address this issue. This had incurred significant expenditure, and had led to the school making a $72,000 loss (on a budget of $8 million), rather than a $48,000 profit as forecast.

57. Dr Harris believed that the Edison Project, as a whole, was not yet making a profit. The trustees of Boston Renaissance School had initially borrowed approximately $12 million to open the school, and they were now planning to re-finance and to extend this debt (to $28 million) to allow them to buy the school building. Dr Harris noted that Boston Renaissance School, like any other charter school, was eligible to apply for Federal education funds. This money was awarded to the State, but was passed to the school automatically.

58. Dr Harris responded to comments made to the Sub-committee earlier in the day by Dr Thomas Payzant on the proportion of students with special education needs attending charter schools. He believed that the higher proportion of SEN students in public schools was a "tribute" to the quality of SEN provision in those schools, as parents exercised their choice of schools.

59. Dr Harris was critical of the effect that the teacher unions had on educational development in Massachusetts. He believed that charter schools were a way around the unions. He believed that teaching staff actively chose charter schools because of the opportunities for change and dynamism. Teaching staff at Boston Renaissance School appreciated the curriculum training provided by the Edison Project, and felt that there was more support for teachers at Boston Renaissance School than in public schools.

[Sub-committee Members toured the school]

Mission Hill School

Dr Deborah Meier, Principal, and colleagues

60. Dr Meier explained that Mission Hill School was a public school with the City of Boston system, but that it had been given pilot school status. This meant that the school had the same freedoms as charter schools, although the salary scales for teaching staff remained the same as those at other public schools within the city. Pilot schools were a direct response to the development of charter schools, allowing a wider range of school types to be developed within the public school system. Currently, there were ten pilot schools within Boston, of which three were elementary and seven were high schools. Dr Meier explained that the differences between pilot schools and other public schools were "enormous". Pilot schools were run by the staff and the local community. For example, in the case of Mission Hill School an advisory body of members of the local community had been established.

61. Dr Meier explained that Mission Hill School was in its third year of operation, and had attracted high levels of parental support. The school was very small, with around 160 pupils, and had classes of approximately 20 students. The school was subdivided into two 'learning communities' which emphasised its small scale. Dr Meier explained the school's education philosophy was very child-centred, and she believed that the school and the local community should play a large part in defining standards of achievement. She was therefore sceptical of the State-wide development of exemplary standards such as the MCAS. At Mission Hill, the school established standards of achievement which were then moderated by an the School Board.

62. Dr Meier agreed with comments made earlier in the day that the most significant determinant of the quality of education was the quality of the teaching profession. She fundamentally disagreed with the views of Dr John Silber that teachers were generally of low quality. She felt that the tests he had applied to newly qualified teachers were designed to fail as many as possible.

[Sub-committee Members toured the school]

Northeastern University School of Education

63. Members of the Sub-committee met with faculty members of Northeastern University's school of education and other invited guests. Several speakers gave brief presentations on key issues in education. A number of points were made during the presentations, and during the informal discussion which followed. One of the issues raised was the similarity between education systems in the UK and the USA, even though the language used to describe the education systems was occasionally different and the 'timeline' of problems and possible solutions was different. It was agreed that the similarity between the two education systems meant that both countries could learn from each other. The UK Government's White Paper Excellence in Cities was highlighted, particularly for its focus on excellence and the sense of urgency that it tried to promote with regard to failing schools. The importance of not tolerating long-term school failure was stressed. One speaker emphasised the value which could arise from links between public schools and universities, citing a project sponsored by the Coca Cola Company which developed links between science teachers and scientists working in universities.

64. One speaker, the principal of a pilot school, noted that in areas of social disadvantage and deprivation the work undertaken by teachers was extremely complex, especially where students' families did not offer support. The teaching profession often expressed concern because public policy-makers often looked for simple solutions to these complex problems. She argued that there were no such simple solutions; if they did they would have been employed already. It was therefore necessary to focus on putting in place the right conditions to allow excellent teaching to flourish. Such conditions included small classes, schools having control over their budgets, meaningful engagement between students and adults, externally set standards (but not standardisation) and family support for education.

65. Another speaker argued that too many schools tried to keep parents at arm's length. Examples from the UK of schools working with parents were commended, particularly home-visiting, links with health and social services and parents' centres. It was noted that Massachusetts was following a 'standards-based' school improvement agenda, but that this was not without critics. The agenda focussed on the external setting of school improvement targets, externally validated tests and penalties if schools failed to reach their improvement targets for two years or more. Concern had been expressed in some quarters that imposing penalties on schools that did not reach their performance targets would have a detrimental effect on schools in areas of urban disadvantage. It was argued that these schools needed the best teachers, but that such school penalties would be unlikely to attract the best.

66. In a general discussion, the issue of 'standards or standardisation' was raised. It was noted that establishing clearly understood, externally validated standards of achievement for schools and students to aim for was a helpful development. This would boost parents' confidence in the public education system. Once standards were established, it was felt important to give schools freedom to manage their own work. Caution had to be exercised in developing these standards as it would be easy to fall into a standardised approach, thereby negating benefits from the standards-based reform agenda.