Lessons from Newark

I recently finished reading Dale Russakoff’s book The Prize: Who’s in Charge of America’s Schools?, and the hackneyed “this book should be required reading…” really, truly, without irony applies to this book.  Anyone who is involved with public education in America—educators, parents, elected officials, funders, etc.—should read this book because it has some critical lessons for all of us who are committed to improving outcomes for students, especially those in large urban school districts.  First, a little background on the book.

the prize

In 2010, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Newark mayor Cory Booker, and New Jersey governor Chris Christie announced that they were collaborating on a $100 million challenge grant to “turn around the failing Newark public schools” in Newark, N.J.  Zuckerberg provided the funds, while Christie and Booker coordinated the school systems supports to implement the “vision” of the blueprint for school reform they’d developed (Christie had to cede some control of the Newark schools back to the city because it had been under state control for many years due to low performance on state tests).  The announcement—made on Oprahwas met with great fanfare and a promise that this commitment would “change the paradigm” for students in Newark and serve as a model for other districts around the country.

Half a decade later, the Newark public schools are by nearly all measures no better off as a result of this grant and blueprint.  Russakoff’s book follows Zuckerberg, Booker, and Christie through the years after the big announcement, and she also chronicles the efforts of the schools superintendent they hired, Cami Anderson, as well as many teachers and students in Newark’s schools.

Near the end of the book, Russakoff writes that we must “put the real needs of children at the center of the national conversation about education reform, which in its ideological divisiveness is in danger of leaving them behind.”  It’s one of the clearest lessons from the Newark story, one of many the book holds.  Here are three other points I felt the stories in The Prize strongly underscored:

1) Letting non-educators design and own the process of school change is a bad idea: Booker and Christie initiated, developed, and set expectations for the school change process in Newark.  You can argue whether or not they were well intentioned in their efforts (I don’t have any reason to doubt that they were), but the results show that they were probably ill equipped for the task.  It should be common sense by now, but unfortunately, over and over again many elected officials neglect serious and meaningful involvement of actual teachers in crafting policies and plans for public education (and, no, having teachers complete a survey or forming a powerless “task force” does not count as “meaningful involvement”) and then are flummoxed when the policies don’t produce the desired results.  Educator involvement at all stages is vital to understand the problem, consider possible solutions, and set realistic and appropriate goals.  Not only that, the educators will still be there implementing the plans when most elected officials have moved on (Booker left Newark to become a senator and Christie is running for president).

2) Money is great, but there are other, less expensive ways of creating real change in schools: $100 million is a significant sum of money.  And, of course, not every school district can count on Mark Zuckerberg to grant it even a fraction of that amount.  But as the Newark story shows, lots and lots of money does not always prompt lasting change.  In part, this is because such money often causes organizations to feel empowered to hire outside “experts” to figure out what needs to be done, when, for much less money, a school or district could look inwards and use the knowledge and skills of its own to create plans for change.  Additionally, big pots of money—particularly those that come from high-profile donors—are usually given in exchange for big results.  In Newark, that meant using funds for attention-grabbing changes like creating a new teacher contract tied to test scores or opening more charter schools.  The reality, though, is that deep and lasting school change means addressing issues of poverty and teacher development and efficacy and personalized learning.  Each of those could begin to be tackled with $100 million—maybe even less—but wouldn’t be considered as “bold” even if they led to better results over the long term.

3) Knowing and engaging the full community in school change is critical: To me, this is the biggest lesson of the Newark experiment.  Time and again Russakoff recounts instances where in ways large and small the reformers in Newark slighted or ignored the views of Newark parents and teachers, most of whom had lived or taught in Newark for much longer than those brought in to enact change.  Most of the time, the reformers dismissed the need for substantial community involvement or input because they felt that Newark-ers had created and become comfortable with the status quo, and therefore, they couldn’t be counted on to have helpful opinions.  While I’m sure there were people who for political reasons or otherwise didn’t want to see change brought about, I am also fairly certain there were (and are) many long-time Newark residents who wanted (and still want) change and have some insightful ideas for approaching it.  But the reformers never went there and doomed themselves from the start.