Hong Kong, Ukraine, Ireland
It may be a stretch to connect
the appeal of self-governing schools to geopolitics and international events - demonstrations
in Hong Kong, bullies imposing on Ukraine, or the tragic 700-year struggle for
independence in Ireland. But all of us who wonder how public education might
look different in the future realize we must consider themes that transcend our
sector, such as the themes of power and control. And fundamental concerns: Who
has the authority? Who is responsible? Who is in charge?
You might ask, where—in our
lives, in this world – are these not central questions? Exactly.
From “What is a Charter School?”
(CDE)
“A
charter school in Colorado is a public school operated by a group of parents,
teachers and/or
community members as a semi-autonomous school of choice within a
school district…”[i]
|
We see such
concerns on the front page every day. A school person is reminded that there is
something universal in our longing to decide and not be dictated to, to be free
to control our own path without outside (and often unseen, distant) powers telling
us what we can and cannot do, who we can or cannot become.
And, inevitably, such beliefs lead
to a related theme: the longing for independence. For self-governance.
A school person follows the news
from Hong-Kong with particular interest. The protesters fight for what
schools inside large districts wish for – the ability to manage their own
affairs, to govern themselves. Demonstrators point to Beijing’s promise to
grant semi-autonomy to Hong Kong; schools point to such assurances as: “DPS believes that
those closest to students – families and school leaders – know what’s best for
their students academically, socially and emotionally….”[ii]
In reality, though, we see the bully in Beijing or the nice folks at the
central office operate in ways that asserts that they are in charge.
No wonder we identify with the confrontation in Hong Kong these days. (For
anyone interested, Addendum A presents a number of news stories from this
past year, where I see a parallel.)
A school person sees the news
from Ukraine in a similar light. A country that only gained independence
in 1992 struggles to stand up to the bully—even if it is less clear, these
days, who that bully is. Most lethal, of course, are the Russian soldiers who
moved into eastern Ukraine, an incursion, a threat to its sovereignty. But now
we add a White House asking favors. We cheer for the little guy in his fight to
control his own destiny, while Big Powers merely seek their own advantage.
A school person visits Ireland,
as I was lucky to do in September, and sees another David vs. Goliath story. A
country invaded and stomped on by its English neighbor for roughly 700 years. We
collect stories from 100 years ago, the fight for independence—finally
achieved in 1922. Listening to family histories, we sense that the resentment towards
and mistrust of their one-time English landlords survives. We are told Eire’s
new generation, though, does not carry this bitterness. Perhaps true as well,
we wonder, for our young teachers. Unlike the veteran staff so often disillusioned
by the central office, cynical about the district’s profession that it will
“step back” and grant real authority to the principal, perhaps the “rookies” imagine
that it is a new day. Naïve (or optimistic enough) to believe the district is
sincere in affirming that it truly does see “The School as the Unit of Change”
(Boasberg, 2016[iii]).
Such analogies fall apart if this
sounds like we see the central office as cruel or tyrannical. This is not my intent.
Not at all. But they apply, do they not, if we are talking about control,
power, and independence?
How many of us have taught inside
a system of 50 or 100 or 200 schools and wondered why the district office presumes
to know best? Why can’t it realize that even the simple phrase, “district-run
schools” (the term DPS applies to over 130 schools[iv])
is absurd. Those of us here in our building, we “run” this school, thank you
very much, not those of you off at the central office, miles away. We feel
anger and distrust when people who are not in classrooms, who in some cases we
suspect were eager to leave the day-to-day work with students (and garner
a higher-paying district position), speak to us as underlings.
It is especially infuriating when
we watch our principal and school administration hesitate to act, unnerved by
the sense that the district still holds the levers of power. It still plays Big
Brother. It still believes it does indeed “run” our school. A sure way to
cripple school leadership.
Last summer in AV #196 I looked
back 30 years: “SELF-GOVERNING SCHOOLS” IN COLORADO –
Nearly 14% of our K-12 enrollment. This was the
language back then—at the 1989
Keystone Conference—before our first charter schools opened in 1993. Some
interpret the entire movement as a modest desire for greater flexibility
from state and district requirements, a mild reform that grants principals and
schools more control of whom they hire, which curriculum to use, and how money
is spent.
This understates the conviction
many of us have about where control, in our public education system, belongs. It
fails to take into account how strongly many educators want to take the responsibility
for what happens in our buildings. We are embarrassed by the way public
education seems inhabited by finger-pointers: the oft-repeated, “They (the central
office, the state, the federal government) made me do this.” We do not want
to blame, or defer to, them. We do not want to be looking over our
shoulder wondering if this is OK with the district. Don’t you see? It is this very
model we seek to disrupt.
Much as—and this is why the
analogy seems apt for a number of us—people in Hong Kong, or Ukraine, or
Ireland, who believe they have every right to operate as an independent nation
or entity, are unwilling to submit to rulers in Beijing, or Moscow, or
Washington, or across the Irish Sea.
Leave us alone, they say. As do
we.
A school person thinks a district
should have other priorities (buses, choice, food, etc.). In our building we will
follow the law; we want to be accountable for how we spend taxpayer money; we fully
agree to address the state standards in our classes. But we insist on our
freedom to create and/or choose our curriculum, how we engage our
students, how we evaluate our teachers and staff. Don’t intrude
where it is not your business, we want to say. It may sound huffy, or
disrespectful, but we are doing the real work of teaching students, true? We
know them, their parents, and this community as you do not, over there, across
town. So yes, grant us the authority—and the autonomy—to own our
success, or failure.
The self-governing school model is
hardly new. In public education, the prime example is the 26-year old charter
school design. In private education, we call them independent schools;
I went to one such school (founded 1797), taught in another (founded 1814). Those
of us who argue for self-governance believe two centuries should be sufficient proof
that this model works. And that such schools can be … no, must
be, accountable to their students and families, if they are to survive. The
charter movement (see Addendum B—"Autonomy and Accountability go
together”) believes public schools can do likewise.
Addendum A - 2019 articles on Hong Kong, where a school person says: I identify with
that!
(All bold mine)
Note 10
references on these pages to:
autonomy, semi-autonomy, autonomous
|
Jan
January 19, 2019
“Anti-anthem protests in Hong Kong – Tuning out,” The Economist
“… many Hong Kongers concluded that what
China meant by ‘one country, two systems’ was really just one country,
with the Communist Party in charge of it and with Hong Kong enjoying only a
semblance of the ‘high degree of autonomy’ that China promised it could
have for at least 50 years after Britain’s withdrawal.”
“…calls have been growing for Hong Kong to
be granted greater autonomy from China, if not outright independence….
In response, China has become more paranoid, directing Hong Kong’s pliant
officials to nip any sign of separatism in the bud…
“A survey by the University of Hong Kong
found that in May 54% of respondents lacked confidence in ‘one country, two
systems’—a near-record high. At the time of the handover fewer than one in five
had misgivings about the idea. Over the same period those who expressed
distrust in the central government rose from fewer than a third to nearly
half of those surveyed.”
Feb.
23, 2019
“Hong
Kong and its region – At Bay,” The Economist
Geopolitics:
autocracy and intervention from on high vs. autonomy and freedom for the
people.
|
“… China unveiled a long-awaited master
blueprint for the Greater Bay Are (GBA) … Some have a bigger worry [about this
plan]. [Hong Kong’s] long-standing strength, points out Alvin Yeung, the leader
of the pro-democracy Civic Party, is in being ‘not just an ordinary Chinese city.’
Hong Kong is
permitted
high degree of autonomy until 2047…. Yet by tying the city ever
closer to the mainland, Mr. Yeung fears that the GBA may end up costing
Hong Kong its special status.”
June
15, 2019
“Hong
Kong – Huge demonstrations have rattled the territory’s government – and the
leadership in Beijing,” The Economist – Leader
“Hong Kong’s government … has said that only extradition requests
made by China’s highest judicial officials will be considered. But the decision
will fall to Hong Kong’s chief executive. That person, currently Carrie Lam, is
chosen by party loyalists in Hong Kong and answers to the party in Beijing.
Local courts will have little room to object. The bill could throttle Hong
Kong’s freedoms by raising the possibility that the party’s critics could
be bundled over the border.”
June
16, 2019
“Hong
Kong extradition bill: Protesters return to streets despite suspension,” BBC News
“Is Hong Kong part of China?”
“Hong
Kong was a British colony from 1841, when China ceded the island to the British
after the First Opium War …. It remained a colony until sovereignty was
returned to China in 1997.
“It
is now part of China under a ‘one country, two systems’ principle, which
ensures that it keeps its own judicial independence, its own legislature and
economic system.
“It
is what China calls a special administrative region - enjoying a great deal
of autonomy that has made it a key business and media hub in the region.
“But it
remains subject to pressure from mainland China, and Beijing remains
responsible for defence and foreign affairs.”
July
6, 2019
“Hong
Kong protests – Anti-establishment day,” The Economist
“Demonstrators should be careful what they wish for. Some veterans of the
democracy movement have privately told foreign contacts that Mrs Lam’s
resignation as chief executive is something to fear, because only the fiercest
of hardliners would be willing to take her job in the present climate. Others
worry, too, that the Liaison Office would exert more influence, pushing Hong
Kong towards more political integration with the mainland.”
Aug.
3, 2019
“Protest,
but no movement” – The Economist
“The obvious and perhaps only way to resolve
the crisis would be for China to keep its promise to let the people of Hong
Kong choose their own leaders. Dream on. The radicalisation of the protests
is, in part, a consequence of China’s strategy of persecuting more moderate
opposition leaders trying to work within the system.
“For now, China is out to define its enemies
in Hong Kong and delegitimise them. In the propaganda, Hong Kong’s quest for genuine
self-rule is being portrayed as on a par with ‘splittists’ elsewhere on
China’s fringes, in Tibet or Xinjiang.”
Aug.
4, 2019
“Greater
demands sought as Hong Kong Movement grows,” Yanan Wang, Associated Press
“When Great Britain returned Hong Kong
to China in 1997, the city was promised certain freedoms under the
framework of ‘one country, two systems,’ creating a distance between the
territory and the Communist Party-rule central government on the mainland. In recent years, however, some Hong Kong
residents have accused Beijing of chipping away at their democratic rights….”
Aug.
10, 2019
“Turmoil
in Hong Kong,” The Economist
“Yet Hong Kong remains
more important to the mainland than might at first appear, and not just as a
showcase for how China acts in a way befitting a country claiming greater
status on the world stage. The paradox is that the more autocratic the mainland
gets the more it needs Hong Kong commercially.
“China will not take
action in Hong Kong lightly: it knows how much is at stake economically and how
much its biggest firms depend on the territory, quite apart from the
reputational risk. Yet it also sees the situation spiralling into a threat
to the Communist Party itself—one that America, it believes, is trying to
exploit.”
Aug. 10-11, 2019
“China Blames US. For Hong Kong Protests,”
Wall Street Journal
“A spokesman for the
U.S. Embassy denied that Washington was behind the protests, saying that Hong
Kong demonstrations reflected residents’ concerns about eroding autonomy.”
Aug. 10-11, 2019
“Hong Kong’s Millennial Dissidents,”
Wall Street Journal, by Jillian Kay Melchior, on Nathan Law
“Still, his fellow
protesters give him reason to hope. Many are his age (26) or younger. Without
anyone telling them what to do, they spread the word about where and when to
meet, and they show up with useful supplies like water bottles and first-aid
kits. Some even tidy up the streets afterwards to prove their orderly and
law-abiding intentions. ‘It’s a leaderless movement.’ (Nathan) Law says.
‘That’s very valuable. These kinds of independent acts actually make them more
experienced in terms of having political actions.’ Sounds like excellent
preparation for self-government.”
Recurring themes:
control,
self-government, independence
|
Aug. 26, 2019
Aug. 26, 2019
“The Battle for the Soul of Hong Kong,” Time
Magazine
“‘We have to look at Hong Kong as a part
of the People’s Republic of China, which happens to be governed by the
Chinese Communist Party,’ says Christine Loh, a former legislator and Under
Secretary for the Environment. ‘That’s a reality check that many people seem
not to want to deal with.’”
“If the view from Hong Kong is one of
impending doom, the view from mainland China has been one of irritation. China is a nation of 1.4 billion people, and
Hong Kong is no longer a key portal. Its
residents are seen as spoiled and disloyal, the problem as distant and
isolated. Beijing is seasoned in dealing with what it sees as ‘troublemakers’
agitating for democratic change.”
Aug.
31, 2019
“Getting
a grip–How China might bring Hong Kong to heel without sending troops from the
mainland,” The Economist
“On
August 25th the state news agency, Xinhua, reported on a gathering
of officials to study speeches by Deng Xiaoping, the leader who devised the ‘one
country, two systems’ model, a promise to preserve Hong Kong’s
Western-style freedoms after British rule ended in 1999. That pledge of autonomy is quite
compatible with sending troops to crack skulls, Xinhua reported: Deng himself
stipulated that if Hong Kong drifted into turmoil, the central government
should intervene.”
5 references to:
freedom,
freedoms
|
Aug. 31- Sept 1, 2019
“Beijing
Moves on Hong Kong,” Wall Street Journal, editorial
“China appears to be making its
long-expected move to crush dissent in Hong Kong, with arrests of pro-democracy
lawmakers and activists and a ban on a march planned for this weekend. The
crackdown is a gamble that the public will be cowed, but it could ignite
even more resentment and protests.”
“Ms. Lam and the police claim they
want to preserve order and rule of law in Hong Kong, but they’re the ones
eroding both. If there’s more unrest this weekend and beyond, the fault lies
with Beijing and its refusal to honor its promise to Hong Kong and Britain of ‘one
country, two systems’ through 2047. The world needs to speak up for Hong Kong
and its brave freedom fighters.”
Sept.
5, 2019
“China
Is Playing a Cautious Waiting Game in Hong Kong,” Time Magazine,
Ian Bremmer
“… Xi believes he can outlast the
protesters, as China did following the Umbrella Movement five years ago. Some
will be tempted to fault Trump for refusing to side with those who demand
democracy, but it is Xi who has fueled these protests, by his refusal to allow
Lam to resign and his uncompromising approach. Many in Hong Kong believe that
Beijing means to fundamentally undermine their government. It’s clear
that Xi won’t try to persuade them otherwise.”
Sept.
11, 2019
“Protesters
defy ban, warnings,” The Washington Post
“Five years ago Beijing announced a plan for
limited democracy in the semi-autonomous territory, kicking off a 79-day
occupation of city streets that invigorated a new generation of Hong Kong
activists.
“A now-suspended plan to allow extraditions
to mainland China floated earlier this year has again awakened the sense that Hong
Kong does not control its future, and millions have taken to the streets
over the past months to protest Beijing’s creeping influence.”
Sept.
21-22, 2019
“‘You
Don’t Have to Face It Alone.’ Hong Kong Protests Propelled by Hidden Support
Network,”
Wall
Street Journal
“The U.K. returned the territory to China in
1997 under a ‘one country, two systems’ agreement that promised Hong
Kong a measure of autonomy until 2047.
Familiar concerns: “accommodation” with the larger
system; compromises “to please” the authorities; a “gradual erosion” of
autonomy and freedom.
|
“That
arrangement was challenged this year by a proposed law allowing extradition to
China… (The 50-year-old Hong Kong resident featured in the story) saw it as the
death of one country, two systems and Hong Kong’s way of life.”
Sept.
22, 2019
“Hong
Kong’s resistance offers lessons for Taiwan,” by George F. Will – Washington
Post
“During the Cold War, ‘Finlandization’
denoted the process by which a small, civilized nation could be compelled to
accommodate a large, coarse one. The fact of Taiwan refutes the theory that
such accommodation is inevitable.”
Sept. 23, 2019
“More clashes
ahead of Chinese holiday,” by Eileen
Ng - Associated Press
“HONG
KONG: Protesters and police clashed in Hong Kong for a
second straight day on Sunday, throwing the semiautonomous Chinese
territory’s business and shopping belt into chaos and sparking fears of
more ugly scenes leading up to China’s National Day holiday this week.
“Protesters say Beijing and Lam’s government
are eroding the ‘high degree of autonomy and Western-style civil
liberties promised to the former British colony when it was returned to China
in 1997.”
Sept.
27, 2019
“For
China’s Xi, the Hong Kong Crisis Is Personal - The Chinese president has
long stressed Beijing’s authority over the onetime British colony,” The Wall
Street Journal
“Privately,
some (Chinese officials) admit they failed to appreciate public anger over the
sense of gradual erosion, under Mr. Xi, of the city’s relative political
freedom.
“The Hong Kong crisis is fueling criticism
with China’s political, business and academic elite of Mr. Xi’s autocratic
leadership style, which prizes loyalty and discipline over initiative and
policy debate.”
“Mr. Xi now saw himself being locked in in a
struggle for control of Hong Kong....
Mr. Xi “visited Hong Kong in mid-2017… Then came a warning: ‘Challenging Beijing’s power,’
he said, ‘is an act that crosses the red line.’
“While
some political figures in Hong Kong accuse its government of emulating Mr. Xi’s
intolerance of dissent, others blame Beijing’s representatives in the city for
overreaching in an attempt to please the Chinese leader.”
Oct.
5, 2019
“Xi’s embrace of false history and fearsome weapons is worrying,” The
Economist, Chaguan column
“What was not inevitable was that Mr.
Xi would embrace populist, nostalgic, red-flag waving nationalism, while
glossing over the party’s terrible mistakes…. Mx Xi is not a revolutionary like
Mao, bent on dismantling the party. Rather, he is an authoritarian, obsessed
with stability, determined to assert the party’s absolute authority.”
“Unrest in Hong Kong – Crashing the
party,” The Economist (same issue of Oct. 5)
Protest against
and rejection of the China model
|
Oct. 7, 2019
“Will
Unrest in Hong Kong Spoil China’s Big Party?” Time, Laignee Barron
“But as Xi seeks to project an image of Chinese strength and unity, the
discontent in Hong Kong offers an alternative picture. ‘Under Xi Jinping,
China’s message to the world is that the China model is superior to the liberal
values and the universal suffrage practiced in the West,' says [professor Willy] Lam. But this 'is belied by the fact that in Hong Kong, the one free place in China, the
China model is being rejected.’
“The situation in Hong Kong also threatens Xi’s long-held ambition of
Chinese reunification with the self-governing island of Taiwan. Beijing
had hoped the ‘one country, two systems’ framework for semiautonomy in Hong
Kong, a former British colony, could be a model for bringing Taiwan back
into the fold after seven decades of estrangement. But as the framework has
eroded in Hong Kong, popular support for sovereignty among Taiwan’s
citizens has swelled further. ‘We will not become another Hong Kong,’ President
Tsai Ing-wen pledged in July.”
Addendum B - “Autonomy and accountability go together”*
“School autonomy and accountability: Are they
related to student performance?”
“In countries where schools have greater
autonomy over what is taught and how students are assessed, students tend
to perform better.
“The bottom line: Autonomy and
accountability go together: greater autonomy in decisions relating to
curricula, assessments and resource allocation tend to be associated with
better student performance, particularly when schools operate within a culture
of accountability.”
**
“We've tried to flip the normal district structure, so that principals
can say to us, "Here's where I need extra training for my staff. Here's
where I need advice on where to use my budget. Here's where I need some training
in my program about how we structure the schedule." In exchange for
that autonomy, the deal we've made with principals is, "You're going to be
accountable for how your kids do."
“Because of this exchange of autonomy and accountability, everyone in
the system knows that the way that you succeed is if your kids are learning… I think if you're a principal today in New
York City, you really do have the levers in your hands to shape your school in
a way that's unique.
“That sense of responsibility breeds a different kind of leader.
So, when we see hundreds of schools that have turned around in New York City
over this period, I attribute a lot of that to the fact that we found good
people and have given them the flexibility to design something that works in
their specific environment and then asked them to be accountable for what
happens as a result.”
From “Balancing Autonomy and Accountability
in School Leadership: An Interview With New York City's Shael Polakow-Suransky
- Districts Matter: Cultivating the Principals Urban Schools Need” (Oct.
2, 2012). https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/pages/balancing-autonomy-and-accountability-in-school-leadership-districts-matter-cultivating.aspx
**
“Policy gives autonomy to schools and teachers, in
exchange for accountability”
“Why? So that schools and teachers can design
the learning program to meet the unique needs of the students who enroll and
that they serve. Design decisions have to be made at the working level,
by those who know the students.
“How? Policy should give teachers and other
school staff the authority to make decisions as a group at
the school, program or department level. This is not a concept of a single
leader with full authoritative control, or an individual teacher autonomous in
their own classroom.”
**
“In a portfolio district the most important figure in
improving student achievement is the school leader. School leaders should be
given as much authority as possible to make the right decisions for their
school: choosing who is part of their teaching and administrative teams,
and having control over their budget and freedom to buy the
services their school needs. In exchange school leaders must work within their
budget and be held accountable for results.”
Endnotes
[i] The full definition reads: “A charter school in
Colorado is a public school operated by a group of parents, teachers and/or
community members as a semi-autonomous school of choice within a school
district, operating under a contract or ‘charter’ contract between the members
of the charter school community and the local board of education.” https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdechart/chintro
[iii] See the statement of Sept. 2016, by Denver’s former Superintendent
Tom Boasberg: “Equity and Empowerment – The School as the Unit of Change.” https://www.boarddocs.com/co/dpsk12/Board.nsf/files/AEH3ZQ095341/$file/DRAFT%20Theory%20of%20Action.pdf
[iv] “What is a district-run traditional school?”
“District-run traditional
schools are public schools that are directly run and overseen by the
district.”
[DPS lists 95 of these
schools. Only 36 of the 95 rated Distinguished or Meets Expectations, so
three-fifths of these schools are on Academic Watch, Academic Priority Watch,
or Academic Probation. If these are “district-run” schools, what does that say
about DPS?]
“What is a
district-run innovation school?”
“District-run innovation
schools are district-managed public schools with a strategic plan that allows
waivers to specific district policies, state statutes, and collective
bargaining agreements with the goal of improving student outcomes and executing
with excellence a specific model.”
[DPS lists 40 of these
schools. Only 10 of the 40 are rated Distinguished or Meets Expectations, so
three-fourths are of these schools are on Academic Watch, Academic Priority
Watch, or Academic Probation. Same question as above. If you “run” it, are you
responsible for its low performance? But by what definition can we say that the
district office “runs” almost 140 schools?]
No comments:
Post a Comment