What can we learn from the struggles of Baltimore public schools?

Dr. Andres Alonso, Baltimore City Schools CEO, has put one of the nation's worst districts on the road to success. For starters, he had to confront entrenched punitive attitudes toward kids.

Dr. Andrés Alonso, superintendent of Baltimore City Schools

Courtesy of Baltimore City Public Schools

Dr. Andrés Alonso, superintendent of Baltimore City Schools

It's been three years since Dr. Andrés Alonso took over the Baltimore City Public Schools, considered one of the worst-performing districts in the nation, and he's already becoming the stuff of legend. Yet Alonso, in town last week (Jan. 20) to speak at the Washington Policy Center's 2011 Education Breakfast, responds with smiling realism to the popular idea that his achievements in Baltimore have been Herculean.

"The baseline was remarkably low," he told his Westin hotel audience. "It's easy to pick up apples on the ground."

Indeed, when Alonso was hired as superintendent of Baltimore's largely black school district in 2007, achievement in the schools was worse than declines caused by what George W. Bush called "the soft bigotry of low expectations." It looked more like the hard bigotry of none.

Only 35 percent of Baltimore’s students received high-school diplomas the year before Alonso arrived. Proficiency levels as measured by standardized tests were in the cellar. Over nine years the district lost 25,000 students, dwindling from 106,540 in 1999 to 81,284 in 2008.

In the same period the district gained 1,000 staff, Alonso said. With costs rising despite continuing enrollment declines, "baseline aid from the state to the city had doubled.... It was clearly an organization not sustainable over time."

During the early 2000s there had been pockets of innovation that included investments by the Gates Foundation, Alonso said. These were "efforts that funders eventually pulled out of," but "breaking up large schools was one." Then in 2003, Maryland began allowing charter schools. "Charters are like Cuban restaurants," said Alonso, whose family emigrated from Cuba when he was 12. "Some you don't want to go back in there again." Still, a few new ideas had been seeded, and when Alonso arrived from New York City, where he had been deputy to schools chancellor Joel Klein, he factored them into the major steps he took in Baltimore.

A personal, passionate commitment to young people, which grew during his own early years of classroom teaching, drives Alonso’s work and gives ethical power to an administrative style that some have found uncomfortably aggressive. He said that in the weeks of conversations he held with school employees and the wider community after he was hired, he found a "huge sense of aggrievement, … everybody pointing at everybody else, especially the kids. The sense of outrage wasn't about How have we failed these kids?" but about how tough they were to teach.

Alonso said he responded to such complaints by criticizing the high rate of student suspensions the previous year — in 2006. (A Soros Institute report put that figure at 12.5 percent of Baltimore’s students; nationally, just 7 percent of students were suspended and expelled in 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Education.) "I said 'Sorry, you can't suspend the kids like that,'" and told them, "I taught classes of totally emotionally disturbed 11- and 14-year-olds." He told them he knew firsthand that there were more effective ways than suspension to correct youthful misbehavior.

However, he observed to his audience at the Westin, in the Baltimore system there was "an almost Biblical punitive culture about kids." To begin changing that culture, Alonso invited the wider community to help solve the dropout problem: "Come inside the tent and work on enrollment, on the issue of missing kids.” He persuaded several community-based organizations to “knock on doors of kids who dropped out last year."

And he said he advised the school board to "throw out [its] 40-point evaluation for their superintendent and use one: Are we keeping more kids? Everything needed to be about that conversation. Every molecule and atom in the district had to be bumping up together to do that one thing."

Still, "the kids come 'as is,'" as Alonso is fond of saying. So how could Baltimore schools change to meet the students where they were, engage them, and raise levels of academic achievement? "The work had to be about responsibility," he said. "If the conversation ever went beyond what the people in the room were going to be responsible for, it was the wrong conversation."

To give each school greater responsibility and shift resources accordingly, Alonso cut central office personnel by 34 percent. "Central office had to give up control so individual schools could respond," he said. The role of remaining central staff was redefined, from enforcing top-down compliance to providing support for the decisions made by each school.

Within the schools, the principals, who once controlled 3 percent of their budgets, were given control of 81 percent. Schools now have the authority to decide how time and money will be used as they hire and fire their own staff, tailor professional development to their needs, and develop the details of their own programs within broad state and federal parameters. In return for this autonomy, the individual schools are held accountable for student achievement. Alonso has fired three-quarters of the principals in the district.

He drove union compromises so that taking responsibility didn't mean ratcheting up personnel costs. He also closed 26 of the district’s 198 schools and opened several new ones, pushing for an array of schools with distinctive yet demanding programs, including charters, so that families would have more choices. And he led parents and other city stakeholders to define appropriate, consistent group roles for participating in district decision-making. The governing mantra for all, from superintendent and staff to students and the wider community, he said, is "no excuses."

Enrollment, graduation rates, and test scores are rising now in Baltimore, Alonso said. "I was constantly asked for the blueprint, the strategy I came in with." But "I wanted the work to emerge from the problems of the city, the opportunities of the city, and be embraced by the people who were going to implement it and were deeply embedded in those problems and opportunities."

So "there’s no playbook, and we’re not a model," said Alonso. "We are a very interesting case study for work that is deeply contextual." Part of the context in Baltimore was that 87 percent of the city's public-school students are black, in a city with a black population of only 63 percent; and 84 percent of school families are poor.

But though every district is different, Alonso said, each one can ask, "What are the two or three things you can do quickly? Then take care of the larger focus over time. Everything can’t turn on a dime, but much of the work is about maintaining a sense of moving forward." And though his schools take responsibility for results, he stressed that "there should be no people without responsibility, and no scapegoats, in the wider community."

During his visit to Washington state, Alonso met with a variety of state and local officials and appeared with former Seattle Mayor Norm Rice at the Excellent Schools Now Coalition in Olympia. Readers who want to know more about Alonso’s life and work will find articles linked to a Wikipedia entry about him.


About the Author

As part of Crosscut’s coverage of social concerns, Judy Lightfoot writes about how the region's people face challenges in a time of economic stress and diminished expectations. She often draws on her weekly one-on-one coffees with individuals sharing our public spaces who are socially isolated by homelessness or mental illness. Formerly a teacher and professor, she also writes about books, education, and the arts. Email judy.lightfoot@crosscut.com.

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Mon, Jan 24, 2:37 p.m. Inappropriate

Judy,
Great phrase: “It looked more like the hard bigotry of none.”
Another note on that story: Alonso decentralized, shifted control of school funds to principals. That, in fact, was the course of Seattle Public Schools up until about 2003. (The percentages of funding controlled at schools were almost identical to what you report for Baltimore, before and after.) Re-centralization of control began a little under Raj and as we all know has accelerated under Goodloe-Johnson, just the opposite of the Alonso program for Baltimore.
If I were to pick a favorite, it would be decentralization with a strong and clear mandatory curriculum. That you have to centralize to get curriculum “alignment” or even common curriculum is pretty much just myth peddled by administrators. You set goals (what should be taught) and manage to those expectations; there's no built-in necessity for the kind of central-office control commonly seen in education, and currently seen in Seattle. For example, if we set out a list of courses that high school students have to take within their first two years, how many people at central office do you need to insure the schools do it?
Similarly, the school board could mandate the whole CORE 24 (if there was money), allowing any course to be upgraded to its AP version, for high school students without needing any more staff "downtown."

Posted Mon, Jan 24, 4:32 p.m. Inappropriate

The mission of the school district central administration needs to be severely narrowed and re-focused. The central office should handle the district's non-academic operations such as HR, communications, facilities maintenance, capital project management, food services, and IT. It should also take care of the central planning for capacity management and enrollment. The Central Office's participation in the schools should be limited to support and quality assurance.

Support should come in the form of a few experts in each curriculum area and leadership for each of the special programs - Special Education, bilingual, advanced learning, and other assorted programs to serve specific populations.

In its quality assurance role, the district central office should be an advocate for students and confirm that each school is delivering on commitments - making sure that IEPs are followed, that struggling students are getting interventions, that advanced learners are getting appropriate challenge, etc.

The district needs to see itself as an advocate for the students and their families instead of advocates and apologists for the schools. The District should be putting pressure on schools that don't meet the needs of students - not running interference for them.

None of this requires high costs. In fact, it costs less than we are spending now for the District to interject itself in a lot of unwelcome and inappropriate ways.

Superintendent Olchefske used to talk about being "Tight on the What and Loose on the How". By that he meant that the District would rigidly insist on outcomes but would allow autonomy on methods. He was great at being loose on the how, but he needed to be tighter on the what. He failed to step in and take action when the outcomes failed miserably to meet expectations. That's what was missing and is still missing from Seattle Public Schools.

For all of their talk about accountability and for all of the money spent on "Performance Management" there is no accountability and there is no sign of any performance management. Instead, we have a lot of top-down imposed standardization.

coolpapa

Posted Mon, Jan 24, 8:47 p.m. Inappropriate

Well, look at that. A guy who isn't saying he invented ed reform. A guy willing to ask and work with unions. A guy willing to give even regular (gasp! non-charter) schools the ability to have flexibility and autonomy.

What's interesting here is he examined the culture of the bureaucracy BEFORE he made any changes. Huge and key. The Moss-Adams report here in Seattle after the Olchefske financial debacle said that if you don't change the culture of the bureaucracy, you will change nothing (no matter what other changes you make).

That is key and central to Seattle School district. Ever wonder why, in a great city with well-educated people, why our district stays stuck? Engrained, entrenched thinking.

Our Superintendent, despite her skill set and abilities, is not helping our district and, in fact, is a liability. She needs to go.

westello

Posted Tue, Jan 25, 8:49 a.m. Inappropriate

Judy,

Now we need to burn this key sentence into our collective minds.

"If the conversation ever went beyond what the people in the room were going to be responsible for, it was the wrong conversation."

Teachers and administrators have long defined the problems in our schools in such a way that they cannot solve them. The focus on testing is a smoke screen. We are doing something and accomplishing nothing.

Never have so many done so little for so few.

Posted Thu, Jan 27, 10:09 a.m. Inappropriate

Very easy to sum up:

"...the principals, who once controlled 3 percent of their budgets, were given control of 81 percent.
Alonso has fired three-quarters of the principals in the district."

Read that over until you get it.

dman

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »