School Expansions and Closings

The following article: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.schools17apr17,0,3746134.story describes many parents reaction to Dr. Alonso's proposed facilities plan for next year. This plan includes closing many under performing schools while expanding successful schools.

Parents from National Academy foundation were worried that absorbing the student population of an under performing Paul Lawrence Dunbar Middle School might negatively affect the school's Academic rigor. Similarly, parents from a thriving William Pinderhughes Elementary worry about absorbing the population of a struggling George Kelson Elementary/Middle.

While I certainly understand the concern of a parent for their child's education, I can't help but wonder...why can't every student have a shot at a "good" school? In a school system where most of the students are in poverty, it doesn't take much research to figure out that there are high-performing schools, and low performing schools in BCPSS. It seems that all of the spots at the high-performing are coveted: student positions, teacher positions, administrative positions. Why can' there be room for for more at these high performing schools?

In Whatever It Takes, Paul Tough describes Geoffrey Canada's philosophy of "contamination," the idea that if a large number of students and families are performing well, they will positively influence all of the other families and students in the area. Doesn't this sound a little bit like what Alonso is trying to do with his facilities plan? It certainly seems that his hope is that the culture of high performing schools will rub off on the new student population it takes on.

If you ask a student, or teacher, or administrator, or parent of a school "Why is your school high performing?" I doubt any person's first answer would be, "Because of our adequate supplies and wonderful facility." I am sure that human capital is much higher on the list than tangible materials. However, many individuals whom Alonso's plan will effect seem to be very concerned that moving buildings will be detrimental to their students' achievement. They want a guarantee that their new buildings will be as well maintained as their previous school facilities. Don't we all seem a little nervous? Where is the faith in our human capital and strong school cultures? Surely facilities and supplies bear some importance, but is that what this is really all about?

It seems that we need to decide whether we truly believe in the idea of "contamination." I think that if you asked most individuals they'd tell you that they believe in Geoffrey Canada's mission and vision. But when we try to apply the same philosophy in our own system, we become apprehensive; nervous.

Nervous, however, for good reason. Whenever something new is tried, something is being gambled; something is at stake. What we are gambling in this situation is our students. What is at stake is our students' education. Perhaps our apprehension is derived from the question of whether "contamination" is simply too idealistic.

As the old proverb says "Without risk, there is little reward." Certainly Alonso's plan has it's share of risks; but it seems that if we have faith in what research has told us about this type of plan and in Alonso's vision, the rewards could be great, and not just for a "coveted" few.