| "Make" vs. "Buy" |
6/10/04 7:39 AM |
| Author:
|
 |
Dr. Hassel raises an important question.
In the past week, I've been talking to quite a few (about forty so far) directors of Minnesota Charter Schools about their use of consultants, including in the start-up period. The stories they've been sharing have been at once cautionary and encouraging, especially in regards to the start-up phase.
Some of the most interesting concerns involve the fear of schools being taken advantage of. There are firms that offer services that are both too expensive and not anything that the school couldn't do in-house. There are firms that offer help but do things poorly. Dr. Hassel's question, "[how do] Parent and community groups [become] good 'buyers'"? is important. One director of a school with a very unique curriculum (developed by the school's founder — a former school administrator — and an acquaintance of his - a former professor of curriculum at a prestigious university) offered the advice of perhaps finding an 'ombudsperson' — someone who could act as a filter for consultants; someone with a good 'nose' for the poor ones. Other recommendations echo those precautions suggested by Dr Hassel.
What I see as some of the beauty of the Charter School Movement is the possibility for different educational models. A 'school without walls,' as described in a discussion from yesterday (sorry for forgetting by whom), would be in need of its own pedagogy developed independently. I think the idea of creating franchise schools — finding a successful school and trying to duplicate it — is perhaps doomed to failure. This, I think, could be demonstrated by the wave of so-called Free Schools in the sixties, I believe. AS Neill's Summerhill School, which continues to operate today, was a model for a new education. And it was lifted more or less verbatim to the US, where many of the Free Schools failed after a few years. What drove this failure, I think, is the lack of a unique spark. The Albany Free School (which I think could be loosely based on the philosophy behind Summerhill) is still running today — perhaps because it had some unique features like the community involvement.
I think that it is that 'spark' that will define which charter schools are successful, in combination, of course, with a good model and enough financial and community support. And where can that spark come from other than from the founders and those involved in the running of the school? I'm not sure I can see a school working well and having that 'spark' without the very active involvement of the founders of and participants in the school. I, for one, would have loved to attend a school like the Minnesota New Country School, but I'm not sure that duplicating it is the way to bring quality schools to more people.
Posted as a reply to:
"Make" vs. "Buy" by Bryan Hassel 
|
|
