Stanford created an Ed School first. Sometimes called best in the nation. Then Stanford's Ed School created a charter school.
So far, via Eduwonk, it's not going that well. From Palo Alto News:
Three local schools land on state's 'worst' list. 'Preliminary' list includes Stanford-run charter school in East Palo Alto.
Look, it's only 3 years old. And yet. If you plot an individual charter school's performance in Years 4 to 10, it tends to look a ton like Year 3. The good emerge as good. The weak emerge as weak. There's not a ton of movement.
Here in Boston, we built a charter school first. Dayenu. Then a teacher prep program. Now we're building a boutique Ed School. Hmm.
The Stanford school paper also has a story on some seniors joining TFA. Senior Luke Henesy:
“I think the biggest challenge is going to be for all these kids to look at me, a young white teacher — who am I to look at you and say, ‘you can do this, you can go to college just like I did’, because they’re going to see a disconnect between me and them,” Henesy said. “But if it can even get one student to go from joining a gang to going to any college, then it’s going to be worth me crying every day after school or whatever it takes — literally putting every amount of blood, sweat and tears into it.”
Four interesting questions here:
1. Does our approach (charter first, Ed School later) give us a better chance to succeed than Stanford's thus far?
2. Is young Mr. Henesy correct that kids will see a massive disconnect with him based on race? Or is that really minor and he needs to get over it?
3. Exactly how much pints of actual blood (not sweat, not tears) does a typical rookie teacher have to donate?
4. Why is Duke so much cooler than Stanford? Hannah L, Diana V, Pru B-L-G, this is directed to you Cardinal(s?).