Genuine
innovation is often only recognized in hindsight. The media eventually
notice the results and declare them to be innovation at work.

Although
not yet widely noticed, Somerville's school system is becoming one of
the more innovative in the nation. But not so long ago it was producing
extraordinary and widely noticed results that, in hindsight, were an
illusion. And the "innovation" behind that illusion, while in plain
sight, went unnoticed.

Standard and Poors are the folks who
placed high credit ratings on CDOs, those worthless bundles of home
mortgages that tanked last year. Under contract with the Gates
Foundation, they also developed a scale for evaluating schools and
school systems on "gain score." That's how students' performance on
standardized tests improves or worsens between grades, particularly
between the seventh and tenth grades.

During the Argenziano
administration, Somerville Public Schools had the highest gain scores
in the Commonwealth, and among the highest in the nation. Even more
noteworthy, this occurred as Somerville's school population was
decreasing, while the number of immigrant children for whom English was
a second language was increasing.

Without questioning what lay
behind such a remarkable accomplishment, many city officials took
pleasure in boasting about it. What lay behind it was this: a little
under 100 sophomores who took the test had received an entire year of
"test preparation" by having been held back in the ninth grade for a
year. As the proportion of bilingual and special needs students
entering the ninth grade had increased, more freshmen failed to meet
the high school's standards for promotion to the tenth grade. They were
required to repeat the year. So the ninth-grade population grew to be
25% more that that of the other grades.

One consequence was
that those tenth graders taking the test who had taken the same classes
twice boosted the average gain score. There were other consequences as
well. Kids held back were separated from a supportive network of peers
and friends, but received no focused help from teachers, tutors, or
parents. Feeling isolated, often persuaded that they were stupid, more
kids dropped out. Another consequence was that putting 100 kids through
an extra year of school cost about $1.5 million per year.

The
greatest consequence, however, was that the causes for students'
learning difficulties were never identified and dealt with. When asked
about the high retention rate, a former School Committee member said
that, "you can't blame the schools if the kids don't test well,"
expressing the general attitude of many school officials.

The
most common explanation offered for the high retention rate was to
blame the kids and their parents. Preoccupied with survival concerns,
disproportionately poor, immigrant, or parents of kids with real
learning disabilities, they were in scant position to argue back.

The
blamers didn't ask what problems the schools themselves could cure. Or
how they should adjust the curriculum to more effectively educate the
changing population. Or how to provide better guidance. Or which
elementary schools most needed help in preparing their students for
ninth grade. But why ask questions when you have the highest gain
scores in the state?

Grade retention was justified with
arguments against "social promotion." Indeed, promoting students who
have not learned the fundamentals in order to keep them with their
social peers sets them up for continued failure and produces illiterate
graduates. But there are alternatives other than obligating them to
repeat the same experience that didn't work the first time.

In
Chicago, where Obama's Secretary of Education made his name, school
leaders realized decades ago that retaining kids year-to-year was
tantamount to giving up on those who most needed help. In the 1970s,
they made principals responsible for the failure or success of their
schools. Evaluating both required clear and simple grade, retention,
and dropout-rate data, and those data revealed that 90% of middle
school students who were held back with poor grades didn't graduate
high school. If you're told you're stupid often enough, you'll begin to
believe it.

Back in Somerville, a new Schools administration,
new high school principal, and new guidance department produced real
innovation. A straightforward "redirect" program now offers timely
tutoring, counseling, and instruction before vulnerable kids fail so
many tests that they have to repeat an entire course. It works better
for the students, their families, their schools, and the taxpayers.

In
the next few columns we'll look at how it's often housing, economics,
law enforcement, health, and their chaotic interaction that undermine
school improvement, rather than factors that can be directly controlled
by schools themselves. We'll consider how teachers' unions are
educationally more progressive than self-described Progressives. And
we'll examine how Somerville schools are meeting challenges that
confound public educators throughout the nation by creating innovations
that remain invisible, unless one pays attention.