The Echo

Yesterday, I took DOE to task for lacking the transparency, fortitude, and courtesy to name the schools selected for the Mass Insight Partnership Zone last week as the News Journal had previously reported they would.

From today's News Journal:

"It will be sometime this summer before state officials name the Delaware schools that will be part of a vast new public-private partnership program to turn around failing schools..."

"State officials originally expected to name the participants last week, a decision they thought had to be immediate to satisfy requirements for federal Title I school improvement grants, said Dan Cruce, the state's deputy education secretary. They since have learned from the U.S. Department of Education that they do not need to name the schools before submitting the application. Delaying the decision will give them the chance to consider 2010 testing data when choosing the schools."

Delaware's DOE needs the 2010 testing data to tell them which schools are in the worst shape?  With at least eight years of DSTP data and with some schools that have been under some form of Improvement for at least seven (and into their 8th) years, DOE needs data from this year's expiring DSTP to inform their decision.  WHAT????

The Partnership Zone is a done deal.  As I previously blogged, the ink is on the contract with Mass Insight and the regs have been approved for the State Board of Education.  Whether Delaware receives Race to the Top funding or not, this state is moving schools into the Mass Insight PILOT of their Turnaround Challenge Report.  I've made it clear that I have concerns about embarking on a journey that is without proven results, when we have failed to do the most basic of interventions -- reduce class size. 

But, I accept that this is our destiny as penned by Delaware's DOE.  So, why wait?  Why play this game with parents, voters, and other stakeholders?  Why hold-out?  At the end of the day, will DOE come forward and say that the 2010 DSTP Data spared a school from Turnaround?  I highly doubt it.

What this lack of transparency exposes is that DOE is afraid of the political fall-out of Turnaround.  The models that the State Board of Ed approved are predominently pro-Charter and as drastic as closing schools.  Mass Insight continues to cite Chicago as evidence of reform that is working.  Yet, Longitudinal data out of Chicago clearly indicates that the "reforms" there were superficial and without longterm gains.

It's a nasty cycle that the education "reformers" continue to exploit to further the agenda of the Business Model of Education.  And it's time to start calling the kettle black -- Education Reform is the status quo.  We've been reforming for twenty years.  We've been infusing equalization funds into schools in high poverty zones for decades.  Mass Insight implies that they've determined a new methodology for using Title I funds - in a report to be released this month - to turn schools around. 

Yeah, I have a methodology, too.  It didn't require the Gates Foundation to fund research into it or the Broad Foundation to train me on hands-off management.  I listened to my frontline providers, my teachers, and I think they've got a pretty good idea:  Smaller Class Sizes and an infusion of supplies (technology, textbooks, training) in a whole child model that brings community services into the schools and the home for those who need it, so that we are addressing the individial needs of every child. 

Here's a Turnaround Challenge:  Give me three years, one elementary school, an infusion of "human capital" -- business jargon for teachers -- social services and smaller classes in my building, and the needed supplies and training and I'll give you turnaround.  If I fail, I won't run for office again.

Challenged?