Jan Resseger: What Is White Christian Nationalism?
28 minutes ago
Youths Charged After Suicide of Bullied Students
From The Associated Press
Northampton, Mass.
Insults and threats followed 15-year-old Phoebe Prince almost from her first day at South Hadley High School, targeting the Irish immigrant in the halls, library and in vicious cell phone text messages.
Phoebe, ostracized for having a brief relationship with a popular boy, reached her breaking point and hanged herself after one particularly hellish day in January — a day that, according to officials, included being hounded with slurs and pelted with a beverage container as she walked home from school.
Now, nine teenagers face charges in what a prosecutor called "unrelenting" bullying, including two teen boys charged with statutory rape and a clique of girls charged with stalking, criminal harassment and violating Phoebe's civil rights.
School officials won't be charged, even though authorities say they knew about the bullying and that Phoebe's mother brought her concerns to at least two of them.
Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel, who announced the charges Monday, said the events before Phoebe's death on Jan. 14 were "the culmination of a nearly three-month campaign of verbally assaultive behavior and threats of physical harm" widely known among the student body.
"The investigation revealed relentless activity directed toward Phoebe, designed to humiliate her and to make it impossible for her to remain at school," Scheibel said. "The bullying, for her, became intolerable."
Scheibel said the case is still under investigation and that one other person could be charged. It wasn't immediately known Monday whether the teens who have been charged have attorneys.
Scheibel said the harassment began in September, occurring primarily in school and in person, although some of it surfaced on Facebook and in other electronic forms. At least four students and two faculty members intervened to try to stop it or report it to administrators, she said.
Schiebel refused to discuss the circumstances of the rape charges.
No school officials are being charged because they had "a lack of understanding of harassment associated with teen dating relationships," and the school's code of conduct was interpreted and enforced in an "inconsistent" way, Scheibel said.
"Nevertheless, the actions — or inactions — of some adults at the school are troublesome," she said.
A message seeking comment was left Monday for South Hadley Schools Superintendent Gus A. Sayer.
Phoebe was born in Bedford, England, and moved to County Clare, Ireland, when she was 2. She moved last summer to South Hadley, home to Mount Holyoke College, because the family had relatives there.
Her family has since moved away and could not immediately be located for comment. Scheibel spoke for them at a news conference to announce the charges.
"The Prince family has asked that the public refrain from vigilantism in favor of allowing the judicial system an opportunity to provide a measure of justice for Phoebe," she said.
Some students accused of participating in the bullying have been disciplined by the school and will not be returning to classes.
The Massachusetts Legislature cited Prince's death and the apparent suicide of 11-year-old Carl Walker-Hoover of Springfield last year when members passed anti-bullying legislation earlier this month.
From The Associated Press
Northampton, Mass.
Insults and threats followed 15-year-old Phoebe Prince almost from her first day at South Hadley High School, targeting the Irish immigrant in the halls, library and in vicious cell phone text messages.
Phoebe, ostracized for having a brief relationship with a popular boy, reached her breaking point and hanged herself after one particularly hellish day in January — a day that, according to officials, included being hounded with slurs and pelted with a beverage container as she walked home from school.
Now, nine teenagers face charges in what a prosecutor called "unrelenting" bullying, including two teen boys charged with statutory rape and a clique of girls charged with stalking, criminal harassment and violating Phoebe's civil rights.
School officials won't be charged, even though authorities say they knew about the bullying and that Phoebe's mother brought her concerns to at least two of them.
Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel, who announced the charges Monday, said the events before Phoebe's death on Jan. 14 were "the culmination of a nearly three-month campaign of verbally assaultive behavior and threats of physical harm" widely known among the student body.
"The investigation revealed relentless activity directed toward Phoebe, designed to humiliate her and to make it impossible for her to remain at school," Scheibel said. "The bullying, for her, became intolerable."
Scheibel said the case is still under investigation and that one other person could be charged. It wasn't immediately known Monday whether the teens who have been charged have attorneys.
Scheibel said the harassment began in September, occurring primarily in school and in person, although some of it surfaced on Facebook and in other electronic forms. At least four students and two faculty members intervened to try to stop it or report it to administrators, she said.
Schiebel refused to discuss the circumstances of the rape charges.
No school officials are being charged because they had "a lack of understanding of harassment associated with teen dating relationships," and the school's code of conduct was interpreted and enforced in an "inconsistent" way, Scheibel said.
"Nevertheless, the actions — or inactions — of some adults at the school are troublesome," she said.
A message seeking comment was left Monday for South Hadley Schools Superintendent Gus A. Sayer.
Phoebe was born in Bedford, England, and moved to County Clare, Ireland, when she was 2. She moved last summer to South Hadley, home to Mount Holyoke College, because the family had relatives there.
Her family has since moved away and could not immediately be located for comment. Scheibel spoke for them at a news conference to announce the charges.
"The Prince family has asked that the public refrain from vigilantism in favor of allowing the judicial system an opportunity to provide a measure of justice for Phoebe," she said.
Some students accused of participating in the bullying have been disciplined by the school and will not be returning to classes.
The Massachusetts Legislature cited Prince's death and the apparent suicide of 11-year-old Carl Walker-Hoover of Springfield last year when members passed anti-bullying legislation earlier this month.
Category:
Bullying,
Code of Conduct,
Delaware,
Facebook,
Olweus
0
comments
From Edweek.org
Local Buy-In Helps Two States Win Race to Top
By Michele McNeil and Lesli A. Maxwell
Use the link to read the full story.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/29/28stim-rtt.h29.html?tkn=SWLFMzM5%2BpaVl0dId5ulHQHREb2GEv9aJ7AY&cmp=clp-edweek#comments
Local Buy-In Helps Two States Win Race to Top
By Michele McNeil and Lesli A. Maxwell
Use the link to read the full story.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/29/28stim-rtt.h29.html?tkn=SWLFMzM5%2BpaVl0dId5ulHQHREb2GEv9aJ7AY&cmp=clp-edweek#comments
Tennessee’s Teacher Focus
Tennessee, where lawmakers passed legislation that mandates using student achievement as half of a teacher’s annual evaluation in every district, stood out for its mature “value-added” data system that has been around for nearly two decades. All of the state’s teacher-preparation programs, whether traditional, university-based ones, or nontraditional programs like Teach For America, must train their candidates in how to use the data system. Teacher candidates will have to demonstrate that they can use the system before they can be licensed.
At the behest of Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen, lawmakers held two special legislative sessions over the last year on education to enact a series of Race to the Top-related changes that included making the state’s cap on charter schools less prohibitive and overhauling teacher evaluations.
The governor, who will leave office next year because of term limits, also secured the signatures of all seven major gubernatorial candidates who vowed to back all of the changes outlined in Tennessee’s Race to the Top plan. He said in a conference call with reporters that his state clearly distinguished itself from most of the other finalists because its overhaul of teacher evaluations will be done statewide, not just in a limited number of willing school districts.
“We said at the outset it’s all or nothing,” Gov. Bredesen said. “We are past the point of demonstration projects or pilot projects.”
The governor was clearly thrilled that Tennessee, which has 846,000 students, will receive nearly all the money it asked for, which is more than twice what the Education Department had suggested as a nonbinding estimate for the state.
“We were supposed to ask for no more than $250 million,” the governor said. “We said ‘to heck with that,’ and basically we got all we asked for.”
Category:
0
comments
Let the blogging begin!
Okay, in the interest of fairness, I am posting an opinion piece that supports the Race to the Top Initiative. It's not MY opinion piece, nor do I agree with it. But, in a vaccuum, there is some logic to it.
So why disseminate it? Because if you live in a vaccuum you tend to make the same mistakes over and over again. You have to be willing view other perspectives. Certainly, we need improvement in education. We have too many children who are failing and giving up. We have too many children who do not feel challenged in their schools. And we have too many children who are simply disinterested.
I'd say what worked in my day no longer works, but as reform is the status quo, we aren't doing what worked in my day. We are far from the days of low student-teacher ratios having embraced a waiver culture. I've said it before and I will probably still be saying it on my death bed, give us teachers, text books, technology, and training and we'll give interested, prepared, and capable students.
Are the naysayers right?
By Douglas N. Harris
Who would have imagined that a Democratic president with broad support from teachers’ unions and education scholars would devise a policy as distasteful to his supporters as the No Child Left Behind Act? Yet President Barack Obama appears to have done just that with the Race to the Top initiative.
In addition to being widespread and heated, the criticism of Race to the Top has focused on an unusual topic: research. The National Education Association wrote in response to the grant competition’s regulations that “we encourage the administration to base its recommendations on research and on what works.” Scholars have been even more dismissive. The education historian Diane Ravitch writes: “What is extraordinary about these regulations is that they have no credible basis in research. They just happen to be the programs and approaches favored by the people in power.” Others point to the apparent hypocrisy of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s claims to be a data-driven reformer.
What has caused the firestorm? To receive Race to the Top funds, states must make “assurances” that they will take four steps: adopt common standards and high-quality assessments; develop and use state longitudinal-data systems; improve evaluations of teachers and principals (incorporating student-achievement scores) and use these to inform high-stakes decisions; and turn around failing schools using, for example, charter schools.
But the research-based criticism of Race to the Top is misleading in three important ways.
First, the federal government is largely limited to two types of reforms: funding and systemic reform. Race to the Top represents both. Along with the rest of the education portion of the 2009 economic-stimulus package, the program is putting more than $80 billion into K-12 public education. In exchange for the money, Race to the Top is inducing significant systemic reform—that is, changing the broad incentives that affect decisions among all stakeholders.
Systemic reforms like this, unfortunately, are hard to evaluate according to rigorous research standards for a number of reasons: (1) Systemic reforms are not adopted randomly, making it difficult to know how students would have fared in the absence of the policies; (2) systemic policies are adopted at the state and federal levels, so in a research sense there are few examples to analyze; and (3) systemic reforms, by design, change schools gradually over time, making it hard to see immediate and noticeable improvement in outcomes when reforms are introduced. For all these reasons, we still have shaky evidence even on the impact of systemic reforms implemented decades ago. Relying on evidence to justify reforms like the Race to the Top measures before they are adopted is that much harder.
"If we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something new will be better, then the status quo will reign forever."The second problem with the criticism is that basic policy analysis requires comparing policy alternatives. Is policy X better than the status quo or policy Y? Analyses of Race to the Top rarely try to answer this question, and when they do, they point to programs that have at best the same weak base of research support.
Some opponents of the federal initiative may respond by saying that I, like Secretary Duncan, am a hypocrite. I am a researcher and spend most of my time carrying out rigorous evaluations of education policies and imploring my students to keep in mind that “correlation is not causation.” How can I then appear to defend policies that are not supported by research that meets those same rigorous standards?
The answer is simple: Researchers and policymakers have different jobs. Researchers should be very cautious about concluding that policy X is better than policy Y. But policymakers do not have that luxury; they make decisions every day, implicitly or otherwise, about whether to stay the course or make changes. These decisions should be based as much as possible on hard evidence, but given the difficulty of evaluating systemic reforms, the possibilities are somewhat limited.
Consider the evidence around Race to the Top. I agree with critics that there is little rigorous evidence showing that common standards and assessments, improved data systems, better educator evaluation (and using the results for merit pay), or school turnaround efforts will improve student outcomes. Charter schools represent a partial exception, because they’ve been the subject of hundreds of studies, some rigorous.
The problem is that the results on charters are mixed. On the one hand, they seem about the same as regular public schools in generating achievement and do little to increase competition among public schools. On the other hand, they are less costly and, as one recent study concludes, attending a charter school increases the likelihood of high school graduation and college attendance.
Does this lack of rigorous research supporting Race to the Top mean policymakers should stay the course and keep searching for a “proven” alternative? The answer depends on which side has the burden of proof. If we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something new will be better, then the status quo will reign forever—again, we cannot easily prove that any systemic reform will be effective.
One thing we can do, however, is show convincingly that the current system does not meet our needs. And there is growing evidence that if we are going to remain economically competitive and equitable, we need to change our education system. We are not “a nation at risk,” as some would suggest, but we are a nation that could clearly do better.
There is also growing agreement that our current approach to ensuring quality teaching is flawed. What educators have long known—that teacher effectiveness varies widely—has now been confirmed by statistical evidence. Unfortunately, teacher effectiveness is only weakly related to factors like certification and degrees, which have been the bulwark of American teacher policy for more than a century. And current teacher-evaluation systems rarely do much if anything to pick up the slack. This is a huge problem, and one that the federal initiative addresses.
If not the status quo or Race to the Top, then what? The Obama administration could have put more money into the existing system. Or it could have pursued the policy that probably has the strongest research support: early-childhood education. Or it could have tried to improve general child well-being through improved health care, for example.
Do these sound familiar? They should, because the administration is already doing all of them in addition to Race to the Top. It has dramatically increased federal spending on early childhood, and on K-12 education more broadly, while universal health care is President Obama’s signature domestic-policy initiative.
The third and final problem with the criticism is that Race to the Top is more voluntary than critics have suggested. Yes, the financial crisis creates pressure for states to go along, but these funds amount to less than 1 percent of current education spending, and the money only lasts two years. So states do have a choice here, and many so far have said no by not entering the competition. It is more reasonable to demand rigorous research for policies that are required than for voluntary policy experimentation like Race to the Top.
In this respect, the problem with the administration’s policy is not the absence of rigorous research, but that evaluation seems to have been an afterthought. The Institute for Education Sciences is working hard to address that problem, but its options became limited once the Race to the Top regulations were set.
Critics might respond that, by my reasoning, we can justify almost any reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are only so many reform packages, like Race to the Top, that are based on significant and well-documented education problems and involve solutions designed with clear and reasonable rationales (and some, albeit limited, evidence) to address them. Indeed, if we held the status quo to anything like the standards critics are holding Race to the Top to, the status quo would be finished.
No doubt, Race to the Top is “favored by the people in power.” But it is much more credible than critics give it credit for.
Douglas N. Harris is an associate professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of a book on value-added measures and school performance, forthcoming from Harvard Education Press.
Okay, in the interest of fairness, I am posting an opinion piece that supports the Race to the Top Initiative. It's not MY opinion piece, nor do I agree with it. But, in a vaccuum, there is some logic to it.
So why disseminate it? Because if you live in a vaccuum you tend to make the same mistakes over and over again. You have to be willing view other perspectives. Certainly, we need improvement in education. We have too many children who are failing and giving up. We have too many children who do not feel challenged in their schools. And we have too many children who are simply disinterested.
I'd say what worked in my day no longer works, but as reform is the status quo, we aren't doing what worked in my day. We are far from the days of low student-teacher ratios having embraced a waiver culture. I've said it before and I will probably still be saying it on my death bed, give us teachers, text books, technology, and training and we'll give interested, prepared, and capable students.
Are the naysayers right?
By Douglas N. Harris
Who would have imagined that a Democratic president with broad support from teachers’ unions and education scholars would devise a policy as distasteful to his supporters as the No Child Left Behind Act? Yet President Barack Obama appears to have done just that with the Race to the Top initiative.
In addition to being widespread and heated, the criticism of Race to the Top has focused on an unusual topic: research. The National Education Association wrote in response to the grant competition’s regulations that “we encourage the administration to base its recommendations on research and on what works.” Scholars have been even more dismissive. The education historian Diane Ravitch writes: “What is extraordinary about these regulations is that they have no credible basis in research. They just happen to be the programs and approaches favored by the people in power.” Others point to the apparent hypocrisy of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s claims to be a data-driven reformer.
What has caused the firestorm? To receive Race to the Top funds, states must make “assurances” that they will take four steps: adopt common standards and high-quality assessments; develop and use state longitudinal-data systems; improve evaluations of teachers and principals (incorporating student-achievement scores) and use these to inform high-stakes decisions; and turn around failing schools using, for example, charter schools.
But the research-based criticism of Race to the Top is misleading in three important ways.
First, the federal government is largely limited to two types of reforms: funding and systemic reform. Race to the Top represents both. Along with the rest of the education portion of the 2009 economic-stimulus package, the program is putting more than $80 billion into K-12 public education. In exchange for the money, Race to the Top is inducing significant systemic reform—that is, changing the broad incentives that affect decisions among all stakeholders.
Systemic reforms like this, unfortunately, are hard to evaluate according to rigorous research standards for a number of reasons: (1) Systemic reforms are not adopted randomly, making it difficult to know how students would have fared in the absence of the policies; (2) systemic policies are adopted at the state and federal levels, so in a research sense there are few examples to analyze; and (3) systemic reforms, by design, change schools gradually over time, making it hard to see immediate and noticeable improvement in outcomes when reforms are introduced. For all these reasons, we still have shaky evidence even on the impact of systemic reforms implemented decades ago. Relying on evidence to justify reforms like the Race to the Top measures before they are adopted is that much harder.
"If we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something new will be better, then the status quo will reign forever."The second problem with the criticism is that basic policy analysis requires comparing policy alternatives. Is policy X better than the status quo or policy Y? Analyses of Race to the Top rarely try to answer this question, and when they do, they point to programs that have at best the same weak base of research support.
Some opponents of the federal initiative may respond by saying that I, like Secretary Duncan, am a hypocrite. I am a researcher and spend most of my time carrying out rigorous evaluations of education policies and imploring my students to keep in mind that “correlation is not causation.” How can I then appear to defend policies that are not supported by research that meets those same rigorous standards?
The answer is simple: Researchers and policymakers have different jobs. Researchers should be very cautious about concluding that policy X is better than policy Y. But policymakers do not have that luxury; they make decisions every day, implicitly or otherwise, about whether to stay the course or make changes. These decisions should be based as much as possible on hard evidence, but given the difficulty of evaluating systemic reforms, the possibilities are somewhat limited.
Consider the evidence around Race to the Top. I agree with critics that there is little rigorous evidence showing that common standards and assessments, improved data systems, better educator evaluation (and using the results for merit pay), or school turnaround efforts will improve student outcomes. Charter schools represent a partial exception, because they’ve been the subject of hundreds of studies, some rigorous.
The problem is that the results on charters are mixed. On the one hand, they seem about the same as regular public schools in generating achievement and do little to increase competition among public schools. On the other hand, they are less costly and, as one recent study concludes, attending a charter school increases the likelihood of high school graduation and college attendance.
Does this lack of rigorous research supporting Race to the Top mean policymakers should stay the course and keep searching for a “proven” alternative? The answer depends on which side has the burden of proof. If we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something new will be better, then the status quo will reign forever—again, we cannot easily prove that any systemic reform will be effective.
One thing we can do, however, is show convincingly that the current system does not meet our needs. And there is growing evidence that if we are going to remain economically competitive and equitable, we need to change our education system. We are not “a nation at risk,” as some would suggest, but we are a nation that could clearly do better.
There is also growing agreement that our current approach to ensuring quality teaching is flawed. What educators have long known—that teacher effectiveness varies widely—has now been confirmed by statistical evidence. Unfortunately, teacher effectiveness is only weakly related to factors like certification and degrees, which have been the bulwark of American teacher policy for more than a century. And current teacher-evaluation systems rarely do much if anything to pick up the slack. This is a huge problem, and one that the federal initiative addresses.
If not the status quo or Race to the Top, then what? The Obama administration could have put more money into the existing system. Or it could have pursued the policy that probably has the strongest research support: early-childhood education. Or it could have tried to improve general child well-being through improved health care, for example.
Do these sound familiar? They should, because the administration is already doing all of them in addition to Race to the Top. It has dramatically increased federal spending on early childhood, and on K-12 education more broadly, while universal health care is President Obama’s signature domestic-policy initiative.
The third and final problem with the criticism is that Race to the Top is more voluntary than critics have suggested. Yes, the financial crisis creates pressure for states to go along, but these funds amount to less than 1 percent of current education spending, and the money only lasts two years. So states do have a choice here, and many so far have said no by not entering the competition. It is more reasonable to demand rigorous research for policies that are required than for voluntary policy experimentation like Race to the Top.
In this respect, the problem with the administration’s policy is not the absence of rigorous research, but that evaluation seems to have been an afterthought. The Institute for Education Sciences is working hard to address that problem, but its options became limited once the Race to the Top regulations were set.
Critics might respond that, by my reasoning, we can justify almost any reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are only so many reform packages, like Race to the Top, that are based on significant and well-documented education problems and involve solutions designed with clear and reasonable rationales (and some, albeit limited, evidence) to address them. Indeed, if we held the status quo to anything like the standards critics are holding Race to the Top to, the status quo would be finished.
No doubt, Race to the Top is “favored by the people in power.” But it is much more credible than critics give it credit for.
Douglas N. Harris is an associate professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of a book on value-added measures and school performance, forthcoming from Harvard Education Press.
Category:
1 comments
WELCOME TO HOLLAND
by Emily Perl Kingsley.
c1987 by Emily Perl Kingsley. All rights reserved
I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this......
When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make your wonderful plans. The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may learn some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.
After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack your bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."
"Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy! I'm supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."
But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland and there you must stay.
The important thing is that they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting, filthy place, full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different place.
So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you would never have met.
It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy than Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your
breath, you look around.... and you begin to notice that Holland has windmills....and Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.
But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy... and they're all bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of your life, you will say "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's what I had planned."
And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away... because the loss of that dream is a very very significant loss.
But... if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely things ... about Holland.
\
by Emily Perl Kingsley.
c1987 by Emily Perl Kingsley. All rights reserved
I am often asked to describe the experience of raising a child with a disability - to try to help people who have not shared that unique experience to understand it, to imagine how it would feel. It's like this......
When you're going to have a baby, it's like planning a fabulous vacation trip - to Italy. You buy a bunch of guide books and make your wonderful plans. The Coliseum. The Michelangelo David. The gondolas in Venice. You may learn some handy phrases in Italian. It's all very exciting.
After months of eager anticipation, the day finally arrives. You pack your bags and off you go. Several hours later, the plane lands. The stewardess comes in and says, "Welcome to Holland."
"Holland?!?" you say. "What do you mean Holland?? I signed up for Italy! I'm supposed to be in Italy. All my life I've dreamed of going to Italy."
But there's been a change in the flight plan. They've landed in Holland and there you must stay.
The important thing is that they haven't taken you to a horrible, disgusting, filthy place, full of pestilence, famine and disease. It's just a different place.
So you must go out and buy new guide books. And you must learn a whole new language. And you will meet a whole new group of people you would never have met.
It's just a different place. It's slower-paced than Italy, less flashy than Italy. But after you've been there for a while and you catch your
breath, you look around.... and you begin to notice that Holland has windmills....and Holland has tulips. Holland even has Rembrandts.
But everyone you know is busy coming and going from Italy... and they're all bragging about what a wonderful time they had there. And for the rest of your life, you will say "Yes, that's where I was supposed to go. That's what I had planned."
And the pain of that will never, ever, ever, ever go away... because the loss of that dream is a very very significant loss.
But... if you spend your life mourning the fact that you didn't get to Italy, you may never be free to enjoy the very special, the very lovely things ... about Holland.
\
Category:
1 comments
"The person susceptible to "wanderlust"
is not so much addicted to movement as
committed to transformation."
is not so much addicted to movement as
committed to transformation."
-Pico Iyer
Category:
0
comments
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/25/341773usentireschoolfiredgeorgia_ap.html?tkn=WSPFPSU85Uz7Xvw%2BbDxhejlAfSBhWxm8hKQE&cmp=clp-edweek
Struggling Georgia School Firing Entire Staff
Atlanta
A failing Savannah high school is firing its entire staff in an effort to avoid further sanctions from the state and to make the school eligible for up to $6 million in federal money, officials said Thursday.
The 200 employees at Beach High School — including the principal — will work there through the end of the year but will not be rehired for that school, said Karla Redditte, spokeswoman for the Savannah-Chatham County school district.
The teachers can reapply for their jobs but only half can be rehired under federal education law, she said. Staff can also apply for other jobs in the school district.
"It is a sad day for us," Redditte said by phone as she stood outside the 950-student school in south Georgia.
The move is the most dramatic of four tactics allowed by the federal No Child Left Behind law for schools like Beach that consistently fail to meet benchmarks. The Obama administration is offering $3 billion in grants this year to coax struggling schools to undertake one of the four tactics, which also include firing only the principal, converting to a charter school or closing altogether.
Experts estimate the mass-firing tactic is used to turn around 20 to 30 schools in the U.S. annually.
If a failing school in Georgia refuses to make any of those changes, the state places a special administrator in the school to focus on annual progress measures such as test scores and graduation rates. In Georgia this year, 45 schools have state administrators in them, including Beach High School, state Department of Education spokesman Matt Cardoza said.
Beach has been on the state's lowest performing list for seven years, he said.
More Here
Struggling Georgia School Firing Entire Staff
Atlanta
A failing Savannah high school is firing its entire staff in an effort to avoid further sanctions from the state and to make the school eligible for up to $6 million in federal money, officials said Thursday.
The 200 employees at Beach High School — including the principal — will work there through the end of the year but will not be rehired for that school, said Karla Redditte, spokeswoman for the Savannah-Chatham County school district.
The teachers can reapply for their jobs but only half can be rehired under federal education law, she said. Staff can also apply for other jobs in the school district.
"It is a sad day for us," Redditte said by phone as she stood outside the 950-student school in south Georgia.
The move is the most dramatic of four tactics allowed by the federal No Child Left Behind law for schools like Beach that consistently fail to meet benchmarks. The Obama administration is offering $3 billion in grants this year to coax struggling schools to undertake one of the four tactics, which also include firing only the principal, converting to a charter school or closing altogether.
Experts estimate the mass-firing tactic is used to turn around 20 to 30 schools in the U.S. annually.
If a failing school in Georgia refuses to make any of those changes, the state places a special administrator in the school to focus on annual progress measures such as test scores and graduation rates. In Georgia this year, 45 schools have state administrators in them, including Beach High School, state Department of Education spokesman Matt Cardoza said.
Beach has been on the state's lowest performing list for seven years, he said.
More Here
Category:
0
comments
Anonymous teacher eats school lunches every day for a year on 'Fed Up With Lunch' blog
BY Rosemary Black
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, March 19th 2010, 1:56 PM
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/food/2010/03/19/2010-03-19_anonymous_teacher_eats_school_lunches_every_day_for_a_year_on_fed_up_with_lunch_.html#ixzz0iltM4VgX
Not many grownups would voluntarily eat mystery meat in the school cafeteria on a daily basis. But an anonymous teacher, promising to sample school lunches for a year and blog her comments, is tasting the very same meatloaf and mystery greens the students eat, then posting pictures of the food and critiquing it.
"Mrs. Q," as she’s called, is hoping for changes in the lunchroom, not just at her school but at other schools around the country.
“Let’s feed all kids well,” she told Good Morning America. “Who can argue with that?”
Though she’s anonymous, her blog, entitled "Fed Up With Lunch: The School Lunch Project," identifies her as female and from the Midwest. She says she is in her 30s, has a young son, and is “middle class." And she got the idea for a blog after she’d eaten a couple of less-than-delicious school meals.
“There were times I was forced to have a school lunch because I forgot my lunch,” she told GMA. “And I just remember thinking, ‘this is terrible; I can’t believe this.’ ”
The feisty blogger has supporters and detractors. Many followers (there are nearly 3,000 today, up from a few hundred earlier this week) are full of praise. But one person called her a “vegetarian hippie.”
“They’re attacking my character, or they’re saying this country’s going down the tubes and we should be grateful for what we’ve got,” she told GMA... MORE HERE
Category:
0
comments
By The Associated Press
Seattle
School districts have imposed all sorts of drastic cuts to save money during the down economy, canceling field trips and making parents pay for everything from tissues to sports transportation.
And some have now resorted to placing advertisements on school buses.
School districts say it's practically free money, and advertisers love the captive audience that school buses provide.
That's the problem, say opponents: Children are being forced to travel to school on moving media kiosks, and the tactic isn't much different than dressing teachers in sponsor-emblazoned uniforms... MORE HERE
Category:
0
comments
State Board 'Forgives' Days Due To States of Emergency
Release Date: Mar 18, 2010 2:28 PM
(Dover, DE.) At today's monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, Secretary of Education Lillian M. Lowery, pursuant to Title 14, section 1305 (h), recommended to the Board to reduce the number of required days/hours of school for the 2009-2010 school year. The Board unanimously approved the Secretary's recommendation.
On November 13, 2009 for Kent and Sussex Counties (flooding); February 8, 2010 for Kent and Sussex Counties (winter storm); and on February 10, 11 and 12 statewide (winter storm), Governor Jack Markell declared a State of Emergency due to extreme, hazardous conditions. Secretary Lowery recommended to the Board that these days/hours missed due to the states of emergency be forgiven for students and state employees.
By law, teachers are required to work 183 days which includes 180 instructional days devoted to pupils; two days devoted to start up/closing, and one day for professional development. Students in grades 1-11 are required to attend 1060 hours of instruction; grade 12 students must attend 1032 hours; kindergarten students are required to attend 440 instructional hours or 1060 hours if in a full day kindergarten program.
In a separate request, Secretary Lowery asked the State Board to forgive a missed school day on September 8, 2009 for the Indian River School District due to the funeral for Corporal Chad Spicer, a Georgetown police officer who was killed in the line of duty. Schools in the district were closed due to road closures and traffic restrictions. The State Board unanimously approved the Secretary's recommendation.
Release Date: Mar 18, 2010 2:28 PM
(Dover, DE.) At today's monthly meeting of the State Board of Education, Secretary of Education Lillian M. Lowery, pursuant to Title 14, section 1305 (h), recommended to the Board to reduce the number of required days/hours of school for the 2009-2010 school year. The Board unanimously approved the Secretary's recommendation.
On November 13, 2009 for Kent and Sussex Counties (flooding); February 8, 2010 for Kent and Sussex Counties (winter storm); and on February 10, 11 and 12 statewide (winter storm), Governor Jack Markell declared a State of Emergency due to extreme, hazardous conditions. Secretary Lowery recommended to the Board that these days/hours missed due to the states of emergency be forgiven for students and state employees.
By law, teachers are required to work 183 days which includes 180 instructional days devoted to pupils; two days devoted to start up/closing, and one day for professional development. Students in grades 1-11 are required to attend 1060 hours of instruction; grade 12 students must attend 1032 hours; kindergarten students are required to attend 440 instructional hours or 1060 hours if in a full day kindergarten program.
In a separate request, Secretary Lowery asked the State Board to forgive a missed school day on September 8, 2009 for the Indian River School District due to the funeral for Corporal Chad Spicer, a Georgetown police officer who was killed in the line of duty. Schools in the district were closed due to road closures and traffic restrictions. The State Board unanimously approved the Secretary's recommendation.
Category:
0
comments
The Gentleman Who Fell Before the Court
Milla Jovovich, singer, model, actress
From her 1st Album the Divine Comedy
Okay, I'll date myself. I was in high school when Milla released The Divine Comedy and I've always been partial to it. But, in true blogger style, let's play the Double Entente Game. I just like the song, but I know there are readers out there say, what's this song about? how does it apply to CSD, or the board? So, here's your chance for some creative conversation: Weave the best story you can and drop it in a comment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO7-ldWJj2s
Milla Jovovich, singer, model, actress
From her 1st Album the Divine Comedy
Okay, I'll date myself. I was in high school when Milla released The Divine Comedy and I've always been partial to it. But, in true blogger style, let's play the Double Entente Game. I just like the song, but I know there are readers out there say, what's this song about? how does it apply to CSD, or the board? So, here's your chance for some creative conversation: Weave the best story you can and drop it in a comment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO7-ldWJj2s
Category:
5
comments
Delmar to move 5th-graders
By Calum McKinney • Gannett/The (Salisbury, Md.) Daily Times • March 17, 2010
DELMAR, Md. -- The Delmar Board of Education has approved a three- year agreement for the transfer of fifth-graders from Delmar Elementary to Delmar Middle and High School, across the state line in Delaware.
The unanimous decision came at Tuesday night's board meeting after an hourlong session that included input from education officials and concerned parents. The transfer will create more space at what officials called the most overcrowded elementary school in the area.
"I was prepared to fight tooth and nail not to have my kids sent to Salisbury," said Tom Luffman, a Delmar Elementary parent and member of the redistricting committee. "I realize that this really is the best decision given the circumstance."
But many others were still concerned. As screams from a rehearsal of the play "Into the Woods" echoed in the background, many parents voiced their worries over the mixing of their fifth-graders with high school students.
"Keep being nervous. It's OK. Its normal," Delmar Middle School Principal Becky Neubert said. "This is part of your job as parents."
Delmar Superintendent David Ring Jr. went on to assure parents that the fifth- graders would not be mixing with the high-schoolers in the building. At lunchtime, fifth-graders will only share the cafeteria with sixth-graders. The only time interaction between fifth-graders and high-schoolers will occur is on the bus, officials said. Even then, the bus drivers will work to keep them in separate sections.
There are many eyes and many windows in the hallway between the middle and high school, Delmar teacher and parent Christy Parson said. "And our principal is like a hawk; if a high-schooler is in the middle school building, she knows about it right away. I can attest to that."
Board members said that such concerns were a large part of the decision-making process. And many members of the community, including a former Delmar mayor, came out to voice their support of the transfer they said would keep "Delmar kids, Delmar kids."
"I don't know of very many bullies at this school," said a Delmar High student representative. "I don't think the parents or kids have anything to be worried about. This might sound corny, but it really is like a family here."
Beyond the concern of parents, officials said that securing state cooperation was also a big consideration.
"We wondered, would the state of Delaware bite on this," Ring said, referring to the needed approval of state education officials for the transfer. "But early last week we got information that the Delaware Joint Finance Committee would give monies for the transfer. And at 4 p.m. (Tuesday), we got a fax with the signatures we needed for this to go ahead."
"There are a lot of issues to study in a question like this," Wicomico Schools Superintendent John Frederickson said. "It's a long way to Dover and a long way to Annapolis to talk to the state officials, but these folks have their finger in the pie financially."
Board members also said, though children come first, efforts were taken to keep teachers from losing their jobs due to the transfer, and that after the vote, the affected Delmar elementary teachers would be invited to apply in Delaware.
The question of what would be done with the extra Delmar Elementary portables, or "educational cottages" as one teacher jokingly called them, was also addressed. According to Ring, they will be utilized by faculty that had long been needing the extra space.
"Where do we go from here?" Ring said. "Its a temporary fix to be honest with you. We know that we need to think ahead. Perhaps 10 years from now we will be looking at a new school."
By Calum McKinney • Gannett/The (Salisbury, Md.) Daily Times • March 17, 2010
DELMAR, Md. -- The Delmar Board of Education has approved a three- year agreement for the transfer of fifth-graders from Delmar Elementary to Delmar Middle and High School, across the state line in Delaware.
The unanimous decision came at Tuesday night's board meeting after an hourlong session that included input from education officials and concerned parents. The transfer will create more space at what officials called the most overcrowded elementary school in the area.
"I was prepared to fight tooth and nail not to have my kids sent to Salisbury," said Tom Luffman, a Delmar Elementary parent and member of the redistricting committee. "I realize that this really is the best decision given the circumstance."
But many others were still concerned. As screams from a rehearsal of the play "Into the Woods" echoed in the background, many parents voiced their worries over the mixing of their fifth-graders with high school students.
"Keep being nervous. It's OK. Its normal," Delmar Middle School Principal Becky Neubert said. "This is part of your job as parents."
Delmar Superintendent David Ring Jr. went on to assure parents that the fifth- graders would not be mixing with the high-schoolers in the building. At lunchtime, fifth-graders will only share the cafeteria with sixth-graders. The only time interaction between fifth-graders and high-schoolers will occur is on the bus, officials said. Even then, the bus drivers will work to keep them in separate sections.
There are many eyes and many windows in the hallway between the middle and high school, Delmar teacher and parent Christy Parson said. "And our principal is like a hawk; if a high-schooler is in the middle school building, she knows about it right away. I can attest to that."
Board members said that such concerns were a large part of the decision-making process. And many members of the community, including a former Delmar mayor, came out to voice their support of the transfer they said would keep "Delmar kids, Delmar kids."
"I don't know of very many bullies at this school," said a Delmar High student representative. "I don't think the parents or kids have anything to be worried about. This might sound corny, but it really is like a family here."
Beyond the concern of parents, officials said that securing state cooperation was also a big consideration.
"We wondered, would the state of Delaware bite on this," Ring said, referring to the needed approval of state education officials for the transfer. "But early last week we got information that the Delaware Joint Finance Committee would give monies for the transfer. And at 4 p.m. (Tuesday), we got a fax with the signatures we needed for this to go ahead."
"There are a lot of issues to study in a question like this," Wicomico Schools Superintendent John Frederickson said. "It's a long way to Dover and a long way to Annapolis to talk to the state officials, but these folks have their finger in the pie financially."
Board members also said, though children come first, efforts were taken to keep teachers from losing their jobs due to the transfer, and that after the vote, the affected Delmar elementary teachers would be invited to apply in Delaware.
The question of what would be done with the extra Delmar Elementary portables, or "educational cottages" as one teacher jokingly called them, was also addressed. According to Ring, they will be utilized by faculty that had long been needing the extra space.
"Where do we go from here?" Ring said. "Its a temporary fix to be honest with you. We know that we need to think ahead. Perhaps 10 years from now we will be looking at a new school."
Category:
0
comments
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/17/25transformation_ep.h29.html?tkn=SUOFhJnrTWBGDu9tEaBq7dHyMVlxwkuhBR%2B2&cmp=clp-edweek
From Edweek.org
State, District Leaders Press School Transformations
By Dakarai I. Aarons
Spurred both by fiscal realities and momentum from the U.S. Department of Education’s agenda for school improvement, local and state education leaders are moving forcefully and quickly to make big changes to districts and schools that have long struggled with low test scores and graduation rates.
In Kansas City, Mo., the school board voted last week to “right-size” the district by closing 26 of the system’s 61 schools. In addition, the 17,000-student district plans to close its central office and two other buildings.
“We can’t continue to have a public school system that has proven to fail children year after year after year,” Superintendent John W. Covington said in an interview. The goal, he said, is to create a system that produces graduates who will be “fierce competitors” in the global arena.
In Cleveland, the school board last week passed Chief Executive Officer Eugene T.W. Sanders’ “transformation” plan, which would close 16 schools in the 50,000-student district of more than 100 schools, reorganize the central office, and shift high schools from a traditional, comprehensive model to one of smaller academies.
And in Detroit, a coalition of local foundations and community organizations—with the support of Mayor Dave Bing—last week unveiled a $200 million plan that aims to transform not only the city’s beleaguered public school system, but also its private and charter schools, creating a citywide standards commission that will publish annual report cards for all those schools.
Daniel A. Domenech, the executive director of the Arlington, Va.-based American Association of School Administrators, said the nation can expect to see more such aggressive moves as cash-strapped school districts leverage financial conditions to help make changes.
“The economy is forcing the issue,” Mr. Domenech said. “Many places might see this as a time for constructive abandonment. Sometimes it’s easier to get rid of programs that haven’t been effective when you have a serious economic issue.”
Districts are also being prodded by the availability of competitive education grants through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the federal economic-stimulus law that has placed an emphasis on the goals those cities are pursuing, including stronger teacher evaluations and turnarounds of low-performing schools.
States have also gotten in on the action. Massachusetts announced last week that it may use a new state law designed to address persistently failing schools to take over 35 low-performing schools, primarily in Boston and Springfield, if they do not improve.
Kansas City Shake-Up
The move to shutter nearly half of Kansas City’s schools “should have come as no surprise for citizens of the community,” said Superintendent Covington, whose district saw a 50 percent decrease in enrollment over the past decade. “We have known for years this is a decision that needed to be made.”
The Kansas City plans also call for laying off about 700 of the district’s 3,000 employees. About 285 teachers are expected to be included in the layoffs.
But the shake-up is only the beginning of the district’s plans, Mr. Covington said.
While the cuts in buildings and staffing allow the district to avoid a $50 million deficit in its $300 million budget, the district plans to make more cuts and use the resulting savings to help pay for its academic-transformation plan, which is to be unveiled later this month. Mr. Covington said that plan will include performance-based pay for teachers, individualized education plans for students, and an end to social promotion of students.
“We are right-sizing the district not only for purposes of ensuring we are not spread too thin, but to ensure we have the ability to better utilize our financial and human resources in ways that lead to greater student academic achievement,” he said. “We can’t do that within the current structure.”
Such changes are long overdue, said Michael D. Casserly, the executive director of the Washington-based Council of the Great City Schools, an advocacy group representing more than 60 of the nation’s largest urban school districts.
The council issued an extensive report in the summer of 2006 on Kansas City’s academics and operations. The study found a district that suffered from high turnover, the lack of a clear vision, and a need to close underutilized facilities.
“They are operating too many buildings with too few systems, and it is bleeding the system dry,” Mr. Casserly said in an interview.
Cleveland’s Mix
A mixture of school closings and program redevelopment is also at work in Cleveland.
“One of the reasons we wanted to do it was the need for comprehensive school reform—not just in terms of addressing the budgetary and student-enrollment challenges,” said Mr. Sanders, the schools chief.
The district is attempting to address a projected $52 million deficit for the 2010-11 school year in a budget of approximately $700 million. The school transformation plan, which is expected to cost about $70 million over three years, is also expected to produce $17 million in cost savings.
The Cleveland initiative creates a plan for each school in the district. Those not closed will be placed in categories called “growth,” “refocus,” or “repurpose.” The district plans to put more emphasis on making sure the transition between middle and high school is stronger for 9th graders, in an effort to raise the graduation rate.
Mr. Sanders said the district hopes to use federal economic-stimulus funding—potentially from the Race to the Top competition, Title I School Improvement Grants, and the Investing in Innovation Fund—to help pay for about a third of the cost of the transformation.
Ohio was recently named one of 16 finalists in the U.S. Department of Education’s $4 billion Race to the Top competition. The state next month will learn if its $410 million proposal is a winner. ("Race to Top Enters Home Stretch," March 10, 2010.)
“We know how competitive it is, but we think our story in Cleveland is also compelling, and we think it will be an attractive story to federal officials,” Mr. Sanders said.
Cleveland’s plan, Mr. Casserly said, is “interesting, bold, and badly needed in a school system that had not seen much substantial academic progress over the years.”
Reimagining Detroit Schools
The Detroit initiative, being spearheaded by a coalition called Excellent Schools Detroit, envisions that in 2020, the Motor City will be the first major U.S. city where 90 percent of high school students graduate, 90 percent of them enroll in college or a postsecondary training program, and 90 percent of the high school graduates do not need remediation in college.
The goals will undoubtedly be a real challenge for Detroit, a city whose students lagged behind all other urban districts on an administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. ("Decline and Fall," Dec. 16, 2009.)
“We know how to graduate children, and we know how to get them into college with the right set of skills. We haven’t had the will do it,” said Carol Goss, the president and chief executive officer of the Skillman Foundation, a Detroit philanthropy that has worked extensively on education reform and is a lead partner in the effort.
“We have done it in small settings,” she said. “The issue is taking that to scale in this community, and we can do it.”
The plan also calls for building support for mayoral control in Detroit. Mayor Bing, who is among the signatories of the new plan, has said he supports mayoral control if it is something citizens say they want.
The city previously experienced a form of mayoral control during a state takeover of the school system from 1999 to 2005. The experiment ended with the district $200 million in debt and made many residents wary of returning to a similar arrangement without an elected school board.
Legal Battles
Bringing the whole city together may prove difficult. The school board sued the district’s emergency financial manager, Robert C. Bobb, last week, saying accepting money from foundations to help pay his salary violated state ethics law. Mr. Bobb has been overhauling the deficit-plagued school system since his appointment last spring by Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm. ("Some Urban Districts Show Progress in Math NAEP," Aug. 12, 2009.)
The Detroit board is already engaged in a legal dispute over how much control over academics Mr. Bobb is allowed to have as emergency financial manager. That lawsuit, filed in August, is still in the court system.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bobb, who is also a signatory to the reform proposal, was set to release a new academic plan for the 84,000-student district this week.
Excellent Schools Detroit says dramatic action is necessary. To help accomplish the improvement in student achievement, the group hopes to help coordinate the speed of opening more than 40 new schools by 2015 and 70 new schools by 2020. Many of those schools will be on the high school level.
“We believe we need a single point of accountability ... so innovation can actually take place,” Ms. Goss said. “Does that mean that everybody wants this to happen? Of course not. There are a lot of people who are focused on institutional issues who want to maintain the status quo.”
Vol. 29, Issue 25, Pages 1,12
From Edweek.org
State, District Leaders Press School Transformations
By Dakarai I. Aarons
Spurred both by fiscal realities and momentum from the U.S. Department of Education’s agenda for school improvement, local and state education leaders are moving forcefully and quickly to make big changes to districts and schools that have long struggled with low test scores and graduation rates.
In Kansas City, Mo., the school board voted last week to “right-size” the district by closing 26 of the system’s 61 schools. In addition, the 17,000-student district plans to close its central office and two other buildings.
“We can’t continue to have a public school system that has proven to fail children year after year after year,” Superintendent John W. Covington said in an interview. The goal, he said, is to create a system that produces graduates who will be “fierce competitors” in the global arena.
In Cleveland, the school board last week passed Chief Executive Officer Eugene T.W. Sanders’ “transformation” plan, which would close 16 schools in the 50,000-student district of more than 100 schools, reorganize the central office, and shift high schools from a traditional, comprehensive model to one of smaller academies.
And in Detroit, a coalition of local foundations and community organizations—with the support of Mayor Dave Bing—last week unveiled a $200 million plan that aims to transform not only the city’s beleaguered public school system, but also its private and charter schools, creating a citywide standards commission that will publish annual report cards for all those schools.
Daniel A. Domenech, the executive director of the Arlington, Va.-based American Association of School Administrators, said the nation can expect to see more such aggressive moves as cash-strapped school districts leverage financial conditions to help make changes.
“The economy is forcing the issue,” Mr. Domenech said. “Many places might see this as a time for constructive abandonment. Sometimes it’s easier to get rid of programs that haven’t been effective when you have a serious economic issue.”
Districts are also being prodded by the availability of competitive education grants through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the federal economic-stimulus law that has placed an emphasis on the goals those cities are pursuing, including stronger teacher evaluations and turnarounds of low-performing schools.
States have also gotten in on the action. Massachusetts announced last week that it may use a new state law designed to address persistently failing schools to take over 35 low-performing schools, primarily in Boston and Springfield, if they do not improve.
Kansas City Shake-Up
The move to shutter nearly half of Kansas City’s schools “should have come as no surprise for citizens of the community,” said Superintendent Covington, whose district saw a 50 percent decrease in enrollment over the past decade. “We have known for years this is a decision that needed to be made.”
The Kansas City plans also call for laying off about 700 of the district’s 3,000 employees. About 285 teachers are expected to be included in the layoffs.
But the shake-up is only the beginning of the district’s plans, Mr. Covington said.
While the cuts in buildings and staffing allow the district to avoid a $50 million deficit in its $300 million budget, the district plans to make more cuts and use the resulting savings to help pay for its academic-transformation plan, which is to be unveiled later this month. Mr. Covington said that plan will include performance-based pay for teachers, individualized education plans for students, and an end to social promotion of students.
“We are right-sizing the district not only for purposes of ensuring we are not spread too thin, but to ensure we have the ability to better utilize our financial and human resources in ways that lead to greater student academic achievement,” he said. “We can’t do that within the current structure.”
Such changes are long overdue, said Michael D. Casserly, the executive director of the Washington-based Council of the Great City Schools, an advocacy group representing more than 60 of the nation’s largest urban school districts.
The council issued an extensive report in the summer of 2006 on Kansas City’s academics and operations. The study found a district that suffered from high turnover, the lack of a clear vision, and a need to close underutilized facilities.
“They are operating too many buildings with too few systems, and it is bleeding the system dry,” Mr. Casserly said in an interview.
Cleveland’s Mix
A mixture of school closings and program redevelopment is also at work in Cleveland.
“One of the reasons we wanted to do it was the need for comprehensive school reform—not just in terms of addressing the budgetary and student-enrollment challenges,” said Mr. Sanders, the schools chief.
The district is attempting to address a projected $52 million deficit for the 2010-11 school year in a budget of approximately $700 million. The school transformation plan, which is expected to cost about $70 million over three years, is also expected to produce $17 million in cost savings.
The Cleveland initiative creates a plan for each school in the district. Those not closed will be placed in categories called “growth,” “refocus,” or “repurpose.” The district plans to put more emphasis on making sure the transition between middle and high school is stronger for 9th graders, in an effort to raise the graduation rate.
Mr. Sanders said the district hopes to use federal economic-stimulus funding—potentially from the Race to the Top competition, Title I School Improvement Grants, and the Investing in Innovation Fund—to help pay for about a third of the cost of the transformation.
Ohio was recently named one of 16 finalists in the U.S. Department of Education’s $4 billion Race to the Top competition. The state next month will learn if its $410 million proposal is a winner. ("Race to Top Enters Home Stretch," March 10, 2010.)
“We know how competitive it is, but we think our story in Cleveland is also compelling, and we think it will be an attractive story to federal officials,” Mr. Sanders said.
Cleveland’s plan, Mr. Casserly said, is “interesting, bold, and badly needed in a school system that had not seen much substantial academic progress over the years.”
Reimagining Detroit Schools
The Detroit initiative, being spearheaded by a coalition called Excellent Schools Detroit, envisions that in 2020, the Motor City will be the first major U.S. city where 90 percent of high school students graduate, 90 percent of them enroll in college or a postsecondary training program, and 90 percent of the high school graduates do not need remediation in college.
The goals will undoubtedly be a real challenge for Detroit, a city whose students lagged behind all other urban districts on an administration of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. ("Decline and Fall," Dec. 16, 2009.)
“We know how to graduate children, and we know how to get them into college with the right set of skills. We haven’t had the will do it,” said Carol Goss, the president and chief executive officer of the Skillman Foundation, a Detroit philanthropy that has worked extensively on education reform and is a lead partner in the effort.
“We have done it in small settings,” she said. “The issue is taking that to scale in this community, and we can do it.”
The plan also calls for building support for mayoral control in Detroit. Mayor Bing, who is among the signatories of the new plan, has said he supports mayoral control if it is something citizens say they want.
The city previously experienced a form of mayoral control during a state takeover of the school system from 1999 to 2005. The experiment ended with the district $200 million in debt and made many residents wary of returning to a similar arrangement without an elected school board.
Legal Battles
Bringing the whole city together may prove difficult. The school board sued the district’s emergency financial manager, Robert C. Bobb, last week, saying accepting money from foundations to help pay his salary violated state ethics law. Mr. Bobb has been overhauling the deficit-plagued school system since his appointment last spring by Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm. ("Some Urban Districts Show Progress in Math NAEP," Aug. 12, 2009.)
The Detroit board is already engaged in a legal dispute over how much control over academics Mr. Bobb is allowed to have as emergency financial manager. That lawsuit, filed in August, is still in the court system.
Meanwhile, Mr. Bobb, who is also a signatory to the reform proposal, was set to release a new academic plan for the 84,000-student district this week.
Excellent Schools Detroit says dramatic action is necessary. To help accomplish the improvement in student achievement, the group hopes to help coordinate the speed of opening more than 40 new schools by 2015 and 70 new schools by 2020. Many of those schools will be on the high school level.
“We believe we need a single point of accountability ... so innovation can actually take place,” Ms. Goss said. “Does that mean that everybody wants this to happen? Of course not. There are a lot of people who are focused on institutional issues who want to maintain the status quo.”
Vol. 29, Issue 25, Pages 1,12
Category:
0
comments
Informative Resources on School Improvement Grants:
- http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/summary/index.html
- http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/02/10/21mtr_stim-turnaround.h29.html?r=1096544939
- http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/11/338031wvbadschools_ap.html?r=1482233126
- http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/12/04/14brief-b1.h29.html
Category:
2
comments
Nancy Willing said...
I just read Mass Incite's depiction of the CSD Board meeting last night and it was a little horrifying. I guess I should go and see for myself.
The Superintendent leads the meetings?
She begged, wept and threatened her way through the MI MOU meeting?
I think I really need to assert that the following remarks are entirely my opinion, are not the opinion of the Board, and should not be considered "FACT." I am not trying to impugn anyone's reputation, nor cause controversy. I am, I believe, offering fair comment regarding public session meetings as requested by a member of our community.
1. Does the Superintendent lead the meetings?
Well, I can understand how someone would surmise that. I think a fair amount of time it's probably true. She certainly leads during the Superintendents report -- a summary presentation of something important in the district. Tuesday's report was on the Strategic Plan which led to the conversation surrounding Referendum.
But, there are other times when it has appeared that the superintendent is leading the discourse and direction of the public meeting. I've been told that it's unusual for a superintendent to join in the conversation unless asked a specific question. But, to be fair and honest, I have never attended a board meeting of another district, so I can't confirm that assertion.
I have also been told there's a fair amount of note passing between the Super and the Board President during the meetings. Because of my position in the seating, it is difficult to see if such an activity is occurring. But, I have also been told that it's surprising to see a board member (me) taking notes throughout public comment which I do, copiously.
2. The MOU Meeting:
I'm not really sure where to start. That was a contentious meeting. And our superintendent did speak heatedly on the topic though in my opinion her comments were not solicited. Members of the public have come forward to me to complain that she was yelling at the board and audience. Others may describe her as passionate. In the end, it's all in the eye of the beholder, the viewer, the tax payer, the parent, the community. Sadly, that discussion was halted when another r member Called the Question, forcing the board to vote. It passed 5 -2. I personally believe that a lot more discussion needed to occur but it not about me, it's about the quorum.
I think the third question you and other may be asking is: Have I read the MI blog?
Yes, I have read Mass Inciters blog. And since it takes alot to offend me, even being called "little miss C&E" doesn't really bother me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Although, I would have to argue I am not "little" nor a "miss."
However, the M.I. did touch on something that is cause for concern for me: Open Meeting Laws. On March 6th, the CSD Board held a Special Session at Sarah Pyle to discuss among other things the Referendum and Strategic Plan. The Posted Notice was incomplete and did not contain the Agenda for the meeting. The agenda was also absent from the district's website. I attended the meeting only long enough to express concern that the meeting may not meet the legal requirements. As such, I felt it was improper to hold the meeting. I left. The meeting continued in my absence for several hours.
The M.I. did in fact hear our president discuss the issue of the March 6th meeting. It is the president's position that this meeting was a Workshop. I have not been able to locate any laws/code on Board Workshops so I don't know that special rules do or do not apply. I did produce both my Agenda and the meeting notice identifying the March 6th meeting as a Special Session.
At this point I can only say that determining the status of that meeting is now out of my hands.
Nancy, Here's the link you requested: http://massinciter.blogspot.com/2010/03/bad-boards-bad-boards-whatcha-gonna-do.html Approx. 9 paragraphs down.
I would certainly agree that you "should go and see for yourself," And perhaps, if there is any value in the M.I. blog it's that in the absence of public attendance, there truly is no Sunshine.
I just read Mass Incite's depiction of the CSD Board meeting last night and it was a little horrifying. I guess I should go and see for myself.
The Superintendent leads the meetings?
She begged, wept and threatened her way through the MI MOU meeting?
I think I really need to assert that the following remarks are entirely my opinion, are not the opinion of the Board, and should not be considered "FACT." I am not trying to impugn anyone's reputation, nor cause controversy. I am, I believe, offering fair comment regarding public session meetings as requested by a member of our community.
1. Does the Superintendent lead the meetings?
Well, I can understand how someone would surmise that. I think a fair amount of time it's probably true. She certainly leads during the Superintendents report -- a summary presentation of something important in the district. Tuesday's report was on the Strategic Plan which led to the conversation surrounding Referendum.
But, there are other times when it has appeared that the superintendent is leading the discourse and direction of the public meeting. I've been told that it's unusual for a superintendent to join in the conversation unless asked a specific question. But, to be fair and honest, I have never attended a board meeting of another district, so I can't confirm that assertion.
I have also been told there's a fair amount of note passing between the Super and the Board President during the meetings. Because of my position in the seating, it is difficult to see if such an activity is occurring. But, I have also been told that it's surprising to see a board member (me) taking notes throughout public comment which I do, copiously.
2. The MOU Meeting:
I'm not really sure where to start. That was a contentious meeting. And our superintendent did speak heatedly on the topic though in my opinion her comments were not solicited. Members of the public have come forward to me to complain that she was yelling at the board and audience. Others may describe her as passionate. In the end, it's all in the eye of the beholder, the viewer, the tax payer, the parent, the community. Sadly, that discussion was halted when another r member Called the Question, forcing the board to vote. It passed 5 -2. I personally believe that a lot more discussion needed to occur but it not about me, it's about the quorum.
I think the third question you and other may be asking is: Have I read the MI blog?
Yes, I have read Mass Inciters blog. And since it takes alot to offend me, even being called "little miss C&E" doesn't really bother me. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Although, I would have to argue I am not "little" nor a "miss."
However, the M.I. did touch on something that is cause for concern for me: Open Meeting Laws. On March 6th, the CSD Board held a Special Session at Sarah Pyle to discuss among other things the Referendum and Strategic Plan. The Posted Notice was incomplete and did not contain the Agenda for the meeting. The agenda was also absent from the district's website. I attended the meeting only long enough to express concern that the meeting may not meet the legal requirements. As such, I felt it was improper to hold the meeting. I left. The meeting continued in my absence for several hours.
The M.I. did in fact hear our president discuss the issue of the March 6th meeting. It is the president's position that this meeting was a Workshop. I have not been able to locate any laws/code on Board Workshops so I don't know that special rules do or do not apply. I did produce both my Agenda and the meeting notice identifying the March 6th meeting as a Special Session.
At this point I can only say that determining the status of that meeting is now out of my hands.
Nancy, Here's the link you requested: http://massinciter.blogspot.com/2010/03/bad-boards-bad-boards-whatcha-gonna-do.html Approx. 9 paragraphs down.
I would certainly agree that you "should go and see for yourself," And perhaps, if there is any value in the M.I. blog it's that in the absence of public attendance, there truly is no Sunshine.
Category:
2
comments
Okay, but what's really Genius is the THE SMALL CLASS SIZES! The mantra of teachers nationwide and right here in Delaware. And this school has found a way of providing the small classes with more support for students and teachers while not exceeding the 180 day work year in teacher contracts nor raising the cost of educating the students who benefit from this program verses the "typical" high school model.
From Education Week:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/10/24brooklyn_ep.h29.html?tkn=NM[FDZj%2F%2FXlKQLqb1nWVcd6rdaG9PGXcgZSR&cmp=clp-edweek
Check out the whole article for an education strategy that is built on teacher planning time, student interest, and small class sizes:
From Education Week:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/03/10/24brooklyn_ep.h29.html?tkn=NM[FDZj%2F%2FXlKQLqb1nWVcd6rdaG9PGXcgZSR&cmp=clp-edweek
Check out the whole article for an education strategy that is built on teacher planning time, student interest, and small class sizes:
Teachers here attribute the collegial atmosphere to the public school’s novel way of differentiating teachers’ roles and staggering their schedules. At Brooklyn Generation, teachers instruct only three classes a day, get two hours of common planning with colleagues each afternoon, and have a highly reduced student load—as few as 14 students per class. Yet the restructured scheduling costs no more to operate than a traditional schedule.
Opened in 2007, Brooklyn Generation now serves about 230 students in grades 9-11, most of whom are black and qualify for federal school-nutrition programs. The school will add a 12th grade next fall and expand to the middle grades over the course of the next few years.
The school’s schedule is both dynamic and flexible. Each morning, one group of educators teaches foundations courses in mathematics and the humanities. In the afternoons, those same teachers take on one studio course—science, the arts, and electives. They are also given daily breaks at the same time as their “instructional team” —colleagues in the same grade and content area—allowing them two hours of common planning time.
Twice a year, these dual-role teachers receive a monthlong reprieve consisting of three weeks of vacation followed by a week of professional development with their instructional teams. A second coterie of educators steps in to teach monthlong “intensives,” focused on aspects of college and career readiness, from internships through the college-entrance process and financial-aid applications.
Class sizes for the foundations and intensive courses are small—around 15 students—and expand to about 25 for studio classes. The staggered schedules mean that students receive 20 additional instructional days, but no teacher actually works longer than the 180 days set in the New York City teachers’ contract.
With the smaller class sizes and more support, the school’s leaders expect teachers to engage each student in the school’s college- and career-bound culture.
Such class sizes, 9th grade math-foundation teacher Dianne Crewe-Shaw says, help her better monitor her students, who tend to have the most challenges with algebra. “The small class size was like heaven,” she said. “With weaker students, I have to dig deeper for activities that will engage them.”
Category:
CEA,
Christina School District,
Delaware,
DOE,
Lillian Lowery,
Mass Insight,
Students,
Teachers,
Turnaround Zone
5
comments
"Sunlight is said to be
the best of disinfectants."
From U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
speaking on open government laws.
the best of disinfectants."
From U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
speaking on open government laws.
Title 14
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title14/index.shtml
Title 29
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title29/c100/index.shtml
State Government
General Regulations for State Agencies
CHAPTER 100. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
§ 10001. Declaration of policy.
It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that our citizens shall have the opportunity to observe the performance of public officials and to monitor the decisions that are made by such officials in formulating and executing public policy; and further, it is vital that citizens have easy access to public records in order that the society remain free and democratic. Toward these ends, and to further the accountability of government to the citizens of this State, this chapter is adopted, and shall be construed.
§ 10004. Open meetings.
Excerpt:
(2) All public bodies shall give public notice of their regular meetings and of their intent to hold an executive session closed to the public, at least 7 days in advance thereof. The notice shall include the agenda, if such has been determined at the time, and the dates, times and places of such meetings, including whether such meeting will be conducted by video-conferencing; however, the agenda shall be subject to change to include additional items including executive sessions or the deletion of items including executive sessions which arise at the time of the public body's meeting.
(3) All public bodies shall give public notice of the type set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection of any special or rescheduled meeting as soon as reasonably possible, but in any event no later than 24 hours before such meeting. A special or rescheduled meeting shall be defined as one to be held less than 7 days after the scheduling decision is made. The public notice of a special or rescheduled meeting shall include an explanation as to why the notice required by paragraph (1) of this subsection could not be given.
(4) Public notice required by this subsection shall include, but not be limited to, conspicuous posting of said notice at the principal office of the public body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists at the place where meetings of the public body are regularly held, and making a reasonable number of such notices available. In addition, all public bodies in the executive branch of state government that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall electronically post said notice to the designated State of Delaware website approved by the Secretary of State.
(5) When the agenda is not available as of the time of the initial posting of the public notice it shall be added to the notice at least 6 hours in advance of said meeting, and the reasons for the delay in posting shall be briefly set forth on the agenda.
(f) Each public body shall maintain minutes of all meetings, including executive sessions, conducted pursuant to this section, and shall make such minutes available for public inspection and copying as a public record. Such minutes shall include a record of those members present and a record, by individual members (except where the public body is a town assembly where all citizens are entitled to vote), of each vote taken and action agreed upon. Such minutes or portions thereof, and any public records pertaining to executive sessions conducted pursuant to this section, may be withheld from public disclosure so long as public disclosure would defeat the lawful purpose for the executive session, but no longer. All public bodies in the executive branch of state government that are subject to the provisions of this chapter shall electronically post final approved minutes of open public meetings to the designated State of Delaware website approved by the Secretary of State within 5 working days of final approval of said minutes.
Category:
Agenda,
Christina School District,
Delaware Department of Education,
Delaware Special Session,
FOIA,
Freedom of Information,
Open Meetings,
Sunshine,
Workshop
0
comments
The Comment Word Verification is back on my friends.
I've taken as much as I can from the cialis spammer :)
The Management
I've taken as much as I can from the cialis spammer :)
The Management
Category:
0
comments
District "A" expires 2015
- Eric M. Anderson
- George E. Evans
- Paul J. Falkowski
And they're off!
Category:
0
comments
Mass Insight Pilots:
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Louisiana
Massachusetts
New York
RT3 Finalists
Colorado,
Delaware,
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Colorado
Delaware
Illinois
Louisiana
Massachusetts
New York
RT3 Finalists
Colorado,
Delaware,
D.C.
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Category:
6
comments
A Few Fun Facts From the RTT Applications
By Rick Hess on March 2, 2010 9:04 AM
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2010/03/a_few_fun_facts_from_the_rtt_applications.html
With the announcement of the round one Race to the Top (RTT) finalists upon us, I can only say I'm glad I declined the invitation to apply to be an RTT reviewer. For those who have had a chance to peruse the applications, you know what I mean. For those of you who haven't, it's worth a look. The notion that any responsible person can read these and determine which deserve how many points on a given criteria... well, good luck.
In any event, here are a few fun facts that emerge when perusing the mounds of words.
• The total page length of all the applications: 22,369 pages. In other words, about 75 fair-sized books. Someone who reads 40 pages an hour could get through all that in about 560 hours (or about fourteen 40-hour work weeks) sans breaks to rest their eyes or grab a drink. Oh, and that's leaving out the eleven state appendices that weren't available online.
• The Department of Education suggested that no application include a narrative portion of more than 100 pages or more than 250 pages in appendices. Taking the college sophomore's maxim that no one ever got in trouble for going long by ardently stuffing in filler, every state exceeded those guidelines. Taking this collegiate maxim to heart, little New Mexico's application weighed in at 890 total pages, which was just a hair shorter than New York's (908 total pages).
• In an impressive feat of edu-hipness, Wisconsin's application mentions "professional development" a total of 217 times. That's once every three pages.
• Illinois brags about partnering with Boston-based Mass Insight "to create scalable and sustainable strategies for turning around clusters of low-performing schools." On their own website, it just so happens that Mass Insight describes its expertise: "To create sustainable and scalable strategies for turning around clusters of low-performing schools." Someone more cynical than I might suspect that a consultant just cut-and-pasted, or that someone from Mass Insight helped write that language.
• The forty-one applicants asked for a total of $13.46 billion. That's more than three times the total amount available.
• At 847 pages, Tennessee's appendix was fat indeed. What does it contain? Well, remember the kid who used to cut-and-paste the Bill of Rights into his report on the American founding? The 259-page Appendix B contains large parts of a verbatim cut-and-paste of the Common Core Standards. Not only is Tennessee not unique in having signed onto this (48 states, 2 territories, and DC have all joined), but the entirety of the text is available online. Not sure whether reviewers should credit Tennessee's enthusiasm or ding Tennessee for the extra poundage.
• Ohio boasts of its "Simple, yet bold, long-term aspirations." These admirable goals include "a near-100%" high school graduation rate with schools teaching at internationally competitive standards, elimination of achievement gaps, and higher-ed completion rates "that are among the highest in the nation and world." Are reviewers supposed to reward that simple, bold vision...or dismiss it as puffery?
• West Virginia promises to highlight innovative thinking. One proffered example: a professional development training course in which staff read The World is Flat and used it to launch discussion. A couple thoughts. Well, just one. C'mon...really?
• Arkansas included in their application an entire appendix (Appendix B, in two parts) with over 60 pages dedicated to presenting excerpts from works of literature in the curriculum. These include Aesop's fable "The Fox and the Crow," part of Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and, in a truly touching bit of genius, a writing sample from a second grader entitled "My Ride on Space Mountain." I'll say it again. C'mon... really?
Anyway, it turns out that spending millions to have consultants stitch together vast reform plans can make for amusing reading. Who would've guessed?
By Rick Hess on March 2, 2010 9:04 AM
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2010/03/a_few_fun_facts_from_the_rtt_applications.html
With the announcement of the round one Race to the Top (RTT) finalists upon us, I can only say I'm glad I declined the invitation to apply to be an RTT reviewer. For those who have had a chance to peruse the applications, you know what I mean. For those of you who haven't, it's worth a look. The notion that any responsible person can read these and determine which deserve how many points on a given criteria... well, good luck.
In any event, here are a few fun facts that emerge when perusing the mounds of words.
• The total page length of all the applications: 22,369 pages. In other words, about 75 fair-sized books. Someone who reads 40 pages an hour could get through all that in about 560 hours (or about fourteen 40-hour work weeks) sans breaks to rest their eyes or grab a drink. Oh, and that's leaving out the eleven state appendices that weren't available online.
• The Department of Education suggested that no application include a narrative portion of more than 100 pages or more than 250 pages in appendices. Taking the college sophomore's maxim that no one ever got in trouble for going long by ardently stuffing in filler, every state exceeded those guidelines. Taking this collegiate maxim to heart, little New Mexico's application weighed in at 890 total pages, which was just a hair shorter than New York's (908 total pages).
• In an impressive feat of edu-hipness, Wisconsin's application mentions "professional development" a total of 217 times. That's once every three pages.
• Illinois brags about partnering with Boston-based Mass Insight "to create scalable and sustainable strategies for turning around clusters of low-performing schools." On their own website, it just so happens that Mass Insight describes its expertise: "To create sustainable and scalable strategies for turning around clusters of low-performing schools." Someone more cynical than I might suspect that a consultant just cut-and-pasted, or that someone from Mass Insight helped write that language.
• The forty-one applicants asked for a total of $13.46 billion. That's more than three times the total amount available.
• At 847 pages, Tennessee's appendix was fat indeed. What does it contain? Well, remember the kid who used to cut-and-paste the Bill of Rights into his report on the American founding? The 259-page Appendix B contains large parts of a verbatim cut-and-paste of the Common Core Standards. Not only is Tennessee not unique in having signed onto this (48 states, 2 territories, and DC have all joined), but the entirety of the text is available online. Not sure whether reviewers should credit Tennessee's enthusiasm or ding Tennessee for the extra poundage.
• Ohio boasts of its "Simple, yet bold, long-term aspirations." These admirable goals include "a near-100%" high school graduation rate with schools teaching at internationally competitive standards, elimination of achievement gaps, and higher-ed completion rates "that are among the highest in the nation and world." Are reviewers supposed to reward that simple, bold vision...or dismiss it as puffery?
• West Virginia promises to highlight innovative thinking. One proffered example: a professional development training course in which staff read The World is Flat and used it to launch discussion. A couple thoughts. Well, just one. C'mon...really?
• Arkansas included in their application an entire appendix (Appendix B, in two parts) with over 60 pages dedicated to presenting excerpts from works of literature in the curriculum. These include Aesop's fable "The Fox and the Crow," part of Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, and, in a truly touching bit of genius, a writing sample from a second grader entitled "My Ride on Space Mountain." I'll say it again. C'mon... really?
Anyway, it turns out that spending millions to have consultants stitch together vast reform plans can make for amusing reading. Who would've guessed?
Category:
2
comments
Nice Satire here! And their picks leave Delaware off the winners list...
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2010/03/race_to_top_madness_almost_here.html
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2010/03/race_to_top_madness_almost_here.html
Category:
0
comments
That's right. Mass Insight is so very comprehensive that they've published the failures not just of those whom they based their 2007 masterpiece, The Turnaround Challenge, but also the failings of those who have undertaken their Turnaround Challenge Models. Ouch!
I've bolded the text that I think is pertinent to Delaware's efforts. Additionally, though each example is hyperlinked back to the pertinent report, you may need to create an account with M.I. to view the reports. Ultimately, if you're interested, there's a wealth of good and bad on Mass Insight's website. Since it's free and relatively easy to join anonymously, if Delaware's students are a burning concern for you, check it all out here: http://www.massinsight.org/members/membercontent/index.aspx
Whether we like it or not, whether Delaware receives RTTT monies to support M.I. reform agenda, Delaware is going to pilot their programs. It's time to get educated...
Here we go:
While CPS has developed a unique approach, by implementing a variety of strategies at once, the district still struggles with both the shear number of struggling schools and limited capacity to take on more schools, both within the district and with Lead Partners.
What you Should Know:
High capacity Lead Partners are integral to a successful turnaround strategy. The Office of New Schools works closely with the partner marketplace, the district’s CEO, and organizations that help build partners to ensure that there is a supply of Partners who understand both how to use autonomy and who want to be held accountable for performance.
Very few conditions, besides extended time, were part of the plan. District staff were able to make some staffing (both principals and teachers) decisions, but they were limited by not having the full authority to hire and remove staff as needed. The Zone lacked comprehensive partners who could coordinate efforts in each school, this coordination was partially done by the Zone sub-district.
What you Should Know:
The Zone strategy lacked some key components of turnaround, most notably full autonomy over staffing and the strategic use of more intensive external operating partners. District leadership also initially designed the Zone as a short-term initiative and when the district ran into budget constraints and the end of the proposed period was reached, the Zone ended rather abruptly and schools were redistributed into regional clusters without a well-planned phase-out strategy.
What was Missing:
While the Chancellor’s District did take steps to remove the most ineffective teachers in poorly-performing schools, it lacked the authority to truly change the culture and environment of these schools through a more complete evaluation of all staff.
What you Should Know:
By focusing on the lowest-performing schools, the Chancellor’s District funneled resources to the areas of greatest need; yet the district failed to create a systematic methodology for how schools in the Chancellor’s District related to the rest of the district. By targeting a specific set of schools the district was able to implement more control, but targeting that set of schools caused some friction with the rest of the district.
What’s the Plan:
New York’s Children First Initiative, launched in 2002, is a whole-district redesign strategy. The Initiative is centered on the belief that autonomy and accountability should lie with those closest to the decision being made — the principals. This newfound power is accompanied by strict accountability standards, with the ultimate goal being to create a new sense of empowerment for school leaders while creating an environment where local decision-making leads to successful outcomes in student performance.
What’s Missing:
New York’s Children First Initiative is missing several key factors that would assist in school turnarounds, including: broader authority over people, funding for an extended school day, and a strategy to ensure that principals who are given autonomy are ready to efficiently use that freedom.
What you Should Know:
Currently, the role of partners remains largely advisory due to the strong role of principals in the model – this requires excellent principals, which the district is addressing through the NYC Leadership Academy. A more specific plan focused on turnaround would ensure that chronically under-performing schools receive targeted services and supports from a much more integrated Lead Partner.
What’s Missing:
While the Achievement Zone was established to channel the above resources to the neediest schools, few of he resources were actually targeted on the 11 AZ schools. Principals, the AZ Executive Director and the AZ Superintendent did not gain any additional authority over curriculum, staff evaluations, time, or the budget. School sites were not provided with additional socio-emotional supports, despite concerns about safety and public perception of AZ schools. While salary bonuses incentivized high quality teachers to transfer to AZ schools, the district lacked the authority to remove ineffective teachers.
What you Should Know:
The Achievement Zone is largely funded by local and national foundations. The AZ is led by both a “regional” superintendent and an executive director, both housed within the broader district structure. The AZ focuses on providing schools additional supports attention and resources supports, both from the district and from a variety of external partners.
Whether we like it or not, whether Delaware receives RTTT monies to support M.I. reform agenda, Delaware is going to pilot their programs. It's time to get educated...
- Chicago Public Schools
While CPS has developed a unique approach, by implementing a variety of strategies at once, the district still struggles with both the shear number of struggling schools and limited capacity to take on more schools, both within the district and with Lead Partners.
High capacity Lead Partners are integral to a successful turnaround strategy. The Office of New Schools works closely with the partner marketplace, the district’s CEO, and organizations that help build partners to ensure that there is a supply of Partners who understand both how to use autonomy and who want to be held accountable for performance.
- Miami-Dade's School Improvement Zone
Very few conditions, besides extended time, were part of the plan. District staff were able to make some staffing (both principals and teachers) decisions, but they were limited by not having the full authority to hire and remove staff as needed. The Zone lacked comprehensive partners who could coordinate efforts in each school, this coordination was partially done by the Zone sub-district.
The Zone strategy lacked some key components of turnaround, most notably full autonomy over staffing and the strategic use of more intensive external operating partners. District leadership also initially designed the Zone as a short-term initiative and when the district ran into budget constraints and the end of the proposed period was reached, the Zone ended rather abruptly and schools were redistributed into regional clusters without a well-planned phase-out strategy.
What was Missing:
While the Chancellor’s District did take steps to remove the most ineffective teachers in poorly-performing schools, it lacked the authority to truly change the culture and environment of these schools through a more complete evaluation of all staff.
By focusing on the lowest-performing schools, the Chancellor’s District funneled resources to the areas of greatest need; yet the district failed to create a systematic methodology for how schools in the Chancellor’s District related to the rest of the district. By targeting a specific set of schools the district was able to implement more control, but targeting that set of schools caused some friction with the rest of the district.
What’s the Plan:
New York’s Children First Initiative, launched in 2002, is a whole-district redesign strategy. The Initiative is centered on the belief that autonomy and accountability should lie with those closest to the decision being made — the principals. This newfound power is accompanied by strict accountability standards, with the ultimate goal being to create a new sense of empowerment for school leaders while creating an environment where local decision-making leads to successful outcomes in student performance.
What’s Missing:
New York’s Children First Initiative is missing several key factors that would assist in school turnarounds, including: broader authority over people, funding for an extended school day, and a strategy to ensure that principals who are given autonomy are ready to efficiently use that freedom.
What you Should Know:
Currently, the role of partners remains largely advisory due to the strong role of principals in the model – this requires excellent principals, which the district is addressing through the NYC Leadership Academy. A more specific plan focused on turnaround would ensure that chronically under-performing schools receive targeted services and supports from a much more integrated Lead Partner.
What’s Missing:
While the Achievement Zone was established to channel the above resources to the neediest schools, few of he resources were actually targeted on the 11 AZ schools. Principals, the AZ Executive Director and the AZ Superintendent did not gain any additional authority over curriculum, staff evaluations, time, or the budget. School sites were not provided with additional socio-emotional supports, despite concerns about safety and public perception of AZ schools. While salary bonuses incentivized high quality teachers to transfer to AZ schools, the district lacked the authority to remove ineffective teachers.
What you Should Know:
The Achievement Zone is largely funded by local and national foundations. The AZ is led by both a “regional” superintendent and an executive director, both housed within the broader district structure. The AZ focuses on providing schools additional supports attention and resources supports, both from the district and from a variety of external partners.
Category:
0
comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
