The Echo

My very deeply personal statement to Christina constituents.  This is my opinion and only mine.

Dear Christina,

Tonight, I ceded to the political coercion thrust upon our district through the media manipulation and propaganda campaign purported by the Governor of Delaware and his Department of Education to cripple our board's good faith action to rectify what I truly believe was the poor implementation of the PZ teacher selection process.

I voted with my fellow board mates to rescind the April 19th board action to retain and retrain our teachers at their current campuses.  There has never been a more tortured dilemma before me.  I continue to believe that the Department of Education failed to promote collaboration when they chose to freeze our funding without expressing their concerns directly to the board and giving us the opportunity to re-evaluate and initiate corrective action.

The spirit of collaboration is now dead.  There is no "kinder, gentler DOE," as representatives have so publicly proclaimed.  There is no desire to learn and share best practices.  There is only their way or the highway. Christina, for my naiveté, I am deeply sorry.  I will not rest well tonight.  The weight of this failure weighs much too heavily in my heart. While I am committed to continue the reforms that our community has supported, I will forever know that my vote on April 19th was right, appropriate, fair, and in the best interest of our students. 

The vote I cast tonight, Christina, was for you, to walk the path delineated by the Department of Education, if Christina is ever to reclaim the $11 million stolen from our children.  The future is in their hands.  Apparently, it always has been. 

Jack Markell for President, he'll be right at home in Washington D.C.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth

Dear Christina,
Here we go again.  More propaganda and rhetoric designed to distract Delawareans from the issue at hand: a state's over-reaction to an appropriate step to remediate a lack of fidelity to process.  My comments, of course, are in red.  Let the dissection begin:

Christina board chair burns bridges in Race to the Top
8:36 PM, Apr. 28, 2011
Written by PAUL A. HERDMAN
Opinion, Delaware Voice

In his comments at the April 19 meeting of the Christina School District, board chairman John Young made some colorful points.  Absolutely.  Importantly, shared by many who harbor deep concerns about the RTTT reform models. 

Yet, his remarks only served to shortchange the future of the district's 17,000 students and to disrupt the productive relationship that had been built over the past year as the state and the district worked collaboratively to develop a plan to turn around two chronically low-performing schools.  Actually, Paul, it was the state's premature and uneducated response to an issue that they had stipulated was one of local control that has "shortchange(d) the future of the district's 17,000 students" (including my own).  Did the state truly expect that Christina would defile teachers and affirm a corrupted process?  Perhaps, the business community did.  But, five board members were willing stand and support teachers, as the front line educators who are challenged daily by a herd of problems in their classrooms. 

Everyone agrees that Glasgow High School and Stubbs Elementary School need help. Everyone also agrees that bringing great teachers and leaders into the "turnaround" process is essential.  The district also saw that there is great potential in many of our teachers and that there is merit in retaining these teachers and offering intense professional development to improve their skills to meet the challenge. That PD is written into the plan that DOE, CEA, and CSD have all approved.

In fact, the district worked with its local teachers union to determine how the process would proceed, which then was approved by the state. The current controversy appears to stem from the board's interpretation that the interview process to determine which teachers would stay in the two "Partnership Zone" schools and which would be transferred to other schools in the district was somehow unfair. Paul, as Rodel's voice, you above all should recognize that accountability does not exist in a vacuum.  Let's start with the fact that three separate entities weighed in on the plan and MOU and not one of them caught the incongruities between the two documents. It was at the behest of students, parents, alumni, and teachers that the board delved into the process for a thorough review.  Christina's Board did not simply venture down this path because we yearned to dilute the reform process.  Our resolution to rectify missteps actually resulted in an increased scrutiny that will better serve Christina's students.  How can one expect accountability if we fail to ensure fidelity?

Mr. Young brought this problem to the board meeting on April 19. Yet, rather than proposing a resolution, he chose to insult each of the partners who has been working to help his district: U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who awarded Delaware $119 million; Delaware's governor and secretary of education, who secured this grant for the state; Vision 2015, in which his own district participates; the Rodel Foundation and its founder, William Budinger; and Delaware's businesses leaders, who have collectively contributed millions of dollars in direct investments, scholarships and mentoring to his district.  Really, Paul?  Really?  Did you bother to listen to the audio recording?  The proposed motion was set forth by Mrs. Saffer.  Mr. Young actually interjected that he believed the CEA President and the Superintendent should meet to attempt to reach an amicable agreement.  However, by this point in the night, the CEA president had left the meeting.  The board, after more intense conversation, then affirmed the motion on the table by a vote of 5 yes and 2 abstentions.  If Mr. Young had not cast his ballot in the affirmative, this action would have still carried by a majority of four.  I suppose that means you should be mis-representing the positions of all five of us. Should I expect my castigation in tomorrow's paper?

This week, the board now claims that the controversy was simply a "process issue" and that the district had never stepped back from "Race to the Top" or its commitment to reform. Some board members publicly affirmed its commitment to the plans last week.  I know you read the blogs, you've referenced them in your visits to Norm Oliver's tv show. Our weakness was our failure to publicly issue a collective statement on behalf of the district due to the start of the spring break and absence of staff.  This has always been a process issue.  A board's most common functionality is to set policy and ensure fidelity to process.

If this were the case, why didn't Mr. Young simply state those things on April 19? Moreover, what message was the full board trying to send with the president's 15 minutes of angry rhetoric if the district is still on board with reform.  The board suspended several rules during the April 19th public comment.  Mr. Young may have spoken for 15 minutes, but the board actually suspended time limits for all speakers.  Each and every constituent who wished to address the board did so without limit because we value the opinions of all stakeholders.  However, you and many others, have seized upon Mr. Young's comments to deflect from the issue at hand: a wholly-local problem that required relief and that five independent board members reviewed the information provided to us and arrived at similar conclusions.
Mr. Young's speech was unfortunate and his comments about our foundation and founder were disrespectful and ill-informed.  Let's agree to disagree.

Bill Budinger is one of the nation's most thoughtful, entrepreneurial and generous contributors to public education and other societally pressing problems. He built a technology business, Rodel Inc., from scratch and employed thousands of Delawareans for over 30 years at his plant in Newark (part of the Christina School District).

When he sold his business in 1999, he set aside over $40 million to help Delaware improve its schools. You know, no one spoke to Mr. Budinger's intent.  I believe he thinks that the fruits of his funding are helping Delaware's students.   But, the fact remains that at least two of the Vision Schools, despite years of investment by Vision 2015, were named to the Partnership Zone by Delaware's Secretary of Education.  Some might construe that to be an indictment of Visions' effectiveness.

Over the last decade, his generosity has benefitted thousands of children through investments in early childhood education, parent engagement, district and charter school improvements, and the development of Vision 2015, which brought together hundreds of Delaware's teachers, administrators and business, union and community leaders to develop a nationally recognized strategy for reform. "Teachers, administrators, and business, union, and community leaders."  What's missing?  Parents and their elected school board members.  School boards and parents were strong-armed into this reform process.  In my opinion, that most boards voted unanimously to sign the RTTT MOU was more reflective of our Governor's efforts to decrease education spending via Delaware's dollars and backfill it with one-time federal funds.

Yes, our foundation has a point of view: excellence in education for every Delaware student. Yet for more than four decades, Rodel Inc. and its successor foundation have attempted to interact with respect and humility with educational and community leaders throughout this state to improve the lives of Delaware's students and citizens.

Turning around our lowest-performing schools will be incredibly challenging. I couldn't agree more.  That's why chosing models that are supported by longitudinal data, implementation with fidelity, and the flexibility to tweak and re-tweak when evaluations point to failure are absolutely necessary to ensure any chance of success for our students.  FIDELITY.  This is what this board has attempted to interject into the reform plans.  Yes, we individually harbour concerns about these reform efforts; however, we have never voted, nor even offered a motion, to exit RTTT or PZ.  We have instead interjected a heightened level of scrutiny into the process and asked for and not received the SUPPORT of the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION nor the GOVERNOR of DELAWARE. 

The good news is that Delaware is a place where people have a long history of working together to make amazing things happen.

Unfortunately, the comments made by the Christina School District board president last week burned more bridges than they built. I will assert and re-assert that it was the state's over-reaction that has damaged relations between these parties.  The state, without any notification to the board, went to the press to announce plans to freeze the RTTT and PZ funding.  It is the state, as the purse string holder, that is denying Christina the funding to robustly implement the plans they have approved.  

Going forward, we hope there is a civil exchange of ideas and that real change happens. We remain committed to helping where we can. Our children can't wait.  I can offer only you one question:  Do want reform done right...or do you want reform done fast?

I strongly urge the reader to visit http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/27/29kohn.h30.html?tkn=OVXFdfnAL1ydr6JM%2F9rcLPBaAy7ge9ixblkk&cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS1 to view the following reprint with all of the hyperlinks not captured here.

Published Online: April 26, 2011

Published in Print: April 27, 2011, as Poor Teaching for Poor Children ... In the Name of School Reform

How Education Reform Traps Poor Children
By Alfie Kohn


Love them or hate them, the proposals collectively known as “school reform” are mostly top-down policies: Divert public money to quasi-private charter schools, pit states against one another in a race for federal funding, offer rewards when test scores go up, fire the teachers or close the schools when they don’t.



Policymakers and the general public have paid much less attention to what happens inside classrooms—the particulars of teaching and learning—especially in low-income neighborhoods. The news here has been discouraging for quite some time, but, in a painfully ironic twist, things seem to be getting worse as a direct result of the “reform” strategies pursued by the Bush administration, then intensified under President Barack Obama, and cheered by corporate executives and journalists.


In an article published in Phi Delta Kappan back in 1991, Martin Haberman, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, coined the phrase “pedagogy of poverty.” Based on his observations in thousands of urban classrooms, Haberman described a tightly controlled routine in which teachers dispense, and then test students on, factual information; assign seatwork; and punish noncompliance. It is a regimen, he said, “in which learners can ‘succeed’ without becoming either involved or thoughtful,” and it is noticeably different from the questioning, discovering, arguing, and collaborating that is more common (though by no means universal) among students in suburban and private schools.


Now, two decades later, Haberman reports that “the overly directive, mind-numbing, ... anti-intellectual acts” that pass for teaching in most urban schools “not only remain the coin of the realm but have become the gold standard.” It is how you’re supposed to teach kids of color.


Earlier this year, Natalie Hopkinson, an African-American writer, put it this way in an article on theRoot.com called “The McEducation of the Negro”: “In the name of reform ... education—for those ‘failing’ urban kids, anyway—is about learning the rules and following directions. Not critical thinking. Not creativity. It’s about how to correctly eliminate three out of four bubbles.”


Those who demand that we close the achievement gap generally focus on results, which in practice refers only to test scores. High-quality instruction is defined as whatever raises those scores. But when teaching strategies are considered, there is wide agreement (again, among noneducators) about what constitutes appropriate instruction in the inner city.


The curriculum consists of a series of separate skills, with more worksheets than real books, more rote practice than exploration of ideas, more memorization (sometimes assisted with chanting and clapping) than thinking. In books like The Shame of the Nation, Jonathan Kozol, another frequent visitor to urban schools, describes a mechanical, precisely paced process for drilling black and Latino children in “obsessively enumerated particles of amputated skill associated with upcoming state exams.”


Not only is the teaching scripted, but a system of almost militaristic behavior control is common, with public humiliation for noncompliance and an array of rewards for obedience that calls to mind the token-economy programs developed in prisons and psychiatric hospitals.


“The children of the suburbs learn to think and to interrogate reality,” says Kozol, whereas inner-city kids “are trained for nonreflective acquiescence.” (Work hard, be nice.) At one of the urban schools he visited, a teacher told him, “If there were middle-class white children here, the parents would rebel at this curriculum and stop it cold.”


Among the research that has confirmed this disparity are two studies based on data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. One found that black children are much more likely than white children to be taught with workbooks or worksheets on a daily basis. The other revealed a racial disparity in how computers are used for instruction, with African-Americans mostly getting drill-and-practice exercises (which, the study also found, are associated with poorer results).


Well before his brief tenure last year as New Jersey’s commissioner of education, Bret Schundler (then the mayor of Jersey City, N.J.) expressed enthusiasm about the sort of teaching that involves repetitive drill and “doesn’t allow children not to answer.” This approach is “bringing a lot of value-added for our children,” he enthused in The New York Times Magazine. Does his use of the word “our” mean that he would send his own kids to that kind of school? Well, no. “Those schools are best for certain children,” he explained.


The result is that “certain children” are left farther and farther behind. The rich get richer, while the poor get worksheets.


To be sure, the gap is not entirely due to how kids are taught. As economist Richard Rothstein reminds us, all school-related variables combined can explain only about one-third of the variation in student achievement. Similarly, if you look closely at those international-test comparisons that supposedly find the United States trailing, it turns out that socioeconomic factors are largely responsible. Our wealthier students do very well compared with students in other countries; our poorer students do not. And we have more poor children than do other industrialized nations.


To whatever extent education does matter, though, the pedagogy of poverty traps those who are subject to it. The problem isn’t that their education lacks “rigor”—in fact, a single-minded focus on “raising the bar” has served mostly to push more low-income youths out of school—but that it lacks depth and relevance and the capacity to engage students. As Deborah Stipek, the dean of Stanford University’s school of education, once commented, drill-and-skill instruction isn’t how middle-class children got their edge, so “why use a strategy to help poor kids catch up that didn’t help middle-class kids in the first place?”


Rather than viewing the pedagogy of poverty as a disgrace, however, many of the charter schools championed by the new reformers have concentrated on perfecting and intensifying techniques to keep children “on task” and compel them to follow directions. (Interestingly, their carrot-and-stick methods mirror those used by policymakers to control educators.) Bunches of eager, mostly white, college students are invited to drop by for a couple of years to lend their energy to this dubious enterprise.


Is racism to blame here? Or could it be that, at its core, the corporate version of “school reform” was never intended to promote thinking—let alone interest in learning—but merely to improve test results? That pressure is highest in the inner cities, where the scores are lowest. And indeed the pedagogy of poverty can sometimes “work” to raise those scores, but at a huge price. Because the tests measure what matters least, it’s possible for the accountability movement to simultaneously narrow the test-score gap and widen the learning gap.


According to Deborah Meier, the founder of extraordinary schools in New York City and Boston: “Only secretly rebellious teachers have ever done right by our least advantaged kids.” To do right by them in the open, we would need structural changes that make the best kind of teaching available to the kids who need it most.


And we know it can work—which is to say, the pedagogy of poverty is not what’s best for the poor. Even back in 1992, a three-year study (published by the U.S. Department of Education) of 140 low-income elementary classrooms found that students whose teachers emphasized “meaning and understanding” flourished. The researchers concluded by decisively rejecting as unhelpful “schooling for the children of poverty ... [that] emphasizes basic skills, sequential curricula, and tight control of instruction by the teacher.”


Remarkable results with low-income students have also been found with the Reggio Emilia model of early-childhood education, the “performance assessment” high schools in New York, and Big Picture schools around the country. All of these approaches start with students’ interests and questions; learning is organized around real-life problems and projects. Exploration is both active and interactive, reflecting the simple truth that children learn how to make good decisions by making decisions, not by following directions. Finally, success is judged by authentic indicators of thinking and motivation, not by multiple-choice tests.


That last point is critical. Standardized exams serve mostly to make dreadful forms of teaching appear successful. As long as they remain our primary way of evaluating, we may never see real school reform—only an intensification of traditional practices, with the worst reserved for the disadvantaged.


A British educator named David Gribble was once speaking in favor of the kind of education that honors children’s interests and helps them think deeply about questions that matter. Of course, he added, that sort of education is appropriate for affluent children. For disadvantaged children, on the other hand, it is ... essential.
Copyright © 2011 by Alfie Kohn

Alfie Kohn is the author of a dozen books on education and human behavior, the latest of which is Feel-Bad Education ... and Other Contrarian Essays on Children and Schooling (Beacon Press, 2011). He lives (actually) in the Boston area and (virtually) at www.alfiekohn.org.

Excerpt from Gov. Markell's Delaware Voice Column in today's News Journal:

When the Christina School District was told that Glasgow and Stubbs would be two of the four schools chosen for the Partnership Zone reform effort, they were given several options to make change happen for those kids. They chose to provide their own detailed plan for how they would transform those schools. The state accepted the plan, and the district committed to implementing it.
This week, the school board members seem to have voted to change their mind. Instead of making progress and moving forward, some members decided instead to point fingers at the state for local implementation issues they could have identified and solved. They offered angry speeches instead of offering options on how they were going to keep the commitment they made to the kids in those schools. They injected tremendous uncertainty about what those schools will look like next year.

Dear Gov.

This is a personal letter, in a public forum, submitting one individual's own interpretation of the recent series of events in Delaware:

As of Easter Sunday, you still don't have your facts right.  I strongly suspect that you have not listened to the audio file of the April 19th meeting that is readily available to the entire listening public on the Christina District website.  If you had, you would drawn vastly different conclusions.

You would know that Christina absolutely recognized that the fidelity of the implementation to the MOU as a local issue.  You would know that members of this board did seek out your Sec. of Education for guidance on this issue before April 19th. And that she confirmed this was a local issue.  You would know that this board agonized over what was the right and fair remedy and that we all spent many hours of our own personal time outside this meeting responding to constituents and researching our options. 

If you had listened to that audio file, you would know that this board owned the errors of process and the mistakes of implementation.  We accepted that as the elected policy-makers and custodians of the district.  We feel deeply that true reform will happen only with fidelity to the plan and that the absence of fidelity will result in the failure of this plan. 

If you had listened to that audio file, you would know that this board never, at any point, discussed deviating from the approved-reform plan, although many board members do have gut-wrenching concerns over the reform models and the total instability that these models are inflicting upon our students.

If you had listened, you would know that this board voted to "retain and retrain" its teachers.  That it is committed to moving the reform plan forward utilizing among other commitments, the professional development avenues already imbedded into the plan.   The retention of 19 teachers at these two schools did not in any way walk the PZ plan backwards and therefore did not jeopardize your Race to the Top. 

If you had listened, you would know that we at no time threatened your Race to the Top legacy.  As the PZ is regulated, we have no option but to continue on course.  You would know that the decision this board made was one based upon integrity, not fear, nor threats.  It was a vote to support our students and that one's word is as valuable as one's actions.  We made a promise to the teachers at our PZ schools that decisions regarding their futures would be informed by multiple measures.  We failed to keep our word.  We acted within the province of local control to remedy those errors. 

If you had listened you would know that the MOU could only be changed by mutual agreement of the two signing parties.  The board was one, the CEA, the other.  The DOE has no vote. 

If you had cared to contact us after the meeting and before you froze our funding, you would know that the CEA leadership has expressed their gratitude and support for undoing what was truly a tragedy to some wonderful educators. 

If you had cared to contact us before you froze our funding, we might very well have worked through these issues before they became national news and thrust Delaware and Christina into a bad light.  We may have avoided the angry rhetoric and propaganda campaign embarked upon by the state. 

You would know, Gov, that this board never walked away from the table and that the only party injecting tremendous uncertainty is your department of education.  CEA is committed.  Christina is committed.  Are you and DOE? 

It's not too late to listen.  But, prepare yourself, it was a seven hour meeting.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Scheinberg

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 22, 2011
CONTACT

Wendy Lapham, Public Information Officer, Christina School District, 302-552-2610

Christina School District Committed to Transformation of Glasgow High School and Stubbs Elementary School

Wilmington, DE – The Christina School District remains committed to the process of transformation at both Glasgow High School and Stubbs Elementary. We are continuing along the path set out by the Partnership Zone plan and are confident our efforts are aligned with the goals of radically changing these two schools. The DOE’s decision to freeze funding will ultimately put that process on hold. The ongoing commitment of the Christina School District demands that we must proceed without delay. We are anxious for the State to revisit its decision to freeze federal funds marked for these reforms so that we may serve the students of Christina per the state approved Partnership Zone plan supported by Delaware regulation. We look forward to working with the DOE and the CEA to expeditiously resolve this issue on behalf of the children of Christina.

My comments are bold and in RED.

April 21, 2011 DOE PRESS RELEASE
State To Freeze Christina School District’s Race To The Top Dollars

Secretary of Education Lillian M. Lowery announced today that the Delaware Department of Education will freeze more than $11 million in federal Race to the Top (RTTT) dollars previously dedicated to the Christina School District. This action follows the Christina School Board’s vote Tuesday not to honor its agreement to implement its own previously approved reform plan at two of Delaware's lowest-performing schools.

The Christina Board of Education did not vote "not to honor its agreement to implement its own previously approved reform plan."  The CBOE discovered errors and/or flaws in the two documents governing the selection process for the teachers at the two PZ schools.  The Board voted to take corrective action - to retain and retrain the affected teachers - to offer positions to the 19 teachers.  The district has already committed in the DOE-approved PZ plan to providing the necessary professional development for all educators at the PZ schools.

In addition to the more than $11 million in reform dollars, the district will also lose out on programs paid for with the state's portion of RTTT funding. The Department also is reviewing what other fiscal and regulatory impacts could result from Christina’s actions.

In January 2010, the CBOE met in public session with Dr. Lowery to discuss the RTTT MOU.  At that time, I asked Dr. Lowery what would happen if a district did not sign the MOU?  She responded that, should Delaware win the RTTT funding, such a district would still benefit from the services that the DOE was committing to providing.  She cited data coaches as an example.   She also stated that PZ would become a regulation and participation would not be voluntary.

“Over the last three years, the average math and English Language Arts proficiency for students at Stubbs Elementary School has declined from 54.65% in 2008 to only 40.42% in 2010. Similarly, at Glasgow High School, the math and English Language Arts average proficiency declined from 41.28% in 2008 to 35.59% in 2010.” Lowery said. “We have a moral obligation to these children to do better for them, and the school board’s recent action retreats from that obligation.”

We absolutely have a moral obligation to do better for our children.  I would argue that it is the Department of Education's hasty and unreasonable response to an issue of local control that is a retreat from that obligation.

“We hope Christina’s leadership will come back to the table and return to the work they pledged to complete,” Lowery said. “The children in these struggling schools are counting on them to do so.”

Christina's leadership did not walk away from the table nor the work they have pledged to complete. CBOE did NOT vote to exit the RTTT MOU or the PZ.  Those suggestions were never even on the table, nor were they even discussed at the April 19th board meeting.  The audio from that meeting is available on the Christina School District's website.


This is blatant misinformation being dispensed by the Department of Education.  Since April 19th, the DOE has chosen to communicate with the board through press releases and local media.  They have not directed any concerns to this board member nor the board as a whole.

The children in these struggling schools are counting on the DOE to honor its commitment to fund the RTTT and PZ plans that Christina is actively implementing.

Because of the long-term failure of both schools to meet the needs of Delaware's students, reform is needed.

Despite serious concerns regarding the models of reform offered to PZ schools and the lack of longitudinal data to support these reforms, and despite a culture of continuous reform and instability, I continue to support my educators who are dedicated to improving the achievement of our students.

In September, the state selected Christina’s Glasgow High and Stubbs Elementary schools as two of the first four schools in the state’s new Partnership Zone. Six more schools will be named this summer. As a key component of Delaware’s $119 Race to the Top plan, the Partnership Zone targets the state’s lowest performing schools with additional financial resources and technical assistance to implement aggressive reforms. Each school’s leadership chose a reform method and locally drafted a plan. Secretary Lowery approved those local plans in January.

Secretary Lowery has repeatedly articulated the need for learning from our mistakes and sharing best practices between the first cohort of PZ schools and six yet-to-be-named schools.  CBOE has identified mistakes in the utilization of process.  Rather than support CBOE in their exercise of local control and rectification, the DOE has frozen our funding.  Sadly, actions are indeed louder than words.

Christina chose the transformation model for both of its schools. Among other important changes -- including shifts in curricula, the addition of content-specific academies, extended instructional hours and intense intervention models – the plan developed by the district calls for school leadership and staff to re-interview for positions. Those not invited back would be moved to a position in another building that better complemented their talents. No teacher would lose any salary, benefits or seniority.

Yes, the plan called for teachers to re-interview for positions. However, when the board evaluated the results of the interviews the governing documents were found to be misleading.  There were several interpretations of what should have occurred.  Ultimately, the 20 minute interview was the only rubric used to determine selection when the documents indicate that other factors would be considered.  In addition, the board found that there were violations of some requirements such as having the Campus Principal present at the interviews.  The process also failed to be completed by assigned deadlines.

Christina, with the support of its teacher union, created a process for that selection that included a review panel dominated by teacher and local administrative representation. The district followed the process with fidelity, but on Tuesday, the school board voted not to accept the results of that process and to return teachers to their original classrooms.

1.  Yes, the CEA  and the district supported the process as it was designed.  However, during the review of the utilization, the board identified flaws. 
2.  Board members voiced serious concerns about the fidelity of the process, the clarity of which was muddied by potentially conflicting documents. 
3. The affected teachers were never removed from their original classrooms as the DOE press release would lead one to believe. In reality, the corrective action that the board chose to employ was to offer these teachers positions at the PZ schools next year, to retain and train.  The teachers also retained the right to voluntarily transfer out of the PZ schools.

“The staffing process in dispute was outlined in an agreement that Christina’s leadership crafted, signed off on, and was charged with implementing,” Lowery said. “After implementing the process they agreed to, the Christina School Board now wants to change those rules. That’s not fair to anyone, particularly the students who could lose out.”

The board stipulated that union and district leadership "crafted, signed off on, and was charged with implementing" the agreement.  This was not a matter of board seeking to change the rules.  Again, we learned that we had failed to implement with fidelity and we took corrective action.   

“The Christina School District developed its reform plan and sought federal/state financial assistance to make the plan a reality. The Christina School Board now seeks to back away from the very plan that resulted in the awarding of these funds.”

A Complete and Total LIE.  The CBOE has not taken any steps "to back away from" that plan.

Lowery said she understands that real reform is going to bring push back.
“Change is hard, but it’s the only way to get different results,” she said. “Our children can’t afford for us to stick with the status quo because it’s easier or more comfortable. They deserve better, and as leaders, it’s our job to give them better.”

Improved outcomes for children:  Do you want your plan implemented correctly?  Or do you want it fast?  This board chose to do it RIGHT.  DOE has compelled the process to occur FAST.  The only thing here that is STATUS QUO is the constant culture of DEFORM. 


My message tonight to Christina, is that there are some among us who will continue to stand strong for our children, our students, who will work to cultivate an environment of success and achievement.  We will fight for this district, we will fight for you.

Christina community doubting Del. Dept of Education's decisions


What you need to know? Here's my short summary:  Christina's Board identified flaws last night in its DOE-approved plan for the two DOE-named Partnership Zone schools, Glasgow and Stubbs.  The plan was flawed in that it did not match the Memoranda of Understanding between the Christina Education Association and the Christina Board of Education regarding the placement of teachers in these two schools next year.  Furthemore, several board members voiced concerns about the fidelity of the process utilized and the clarity around that process due to the two potentially conflicting documents.

In response to the outcome of the process which resulted in 19 teachers who were not invited to return to their current schools next year, the Governor and State Secretary of Education met with Christina's teachers last week.  The board was not invited.  But, several teachers left that meeting and informed board members that they had been directed to the MOU as the governing document.  As such, DOE members have, in writing via email with board members, taken the position that because the MOU was between Christina and its teachers, this is an issue of local control.  An issue for Christina's board to address and remedy with the CEA.

Last night, the board dedicated many hours in public session to these issues and worked diligently to come to a satisfactory conclusion.  In closure, the board voted to support its teachers, provide the intense professional development required by the federal and state model of Transformation and already written into the DOE-approved plan, and restored these teachers to their campus's for next year.  The teachers continue to retain the right to voluntarily transfer out of these schools. 

Tonight, WDEL is reporting that DOE is considering pulling $11 million in funding from Christina due to the board's decision to retain and retrain its teachers at these schools.  What happens next?  The ball will be in DOE's court.  The assertion that Christina should forfiet any RTTT/PZ dollars is coersion and designed to de-stabilize the board and district community.  The very notion that Christina has backed out of RTTT or PZ is laughable.  PZ is legislated, Christina has no choice in whether to implement one of the four uproven reforms.  We've provided the state with a plan that they have approved.

Frequently, in this process, we've heard our secretary of education talk about learning from our mistakes and sharing best practices. The state bears the responsibility of ensuring that future PZ schools learn from the mistakes identified during the process and implementation of the first four PZ plans. Christina found an error. The board corrected it.  IF this is truly a learning process designed to improve outcomes for students, the state would join Christina in moving forward in implementation rather than threaten to withold the funding needed to see the project through to fruition. 

Do you want it done right?  Or do you want it fast?  You can't have both, especially when the longitudinal data does not support the models from which you are forced to choose.

And all indications are that John Q. Public is not welcome on the task force.  Nor are current employees of public school districts.  Wonder if that goes publicly elected board members?  Basically, just a handful of appointees will have the honor of deciding the recommendations for the fate of public education for the entire state of Delaware.  Check it out and then link to the bill iteself:

http://viewsfromlowerdel.wordpress.com/

Just a matter of time-Consolidation news


Posted on April 18, 2011 by Wolfe Gary

Well, we all knew when they started looking at the consolidation of the vocationals that it was just a matter of time and here it is SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 4

I've received an abundance of emails and letters from students, teachers, and alumni, of the Christina School District in the last 10 days, all showing support for our current Glasgow community.  I'd like to share one - because the author also sent it to the News Journal for publication in today's edition:  http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110419/OPINION10/104190315/1111/-Reform-taking-its-toll-teachers-students


On a personal note, Thank You, Ashley, for speaking up.  Board members are here to listen and voices are meant to be heard.

'Reform' taking its toll on teachers and students

12:16 AM, Apr. 19, 2011
1Comments

Letters to the Editor

As a senior at Glasgow High School, I am enraged by the transformations occurring as a part of the Partnership School Zone. The teaching staff at Glasgow as a whole is wonderful. Of course, there are always a few bad apples, but most really care about the students.

The vote by the Christina School District board was for transformation, meaning that the staff would not lose their jobs, but instead, they have been forced to transfer or sign two-year contracts. It's upsetting to see teachers who have spent 20 years working at Glasgow in tears because they were not offered a position here. There is no rhyme or reason to the madness.

Students also have found themselves hysterical to learn that veteran teachers will no longer be a part of the Dragon Family. Where is the accountability for the students who choose not to attend class or continuously cause disruptions? Where is the recognition for students taking Advanced Placement and honors classes who have gotten reference letters and guidance from these teachers, who have treated us like their own children? There are plenty of good students at Glasgow who have outstanding educators preparing them for college and the real world.

Ashley Green, Newark

POSTING
The Christina Board of Education will meet in Executive Session on Tuesday, April 19, 2011, at 6:00 at Shue-Medill Middle School, 1500 Old Capitol Trail, Newark, Wilmington, DE to discuss Personnel Matters. The Board will meet in Regular Session at 7:30 PM. Area residents are encouraged to attend.

The agenda will include the following:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THIS EVENING’S AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
               A. March 8, 2011 – Executive Session
               B. March 8, 2011 – Regular Session
               C. March 29, 2011 – Executive Session
               D. March 29, 2011 – Board Workshop
V. BOARD OF EDUCATION HONOR ROLL
              A. Middle School Sports Recognition .
              B. Martha Diffley, 2011-2012 District Nurse of the Year
              C. Daizy Fuentes, Delaware Boys & Girls Clubs 2011 Youth of the Year
              D. Justine Garrison, Recognition of Service to Blood Bank of Delmarva
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
VII. CITIZENS BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPORT
VIII. SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT
              A. First State Montessori Academy
              B. Race to the Top/Partnership Zone Update
              C. DCAS Update
IX. ACTION ITEMS
             A. Student Re-Admission & Admission Recommendation(s)
             B. Student Expulsion Recommendation(s)
             C. Revised Student Code of Conduct- 2011-2012 – First Reading
             D. Administrative Personnel Recommendations
             E. Revision to Board of Education Policy 1.02 – Policy Statement on Management Oversight
             F. Financial Position Report
             G. Middle School Uniform Expansion
             H. CONSENT AGENDA
                  1. Personnel Recommendations
                  2. Monthly Financial Reports
                  3. Choice Recommendation 2010-2011
                  4. Choice Recommendation 2011-2012
                  5. Choice Termination Recommendation – 2010-11
                  6. Bid # CSD 2010-23 (Revised ) CSD Consulting Services To Update District-Wide Facilities Assessment
                  7. Early Childhood Preschool Parent Council Bylaws
                  8. Bid Awards: Bid Number Name of Bid
                      (a) Bid #CSD-2011-03 Annual District-Wide Glass Replacement Bid #01-01-11 Stubbs Elementary School Boiler Replacement
                      (b) Bid #CSD-2009-31 Trash & Recycling Removal Services
                      (c) Bid #CSD-2010-03 Speech Language Pathology Services
                      (d) Bid #CSD-2010-04 Occupational Therapy Services
                      (e) Bid #CSD-2010-18 Elementary Counselors
                      (f) Partnership Zone Coordinating Partner
                 9. Resolutions on Upcoming Meetings:
                     (a) Executive Session Meeting, May 3, 2011, 5:30 PM, Christiana High School
                     (b) Regular Session Meeting, May 3, 2011, 7:30 PM, Christiana High School
                     (c) Executive Session Meeting, May 24, 2011, 6:00 PM, Sarah Pyle Academy
                     (d) Board Workshop, May 24, 2011, 6:30 PM, Sarah Pyle Academy
             I. Items Pulled From Consent Agenda
X. ITEMS SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD
            A. Information Requests
XI. BOARD MEMBERS’ COMMITTEE REPORTS
            A. Other District/Community Meetings, Site Visits, Training Seminars, Conferences Attended
XII. ADJOURNMENT

Date of Posting: 4/12/11

http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2011/04/14/if-communication-does-not-uptick-in-the-next-118-hours/

Ga. House OK's Giving Gov. Power to Oust Atlanta School Board

Last week, President Obama reminded us all why his election gave many of us so much hope. In 338 words he spoke of how he wanted his daughters, Sasha and Malia, to have their learning tested. He described a low-stakes, low pressure environment, with the results used not to punish them, their teachers or their school, but simply to find out what their strengths are, and where they might need extra support. He spoke of the need to avoid teaching to the test, and the value of engaging projects that would make students excited about learning. President Obama has made sure his daughters can learn this way. If only Department of Education policies would allow students in our public schools this same privilege! -  Anthony Cody, 4-7-11, http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/04/president_obama_we_want_for_ou.html

Common Core Curriculum -- Who's on Board? Who's Not?

Mike Klonsky.Educator, Author of "Small Schools: Public School Reform Meets the Ownership Society"

U.S. school reformers have expressed admiration for Finland's educational system, including its common national standards -- often ignoring other factors like their strong, tuition-free teacher preparation programs, strong professional stature of teachers, fully unionized teaching force, or their national health care program. Ironically, Finland, which holds down the number-one spot on international rankings, consciously de-emphasizes standardization and testing, giving ample freedom to teachers when it comes to the most important decisions about teaching and learning.

But for these and many other reasons, a diverse group of politicians, educators, civil rights advocates and corporate reformers have once again coalesced around the common-core idea and the functionalist ideal that there is or ought to be a common culture, expressed through the school curriculum, tying together the whole country's education system. It's proponents argue that the common core curriculum is also a way to better measure how state systems compare with one another.

Absent from the signers' list is national standards nemesis Deborah Meier, co-author of Will Standards Save Public Education?. Also among the missing are many of the sharpest critics of high-stakes standardized testing practices associated with past and current administrations. Diane Ravitch's is among those conspicuously absent. Ravitch, a longtime proponent of national standards, has become an outspoken critic of many top-down reform initiatives emanating from Sec. Arne Duncan's D.O.E. and from the powerhouse philanthropic foundations.

Except for Finn, I don't find any of the big charter school management or pro-voucher organizations represented. I assume that since since they consider themselves immune from any pressure to change what and how they teach, many of them probably couldn't care less. But there are also many progressives who value local autonomy and who don't trust education policies made far from the classroom, nor those policies that are subject to easily changeable political winds. Others are concerned that national standards and curriculum battles are a diversion from real issues of poverty and inequality. What good is a national core curriculum when some schools have the resources to implement it and others do not?

The framers of Common Core, including the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers, purposefully left things vague and voluntary -- and that's good. But lurking behind the scenes of course is Arne Duncan's test-and-punish, Race To The Top, federal funding reform strategy. Also watching are the omnipresent giant textbook and test publishers like McGraw-Hill and Pearson. Voluntary is never really voluntary these days, is it? And how can you have a national curriculum without national, high-stakes, standardized testing?

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/06/27boards.h30.html?tkn=UQUFKTCvhhFHxLGC%2BzYNgbBvrGTktey9QiJ6&cmp=clp-edweek

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/31/27pnbk_schoolclosures.h30.html?tkn=UMYFbUoqSJPhlznkeWOfaUPFGg2OQJr21%2F5s&cmp=clp-edweek

“School closings actually harm us in our communities,” said Brown, speaking this week at the Ford Foundation in New York City.
As a longtime organizer for the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, Brown was speaking from experience. Between 2001 and 2009, Chicago Public Schools closed 44 schools, decisions Brown argued were driven more by real estate prices in the surrounding communities than the educational needs of students. The results, he said, were a spike in school violence, the destabilization of schools receiving displaced students, and the awarding of several public schools to unqualified charter operators.

“They come into our neighborhoods with bad policy they force down our throats.” Brown said. “Schools are community institutions, not corporate craps games.”

This is anecdotal, but based upon longitudinal data!  That same data that was deeply ignored duing the Rttt competition!  But, hey, this guy's just a community organizer.  So what does he know?

In recent years, influential organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Broad Foundation—not to mention wealthy celebrities like Oprah Winfrey and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg—have given tens of millions to the charter and school turnaround movements, both of which are closely linked to the push for urban school closures.

Ahhh, the mantra of pro-local control, pro-public education, pro-child, anti-deformist, Rttt critics. Again, what do they know?

 Monday’s discussion featured delegations from Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark, New York, and Philadelphia.

Brown and the Chicago contingent took on the role of grizzled veterans of closings and turnarounds, sharing stories and battle scars while critiquing, from a variety of angles, the recent history of school closures in their city.

Marisa de la Torre, a Senior Research Analyst at the Consortium on Chicago School Research, shared findings from a 2009 study of 18 Chicago schools that were closed due to poor performance or underutilization.

“Very few [displaced] students went on to schools that were academically successful,” said de la Torre.

Pauline Lipman, a professor of education policy studies at the University of Illinois at Chicago, presented a series of maps bolstering her contention that “school closings are a way of clearing out a neighborhood for gentrification.”

And Karen Lewis, the recently elected president of the Chicago Teachers Union, reprised the message that she said she’s been delivering to the Chicago Board of Education for years.

“When we first started going to the board meetings about school closings, the decisions were already made. They were done deals,” Lewis said. “We came in said to the board this process is illegal and immoral. You have to make it more inclusive.”

A large contingent from Newark, N.J., was paying close attention.

Newark is currently in the throes of a significant restructuring of its public schools due to a combination of decreased state funding, declining enrollment, persistent poor performance, and the dramatic recent growth of the pro-charter and school choice movements.

Those know-nothings.

“Public accountability is being removed, and we need a public response.”

Yea!  What that guy said!  We'll say it, we'll say it again, we'll keep on keepin' on, because eventually someone who matters will listen! 

Click the link at the top of the post to read the entire article.