The Echo

September Monthly Meeting
Posted 9/20/2012

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Thursday, September 27, 2012

5:30 P.M. Executive Session

6:30 P.M. General Session

Cafeteria


1. Call to Order

2. Executive Session

a. Review personnel

b. Legal strategy session for pending and potential litigation related to Special Ed & Finances

3. Return to Public Session

4. Review, correct, approve minutes from August 30, 2012 and September 10, 2012

5. Financial Report

a. Financial Audit (Review & Approve)

6. School Administration Report

7. Discussion of operational needs of school, including the following areas: governance, finances, human resources, marketing, Special Ed, By-Laws and how best to meet those needs

8. Innovative Schools

9. Board Officer Nomination/Elections

10. Floor Open for Public Comments

a. Time Limit of 3 minutes per person

b. Allotted time may not be reassigned to a prior or subsequent speaker


 
11. Meeting Adjournment

Did TC or Kilroy send you here? Got something to say? We have a comment section, too! And. Murph, that goes for you, too.  We have real ANONYMOUS commenting on Blogger.

I had soaring hopes for Sec. Murphy.  Grounded.

Okay, so I get that DOE is having capacity issues - as in a flock of underlings have flown the coop since the Jack hatched Murph.  It happens - moulting.  What clucks, though, is what the cockerel does with the clipped wings still in the hen house.

Looking solely at Delaware's exceptional children - students who require special education - it would be negligent to ignore the fact Murph is about dilute critical mass by asking the State Board of Education to appoint Mary Ann Mieczkowski to be the Acting Associate Secretary of the Teaching and Learning branch.  Mitch is officially the Sec. for the Exceptional Children and Early Learning branch. Good move for Mitch, bad for kids.  Special education cells are among Delaware's lowest scoring DCAS testing cell. Whole schools fail to make AYP due to the state's failure to compel achievement from these students.  For the first time in memory, the Delaware Autism Program failed to make AYP in 2011-12.  When the state's pre-eminent special education AYP-maker fails to hit basic minimal achievement markers, you can bet it's something to crow about.  Over-extending the leader of the department that addresses Exceptional Children is just bad practice. Yep, bad for kids.

Now, factor in Baby Race to the Top, Delaware's second RTTT victory.  We've secured funding to develop more comprehensive intervention for Delaware's youngest learners - the Early Childhood segment.  So, what's Murph do?  He assigns even more duties and responsibilities to a critical secretary.  There's a term for this in the poultry industry - Forced Moulting - and it's not pretty.

Just what did Jack hatch? besides of crock of edushit? A cockatrice who lacks any appreciation for exceptional children? or a chicken running around with his head cut off? 

Murph gets an F in exceptional children.  But, then what would you expect from a leader whose about to import an Louisiana D to lead Delaware's Turnaround Unit? (and if you don't what I'm talking about, you better get your Google On!)

Take the crown off, Murph, you're headed for educational caponization. Do I see a chicken saddle in your future? http://www.mypetchicken.com/catalog/chickens/Chicken-Saddle-Free-shipping-p764.aspx

Forced moulting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulting
In some countries, flocks of layer hens are force moulted to reinvigorate egg-laying. This usually involves complete withdrawal of their food (and sometimes water) for 7–14 days or up to 28 days under experimental conditions^[7] which presumably reflect standard farming practice in some countries. This causes a body weight loss of 25 to 35%,^[8] which stimulates the hen to lose her feathers, but also reinvigorates egg-production. Some flocks may be force moulted several times. In 2003, more than 75% of all flocks were moulted in the US.^[9] Other methods of inducing a moult include low-density diets (e.g. grape pomace, cotton seed meal, alfalfa meal)^[10] or dietary manipulation to create an imbalance of a particular nutrient(s). The most important among these include manipulation of minerals including sodium (Na), calcium (Ca), iodine (I) and zinc (Zn), with full or partially reduced dietary intakes.^[11]

http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/pencader-charter-school-83012-board-meeting-videos/

Sounds like a bad dream, right?  It's not. 

Many of you know that I while I am a passionate advocate for education, there are few causes that fuel my fury more than the right of special education students to receive diplomas upon the completion of their high school career.  The problem is that in Delaware, we are systemically denying special education students that right every year.

Thursday night, following a Town Hall meeting in New Castle, I was able to discuss my concerns with Lt. Gov. Matt Denn.  Albeit brief, it was a conversation that gives me hope because I know that our Lt. Gov. shares my passion for special needs children.

I can't tell you when Delaware started denying some special education students diplomas, but I do remember the rumble of the differentiated diploma, under the administration of then-Governor Thomas Carper, in the early part of this decade.  In the May 3, 2000 publication of Education Week, Carper touted Delaware as an early education reformer: by legislating that "the state would become one of the first to link educators' job-performance evaluations to their students' test scores."

According to the same article by Joetta L. Sack, that piece of legislation set up "a new diploma system for students. To receive an "academic" diploma, students would have to pass the 10th grade assessments in math and language arts. Those who met all the course requirements but did not pass the exam would receive a "standard" diploma, while special education students who were unable to meet those requirements could receive a certificate of performance."

In the intervening years we know that despite Carper's legislation, Delaware failed to tie teacher performance to student test scores; yet, differentiated diplomas took root, sealing the fate of the many special education students who take the DAPA as second class citizens.  In one fell swoop, Carper and our legislature damaged and devalued the disability community and damned a generation of children to an additional challenge - finding employment or pursuing additional education.

I wasn't on the education scene back in 2000.  I was a newlywed and student, finishing up a degree in Journalism at the University of Delaware and working toward becoming a certified activity director.  I had no idea of the direction that my life would take, that in September 2001 I would become a parent and in three years time learn that my daughter had special challenges; or  that I would embark on journey of advocacy that would me in 2009 to run and win a seat on the CSD Board of Education. 

During the course of this week, I intend to educate my audience as to the reality of differentiated diplomas within the scope of special education, and to lead readers to the only logical conclusion:  Delaware must reverse itself in regards to the Certificate of Performance because regardless of the track you take, education is not a game, a play, or a Performance.  At the end of this journey, young adults are better served by a diploma than bouquet of roses!

--------------------------
29.0 High School Graduation

29.1 Students with disabilities who are unable to meet the requirements for a diploma shall be given the option to complete those requirements by continuing their education, at public agency expense, until their 21st birthday. Regardless of the document received at graduation by the student, whether a diploma or a certificate of performance, the student shall not be discriminated against during the graduation ceremonies.
Specifically, a student with disabilities shall be allowed to participate in graduation exercises without reference to his or her disability, educational placement or the type of document conferred.

(Authority: 14 Del.C. §3110)
10 DE Reg. 1816 (06/01/07)

Last Wednesday I attended the public hearing on the future of Pencader Charter School.  For several weeks prior to the hearing I had received correspondence from Christina constituents regarding the Charter School Accountability Committee's recomendation to revoke the schools charter.  I chronicalled much of their fight here on C&E 1st.  I also approached the school's leaders to discuss the schools financial viability and history of achievement and rates of graduation.  I arrived at my own personal opinion regarding Pencader's place in Delaware's educational landscape.  I presented those opinions during the public hearing.  Mine was but one short statement during a hearing that ran nearly five hours, far exceeding the two hours originally allotted by DOE. I was not the only elected official to offer a statement - Sen. Margaret Rose Henry sent a representative on her behalf to request that Pencader continue to operate.

I made statement 1) knowing that there would likely be repercussions back at home from those who are unable to speak frankly about Christina's acheivement struggles 2) acknowledging that this was an opportunity to have honest discussions about achievement and the current state of education across Delaware, and 3) betting that some media outlet would fully distort my message (which absolutely occurred in the Thursday News Journal and was finally partially rectified online Saturday night.)

Today, I am posting my entire statement, as it was presented during the hearing in Dover:

Good Evening,                                                 July 12, 2011


I am Elizabeth Scheinberg. While I am a school board member in the Christina School District, I am not here to speak on behalf of the Board. However, I have been asked by my constituents to share my personal concerns for the Christina Students who attend Pencader Charter High School.

I am fully aware of the status of Pencader’s finances. Their deficit is not insurmountable and pales in comparison to the debt that my own district actualized only five short years ago. It was our legislative champions who recognized the dire need for the Christina School District to continue operating. Today, that same dire need exists for Pencader. To that end, our dedicated legislators have acted to impart the necessary safeguards through HB 205. As of today, the bill is before the Governor awaiting his signature. His hesitation should not be held against Pencader or any other charter school.

I’d like to talk to share my thoughts on the impact of closing Pencader Charter High School and my concerns for the approximately 308 Christina School District Students who have choiced to Pencader. If Pencader were be closed, 308 Christina families will be forced into a mad dash for placements for their children. Some may, although it’s highly unlikely, find a home at other existing charter schools. Those who are economically advantaged may seek out Delaware’s private schools, space permitting.

However, in all likelihood, the majority of my 308 Christina students will return to their home schools, Newark, Christiana, and Glasgow. I welcome those students back with open arms. However, in doing so, I am ethically-compelled to address the hard reality of Christina’s achievement history, especially that of my comprehensive secondary schools. It is an unpopular decision to vocalize these concerns. But, these are the hard conversations that must occur if we are to improve achievement outcomes for all students in Delaware.

Christina is currently a district under academic watch.

Newark High School, traditionally referred to by the community as our college prep school, is in Academic Watch. Newark High School is closed to choice due to capacity limitations and will likely remain so for some time to come. Only those Christina students who naturally feed into Newark High can be accommodated at NHS.

Glasgow High School is also under Academic Watch, in addition to undergoing an intense, disruptive, and destabilizing transformation as part of its selection into the Partnership Zone. As we prepare to re-open Glasgow for the 2011-2012 school year, we have already completed assigning students into academies according to preference. While Glasgow will have a business academy, that option is only available to freshman and sophomores, and only if space permits. Juniors and Seniors who transfer to Glasgow will be required to join the Success Academy. Even though Christina’s s juniors and seniors at Pencader have already demonstrated a commitment to completing their secondary education with a business focus, the business academy will NOT be available to them.

Christiana High School is currently under Academic Progress, a rating shared by Pencader. However, CHS spent much of the 2010-11 school year in triage after the loss of its foundation, when our capable principal left to work with the Department of Education. It was spring before Christina was able to hire a permanent replacement. While I am confident that CHS will rise above its recent instability, it should be noted that

1) DCAS data and AYP achievement are embargoed until the July 21st State Board of Education Meeting, and until the embargo is lifted, it is nearly impossible for the constituents to determine if CHS has continued to improve achievement and therefore could be a good fit for any of Christina’s Pencader students.

2) There are prolific rumors abounding regarding which schools will be selected by the Department of Education to be a part of the final cohort of Partnership Zone schools. Many in our community deeply believe that CHS will go into the PZ, the net result of which would be prolonged de-stablization while turnaround plans are created, approved, finalized, and implemented. I am troubled because I cannot assure my constituents that CHS will not be chosen for PZ intervention.

As a district, Christina is working hard to improve our educational offerings and increase student achievement. I applaud the many dedicated employees in Christina who have made student success their number one priority. But if student success is to be the pinnacle priority, we must admit the reality – Pencader’s businees offerings do not innately streamline with Christina’s academic offerings or electives, nor can we offer Christina’s Pencader students a seamless transition into a comprehensive high school that performs on par or better than Pencader.

While many of us are here today to support the continued operation of Pencader, I have come to support Christina’s children and families, who have chosen Pencader for their academic future. I understand why many of these Christina families choiced out of the district. For at least a decade, Christina leadership fostered an environment of status quo failure. While I am certain that today, the Christina board is driven to mitigate the failures of our predecessors, we still have much heavy lifting to do. The families at Pencader have made their choice and I believe that given a solid plan for financial solvency, it is our moral obligation to continue to respect the decisions of those families and allow their children to remain at Pencader.

Turning families out at the end of July is morally-reprehensible. Again, I reiterate that I believe Pencader will be solvent. However, should closure be the ultimate recommendation, we owe our families a comprehensive exit plan. I urge the decision-makers to approve Pencader’s operation for an additional year, to prove their solvency, and provide accountability regarding said solvency in January 2012. Should Pencader fail in this task, such a delay would allow for DOE and the receiving districts and schools to plan appropriately for the transition of the affected students, while providing parents and guardians with the time to research which school would be the best option for their family. I believe that given such a plan, Pencader will prove successful and continue operating for years to come.

I urge you to support Pencader Charter School, and respect the work of their reconfigured board and school leadership. When we speak of student achievement, we speak of haste, of racing – the time is now! Despite Pencader’s financial woes, Pencader’s student achievement was NOT impacted. Their time is now and we, educators, tax payers, and Delawareans, need to give this school a second chance.

Well, here we are, celebrating Independence Day, freedom, and democracy.  But, as we attend our barbeques and fireworks, I think it's important to point out that not every deserving Delawarean is free today -- students and families at two of Delaware's charter schools have been taken hostage by the Gov and the DOE. 

Gov. Markell will not share when he plans to sign the latest charter legislation.  His press office has already confirmed that when he does, it will not be a Pencader Charter High School, although that community has generously invited him to return to the school where, just over a year ago, he was a guest a speaker at its graduation.  In fact, intel from teh Gov's office indicates that he will not sign this vital piece of legislation until after the State Board of Education votes on the futures of Reach and Pencader.

Here's the reality - the intention of the original financial legislation sum years back was to include Charter schools as elsewhere in Delaware law, code, and regulations, charter schools are determined to be disticts unto themselves.  Now, some crooked kink is using the lack of foresight of many to indicate that without the newest legislation, Pencader and Reach are not eligible for the same safeguards offered Christina when it had its own financial meltdown.  DOE refuses to respond to contituents regarding this issue.  I know many at Pencader have asked the question - could implementing the finance recovery team allow for their school to continue operating? 

The real raw deal is this:  When Christina was ripped off, the legislature acted quickly to enact the recovery team legislation because Christina was too big to fail, it was signed just as quickly by the state's governor to enable a loan to flow into Christina's coffers so that all due pay received it.  Just as today's bill was written as a reactive measure, so it was five years ago.  The difference is that this Gov. is hiding from his constituents because apparently, EVERYONE IS EQUAL, SOME ARE JUST MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. Charter students simple do not have the same right to their education as district students.  That's hostage-taking.  And that's the Democratic Word of the Day.

Pencader has two lenders who have approved them conditionally for a loan.  The condition?  Funding flowing from the state on July 1st.  DOE has previously informed Pencader that their funding will not flow on July 1 unless they can guarantee they have a loan.  The loan is contingent upon the July 1 funding.  The July 1 funding is contingent upon the loan.  The loan is contingent upon the state funding on July 1.  July 1 funding is contingent on the loan.  The loan on July 1, July 1 on the loan...

Scratching your head yet, or have you already rammed it into the brick wall???

There are lenders out there that believe that Pencader has a sustainable plan to pay them back, operate a school, and be free from financial problems.  At least one of these lenders loans money to the State of Delaware.  They have faith in Pencader.  Why is the state playing russian roulette with our children's futures?

Good evening!
In communications back and forth with legislators, etc. I don’t know if the horror of the timeline over two fiscal years has been addressed to you. It has made our situation even more difficult and although Reach Academy made that one of the 122 points in their complaint we felt it best not to sign on with them. However, let me just quickly tell you how we are impacted here: · Our public hearing is July 13 and the SBE does not meet again until July 21. That takes our issue into the new fiscal year.· We have two lenders who are very willing to help us, BSA Capital of New Jersey, and a private loan here in New Castle.· However, the lenders, rightfully, want assurance from the state that Pencader will be a school, even a school under probation, in the new fiscal year, so that they can be assured of repayment. DOE will not grant that. DOE has frozen our accounts so no current bills can be paid, and they are not depositing funds into our account on July 1 as is typically done.· Our new budget (designed by Bill Bentz of Innovative Schools, formerly with Colonial School District) has a very reasonable repayment structure built into it, something very affordable with all of the expenditure cuts we have made (close to $700,000 per year.)· We had hoped to get some donated money but that did not work out favorably.

We are instituting a Capital Campaign which will aid us not only in repayment but in building a solid financial base from which to work. We simply need to be given a year to prove that what we are doing is right and is workable. We did not create the problem but we have fixed it. The children of Pencader and their families should not be punished because of the real negligence of less than a handful of adults. Thank you for anything you can do for us. Listening is important!

Harrie Ellen Minnehan
President, Pencader Charter High School Board of Directors

Last week, we posted the email address for the State Board of Education following a recommendation from Sen. Margaret Rose Henry to Pencader families.  Her advice was to lobby the SBOE as the legislature has very limited influence over matters such as closing a charter school.

We have received a copy of correspondance from the SBOE via their counsel, the AG's office to a constituent. Initially, it's an unsurprising email.  Reading between the lines, however, should spark your ire - if you are tax paying low-man-on-the-political-totem pole Delawarean, that is. 

1) If you wish to have a formal comment submitted to the state board of education on a matter that potentially could come before the state board for a vote at some unknown or potentially known date/time, you must submit that item through the appropriate education associate in DOE.

Why?

• Because the DOE has made it so easy for Delawarean to identify just which education associate is compiling various files of unknown information that could someday prove useful. 
• Because we all know that we can trust DOE to be honest, fair, transparent, comprehensive, honest, reliable, unbiased, honest, timely, transparent... and we can rest, assured that our various unknown concerns will be 100% included in the mysterious final record of any unknown issue that could potentially come before the SBOE someday.
• Because Delaware knows that DOE and its puppet, the SBOE are so committed to transparency and living in the light that they didn't need the legislature to mandate that they record their PUBLIC meetings and make those recordings available to the PUBLIC because they meet at a time that is convenient to the tax payers. (Oh, wait, the legislature did have to do that! and the SBOE meets at 1 pm when most of the public is at work.)
• Because we can rest assured that DOE is self-policing and would never need an outside evaluator to identify areas of weakness, flaws, loops that leave an opening for legal challenges.  (Oh wait, that's what NACSA did...)

Enough Sarcasm -

2) If you send correspondance directly to the SBOE regarding an issue that could at sometime be an item voted on the SBOE, expect to receive an email from the Deputy Attorney General in the Delaware Department of Justice. 

This is necessary because:

• The Secretary was out of the office for the day and the Dep. AG fills in for the secretary?
• The DOE office staff is on vacation, likely at their Rehobeth Beach homes?
• Brute intimidation towards those who pay the State Board of Education members?
• Scare Tactic to put the public in it's place?
• The SBOE members are so insulated by the Gov. who appoints them and the Sec. of Education who controls the flow of information to them, that common citizens are not permitted to access these paid appointed employees of the people? Peasants.
• The Gov. and Sec. fear that the SBOE might grow a pair, evaluate the evidence on its merit and determine a course of action other than what's recommended?  (Happened once, under Minner... Could it happen to Markell?)
• The SBOE might hold the DOE accountable for its failures and mistakes?

Sorry, sorry, more sarcasm.

3) After a deep personal struggle, I feel I am morally obligated to share the following email chain.  It has nothing to do with my own disconnect to DOE and the Gov.  I believe in transparency, accountability, and access.  Someone is using the AG to limit access to public officials who hold great power in this state. The policies and procedures that allow this to happen need to be addressed, likely by the legislature.  The processes in place only allow one side of a story to go to the SBOE, the state's side.  The SBOE needs to be permitted to view all documentation - free of manipulation and undue influence.  And I just can't trust that DOE will allow that to happen. 

You may want to read up from the bottom verses down from the top.  The oldest/first email is last.


-----Original Message-----
From: Hickey Catherine T. (DOJ) [mailto:Cathreine.Hickey@state.de.us]
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 5:44 PM
Subject: RE: Email communications regarding Pencader Charter High School

XXXXX,

Please let me clarify this matter, as I am concerned that I did not adequately communicate with you initially. It is not that your (or any other persons) email/written messages cannot be part of the record. The regulation I cited and provided the link to describes the procedure by which any comments, electronic or otherwise, can become part of the record. So, if you or any other member of the Pencader family would like to make comments that are part of the record and thus available for the State Board members to read and consider, I encourage you to look at and follow the procedure set out in the regulation. Some, if not all, of the State Board members will not even read the totality of messages that are sent to them directly via email in matters such as the formal review of Pencader, as the Board members are very aware of the need to consider only the proper record in the case when making a decision. So, once it becomes evident that a message is sent outside of the proper procedure, the recipients are likely to delete it without reading it to ensure compliance with the requirements of the law.

Catherine T. Hickey, Esquire
Deputy Attorney General
Department of Justice
102 West Water Street
Dover, DE 19904
(302) 739-7641 (voice)
(302) 739-7652 (facsimile)

---------------------------------------
To: Hickey Catherine T. (DOJ)

Subject: RE: Email communications regarding Pencader Charter High School

Thank you for your email. I fully understand that my or any other person's email/written messages cannot be a part of the record. I will share your information with the members of our Pencader family.

XXXXX

--------------------------------

From: Hickey Catherine T. (DOJ) [mailto:Cathreine.Hickey@state.de.us]

Good afternoon, XXXXX.

I represent the State Board of Education (SBE). It had come to my attention that you have sent an email message to one or more of the members of the SBE about Pencader and the formal review it is currently undergoing. As I am sure you are aware, the matter of Pencader and the formal review is expected to be on the SBE's July 21, 2011 meeting agenda. The SBE must base any decision it makes on this matter on the record, which is defined by regulation. Your email message(s) to individual Board member(s) will not be a part of the record before the Board. I have pasted a link to the applicable regulation (14 DE Admin. Coder 275.3.10) below so that you can review it and see how to make any comments you wish the SBE to consider a part of the record. Anything that is not part of the record as described in this regulation will not be part of the Board's decision.

http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title14/200/275.pdf

Thanks to the Nichole Dobo of the New Journal for digging up this gem (hmmmm... is it me or has there been a lot of digging around DOE of late? Searching for the rubies and diamonds, I'm sure.)  http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/2011/06/report-from-march-evaluated-doe-charter-school-office/

Here's the link to the report in its entirety:  http://blogs.delawareonline.com/delawareed/files/2011/06/NACSA_DE_Eval_REPORT_FINAL.pdf

C&E 1st notes that the President of the State Board of Education was an authorizer of this report.  Its fairly safe to assume that the full board has read this report and will be aware of these findings going into their vote on the futures of Pencader and Reach in July.

For the purpose of this post, C&E 1st will focus on the highlights of Pages 8, 9, and 10 of the NACSA report (Highlighting and Bolding done by C&E 1st for emphasis.)  The following statements can be found/attributed on Page 8:

• "The charter school law in Delaware provides a framework identifying fourteen criteria that developers must meet to receive approval to open a charter school... In practice, the approval criteria have been interpreted fairly narrowly, creating an environment where reviews of charter school applications are not comprehensive or consistent and are thus open to subjectivity."
• "The authorizer does not have an established process or the evaluative tools to evaluate new charter school applications in their entirety... Few people actually read each application in its entirety, and individual reviewers do not provide comprehensive feedback in any standard format...  As a result, evaluations do not enable the authorizer to determine the extent to which individual components of the application align with each other, with the proposed budgets and financial projections, and with the overall mission and vision for the school."
• "The application decision-making process lacks adequate attention and due diligence to critical areas such as leadership capacity, need or demand for the proposed school, the likely success of the proposed educational program, and applicant capacity to implement and operate the proposed school... there is no place for applicants to address, and reviewers to assess, research or information related to effectiveness of the proposed educational model... As a consequence, CSAC application deliberations do not focus specifically on the viability of the proposed school and how or whether the applicant has capacity to actualize the plan."

The following statements can be found/attributed to Page 9:

• "While the application does not specifically address a vision statement, it requests a statement of the purpose and philosophy of the school. The evaluation criteria do not analyze mission alignment with the educational program or academic goals."
• "the educational program requirements are incomplete and do not elicit a cogent picture of the proposed educational program as a whole."
• "The application also does not require the applicant to address how the proposed learning program will be delivered, a leadership development plan, or position descriptions of school employees."
• "Evaluation criteria for the educational program are vague, incomplete, and overly focused on alignment to state content standards."

The following statements can be found/attributed to Page 10:

• "the application does not require critical information geared toward determining the applicant's plan or ability to create a sound organizational infrastructure or appropriate operations and management systems."
• "application does not require provision of an organizational chart, a description of the leadership model or structure, a comprehensive staffing plan, or a detailed professional development plan, which precludes assessment of the alignment of the organizational plan with school mission and education plan."
• "if a proposed school has a specific learning model - a Montessori program, for example, the authorizer does not require information necessary to ensure teachers will be adequately trained or that the unique aspects of a proposed school design can or will be actualized."
• "The application does not require a comprehensive budget narrative in which the applicant must present assumptions indicating how financial projections are tied to the proposed learning model, unique components of the school design, staffing and organizational plans, facilities plans, fundraising strategies, etc."
• "there is evidence from CSAC preliminary and final reports and recommendations, internal memoranda, case history content and site visit interviews with DDOE/CSO officials and school operators indicating that financial projections and facilities plans are reviewed for viability, reliability, and sufficiency."
• "However, this is not done in any consistent, systematic way, and the review process does not focus on the components or the adequacy of business plan components, and hence, is not a comprehensive assessment of the proposal -including critical infrastructure components - as a whole."
• "For example, the authorizer recently approved a school intended to serve a special education population; however, key questions were not asked during the application review process to assess the viability of the financial plan -enrollment assumptions. The financial plan was constructed on the assumption that at least 60 percent of the school's students would have special needs; the financial viability of the proposed school model was dependent upon receipt of additional funds targeted for special education students. In approving the school, the authorizer did not ask for a contingency budget plan if the school enrolled a much lower special education population -- which now appears likely -- nor did the application ask for, or reviewers inquire into, the recruiting or marketing plan the school would employ to attract its targeted population."
• "the review process does not focus on the experience or qualifications of school founders to start or operate a school, and thus lacks comprehensive assessment of the founding team's capacity to realize the vision of the proposed school program."
• "the review process is limited to ensuring that the composition of the school development group meets statutory requirements (i.e., that the initial founding board includes a parent and a teacher on the board)."

That's the tip of the iceberg.  We'll take on another chunk tomorrow.

Senate Majority Whip Margaret Rose Henry's reponse to a constituent:

Dear XXXXX

Unfortunately the legislature does not have anything to do with making the decision to keep a school opened - it is the State Board of Education that makes the final decision. I would recommend your lobbying efforts be directed to the members of the State Board. I support the school and have heard wonderful things about the students and the progress that has been made academically. I am so sorry about the financial issues. I do plan to support your efforts to keep the school opened.

Sincerely,
Margaret Rose Henry

For those interested in contacting the state board over the Charter School issues or other concerns, here they are:

Dr. Terry Quinn Gray, tgray@doe.k12.de.us
Jorge Melendez, Jorge.melendez@pnc.com
Dr. James, Wilson, imjwilson@comcast.net

Compensation

The compensation of State Board members is specified in 14 Del. C. §104(h), which states the following:

(h) The members of the Board shall receive $100 for each day’s attendance at the meetings of the Board not to exceed 24 days’ attendance in any 1 calendar year; and they shall be reimbursed for the actual travel and other necessary expenses incurred in attending meetings and transacting the business of the Board. http://www.doe.k12.de.us/ddoe/files/pdf/desbe_proceduresmanual.pdf

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

Stubbs, Glasgow among the first four of the 10 promised in Delaware's RTTT application...

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20100831/NEWS03/100831022/State-targets-four-struggling-schools

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:

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.”

Johanna Wald is the director of strategic planning for the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law School. Lisa Thurau is the founder and director of Strategies for Youth, a Cambridge, Mass.-based organization that works to improve relationships between police and young people.

Taking School Safety Too Far?

The Ill-Defined Role Police Play in Schools
By Johanna Wald and Lisa Thurau

This past November, a food fight in a Chicago middle school resulted in the arrest of 25 students between the ages of 11 and 15. Parents, youth advocates, and others rightly questioned the decision to criminalize teenage antics that, let’s face it, seemed relatively mild. Plenty of us, after all, can recall hurling food at friends in the school cafeteria at a similar age.


As we write this essay, the final resolution of the Chicago incident is not yet known. But regardless of what that may be, the 25 students involved are likely to carry with them for a very long time the trauma of being handcuffed, taken away in a police van, and forced to sit in a jail cell for several hours...

Another area of concern involves training requirements—or the lack thereof. School resource officers must deal daily with hundreds of students, many with serious health and mental-health needs. Yet they are not required to undergo any instruction in adolescent development or psychology, in de-escalating volatile situations, or on the effects of exposure to trauma, violence, or poverty on adolescents’ behavior. They are not taught how to recognize manifestations of students’ disabilities. As a result, students with special needs, students of color, and students from disadvantaged communities face a heightened risk of arrest.

Arguments that such heavy-handed tactics are necessary to keep schools safe no longer fly. Schools with harsh, zero-tolerance codes and heavy police presence are often less safe than those that embrace more flexible and nuanced responses to student misbehaviors. They are also frequently the same schools with shockingly high dropout rates.

A wide array of promising interventions and strategies exists for addressing problem behaviors without resorting to the mass arrests of students...
 

Click anywhere on the story to link back to the full article.

In the earlier part of January, I blogged my suspicions of Delaware's plan to pilot Mass Insight's Turnaround Challenge Program in Delaware schools.  The release of Delaware's Race to the Top Application confirmed my concerns. 

Before we get started, here are my early questions:
1) Will School Board Members, as LEA leaders, be invited to participate in the Partnership Zone Institute?
2) Who has Mass Insight and DOE identified to Potential Operational Partners?
3) Will participants in the Partnership Zone Institute be invited to participate in the series of visits to schools nationwide that have been successfully reformed?  And at who's cost?

The following excerpts are from different sections of the application, arrange here to provide ease of reading.
Here we go --

According to Delaware's RttT Application:

The State’s Turnaround Office will provide a range of supports to LEAs as they turn around lowest-achieving schools, from the point of entry into the Partnership Zone, to the planning process, to recruitment of leaders and staff, and finally, to the launch and operations of the turnaround school ... The State has established a partnership with Mass Insight to support its turnaround efforts, making it one of a handful of states selected for partnership with this national leader in school reform...

Goals

As noted above, Delaware expects to turn around at least 10 lowest-achieving schools by 2014, with each school reaching AYP within two years of launch. The State will initiate three interventions in the 2011-12 school year, and will initiate seven more for the 2012-13 school year...

While the process to identify PLA schools is quantitative and objective, the process to select PLA schools to enter the Partnership Zone will include qualitative components Partnership Zone schools will be selected at the discretion of The Delaware Secretary of Education...

The State’s planned timeline for implementation is as follows: In March 2010 (using 2009 data), the State will identify an initial list of PLA schools. By September 2010, the State will select at least three schools from this list to enter into the Partnership Zone and begin preparations to implement one of the four intervention models in the 2011-2012 school year. By the end of July 2011, the State will again identify a list of PLA schools, and in August of that year, the State will select at least seven more schools to enter into the Partnership Zone. These schools will immediately begin preparations to implement one of the four intervention models in the 2012-13 school year. In this way, Delaware will launch interventions in 10 schools by the 2012-13 school year. These 10 schools will represent nearly 5% of all schools in the State, and more than 25% of all schools currently in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. The identification process will repeat annually in July based on accountability assessment results, with additional schools selected for the Partnership Zone as determined by The Delaware Secretary of Education...

Delaware recognizes the challenge faced by LEAs in turning around the State’s lowest performing schools. With a long history of failure, these schools require radical reform to achieve sufficient academic progress among students. To this end, Delaware has established strict requirements for the four intervention models required by State law (which are equivalent to the turnaround, closure, restart, and transformation options described in the Race to the Top guidelines). In addition, Delaware expects rapid progress – schools in the Partnership Zone will need to achieve AYP in just two years...

To meet this need, a newly-formed State Turnaround Office will provide a range of services to LEAs, beginning when a school is selected for the Partnership Zone. The Turnaround Office will bring the nation’s best thinking on, and experience with, school intervention to Delaware, by working with Mass Insight...

Below are the details of the State’s implementation plan for its first cohort of three Partnership Zone schools:
1. Run a “Partnership Zone Institute” to inform LEAs selection of an intervention model and provide access to a network of potential operational partners: By July 2010, the State will host a “Partnership Zone Institute,” for LEA leaders. The Institute will provide a short, intense education process to ensure that local leaders are knowledgeable about the full range of available school intervention models, best practices, and potential operational partners. The Institute will begin with a one-day conference, providing in-depth reviews of the turnaround, closure, restart, and transformation models, including presentations by school intervention experts and support organizations. For example, the State and Mass Insight might run a workshop to share early results and experience from other turnaround states within the Mass Insight network. Next, the Institute will host a series of visits to schools nationwide that have been successfully reformed.  Finally, as LEAs may choose to outsource management of Partnership Zone schools to a third party operating partner (10) the State will facilitate introductions to potential partners that have a proven track record and an interest in expanding to Delaware (this may require a second one-day conference). As planning and implementation continue, the Turnaround Office will provide additional assistance with recruiting partners, should LEAs be interested.

(10) One model for outsourcing management of schools in turnaround is known as the “lead partner” model. These partners are granted operating freedom (e.g., authority to recruit and manage personnel) in exchange for accepting accountability for performance. Lead partners provide all academic and non-academic services at the school, actively develop a new school culture, and establish a full-time presence on site in the school...

3. Assist with recruiting, selecting, and training school leaders, teachers, and other staff: As soon as a school is selected for the Partnership Zone, LEAs should begin their search for a school leader (or a partner that will then provide a school leader). Ideally, the leader will be involved in the design of the reform model and implementation plan, and in the negotiation of staffing and operating flexibility. However, it may also be difficult to secure a leader until the LEA can assure that leader that he or she will have sufficient flexibility to manage the school (i.e., after negotiations with the union are complete).
Regardless of the timing, the Turnaround Office will support LEAs in recruiting, selecting, and training school leaders (and eventually other staff), by acting on behalf of the State to build a pool of potential leaders for all turnaround schools. This will include working with high-quality alternative certification and training programs (as described in section (D)(1)), leveraging the networks of Mass Insight, and assisting LEAs with recruiting local operating partners that have their own leader pipelines...

School leaders for the first cohort of Partnership Zone schools should be in place no later than February 2011.

5. Provide supplemental funding: The Turnaround Office will ensure that Partnership Zone schools receive the maximum funds from School Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA (approximately $500,000 per school), and will provide additional funding of $200,000 to each Partnership Zone school for its first three years of operations.

All Text from the Delaware Race to the Top Application
Note:  Nearly every paragraph is a snippet from a different part of the application.  I have organized them in most chronological order I can provide in order for flow of reading.  I have highlighted some sections in bold for emphasis.

Happy Reading:

While DSTP is rigorous when compared to NAEP and other state assessments, it could be more comprehensive, cover a wider range of subject areas, and include multiple formative assessments to help teachers hit progress goals. For this reason, in 2009 the Delaware General Assembly mandated the implementation of a new computer-adaptive test (the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System – DCAS), including formative and summative assessments, by the 2010-11 school year. Delaware is on track to meet this mandate, with a signed contract with an assessment vendor in hand.


Since Delaware’s new assessment will align with the common core standards (pending review and adoption), address college-readiness requirements, and be operational a full five ears before a common assessment is expected, the State intends to make its assessment available to the multi-state consortium as a model for the common assessment. When the common assessment is ready, Delaware will transition from DCAS to the new assessment.

DCAS: Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System. Delaware’s new statewide test of student achievement, which will be computer-adaptive and include multiple formative assessments. For every student, DCAS will provide up to three computer-adaptive formative assessments and one summative assessment per year, including end-of-course exams in high school, making Delaware one of the few states able to measure student growth in a valid and reliable way. DCAS will be fully implemented in the 2010-11 school year including benchmark and summative assessments for grades 2-10 in English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies and end-of-course exams for high school courses (e.g. Algebra II)



To measure learning against these standards, Delaware is dedicating nearly $13 million in local, state and federal funding to develop the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System (DCAS) – a series of new computer adaptive, flexible formative assessments that will be used to inform instruction and measure ongoing student learning. This investment, which shifts funding from an older summative testing system to one that is flexible and aligned with reform, includes $5.0 million of LEA funds, $4.1 million of State funds, and $3.6 million of federal No Child Left Behind funds.


Data from DCAS will flow into Delaware’s existing longitudinal data system, which already allows the State to know how every LEA, every school, every teacher, and every student is performing and improving.


As a computer-adaptive system, DCAS will improve testing by allowing all test takers, including students with disabilities, to take the same exam and have testing items adjusted to their level of knowledge. In this way, this single assessment will focus questions at the upper limit of a student’s knowledge, providing a nuanced assessment of aptitude and content knowledge.

Assessments:
In December 2009, the State signed a contract with an assessments vendor to develop DCAS (described in section (B)(2)), a set of statewide formative and summative assessments that will align with the common core standards. The vendor will make the DCAS tests for English language arts, mathematics, social studies and science available by August 2010, and the test will launch in the 2010-11 school year.

DCAS will be piloted during the spring semester of the 2009-10 school year. During the development of DCAS, the State will host a DCAS standard-setting event involving K-12 educators, higher education content experts and assessment experts to ensure that DCAS performance level cut scores represent college- and career-ready status for Delaware high schools. Once the development of DCAS is complete, the State will submit its revised State Accountability Workbook for USDOE peer review and approval.

In August 2010, the DCAS vendor will provide initial training for teachers and administrators on the new assessment. The State will augment this training with a manual and webinars to ensure that all teachers understand the importance of formative and benchmark assessments in improving instruction. Finally, in June 2010, the State will compete, as part of a consortium of states, for federal common assessments grants.


(B)(2)(i) Developing the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System. DCAS, Delaware’s own computer-adaptive assessment system, will be used to administer up to three formative and summative assessments per year per student in core subjects, and will include formative and end-of-course exams in most other subject areas. In developing DCAS, Delaware will use a combination of local expertise, outside vendors, and participation in consortia that will develop and share testing items (see above) to gain access to high-quality testing items at the best possible value. As a computer-adaptive system, DCAS will improve testing by allowing all test takers, including students with disabilities, to take the same exam and have testing items adjusted to their level of knowledge. In this way, this single assessment will focus questions at the upper limit of a student’s knowledge, providing a nuanced assessment of aptitude and content knowledge.
DCAS will also be able to synchronize with the State’s data system, yielding immediate results that a teacher will use to improve instruction. For educators, DCAS will provide a more accurate measure of student growth and more timely and detailed information that will be used for planning and improving educational programs at the school, LEA and state levels. The State will provide data coaches to aid in the use of assessment data to improve instruction (see section (C)(3) for more information on using data to inform instruction). In addition, DCAS will provide multiple opportunities for students to demonstrate proficiency and will provide academic achievement information to students and parents, including a measure of fall-to-spring and year-to-year individual student growth. The robust student data created from this assessment system will form the foundation for a data driven approach to education and evaluation that will affect all of education in Delaware.

Finally, as prescribed by the Delaware General Assembly, DCAS is to be developed in a cost-effective manner and, to the fullest extent possible, developed in collaboration with other states.

Delaware’s goal is to adopt new standards by June 2010 and to train the approximately 7000 teachers affected by the new standards by the start of the 2010-11 school year. The State expects the curriculum refinement process to be 50% complete by the end of the 2010-11 school year, and 100% complete by the end of the 2011-12 school year. By the end of the 2010-11 school year, the State expects that 100% of DCAS tests will be in place, which will include at least three formative assessments. To support college-readiness, the State expects that 100% of students will be taking the SAT by the end of the 2010-11 school year.

From Delaware's Race to the Top Grant Application:

Delaware’s newly-defined regulatory framework for school turnaround gives the State the authority to intervene directly in failing schools and requires schools to demonstrate results by achieving AYP within two years. It also requires both strict adherence to the school intervention models defined in the Race to the Top guidance, and negotiation of collective bargaining agreement carve outs to secure the staffing and operational flexibility necessary for successful implementation. In cases where negotiations fail, the State has the authority to break a stalemate. This collaborative, yet robust approach will be complemented with central supports from the State and will allow the DDOE to affect change at the local level.

Beyond these strengths, Delaware brings another advantage to its reform – its size. With just 126,800 students, 19 districts, and 18 charters, Delaware is small enough to make true statewide reform achievable. In Delaware, reform will be managed face-to-face, not via a remote bureaucracy, allowing the State to act quickly in response to challenges and opportunities. By proving that reform is possible with the same complex conditions that other states face (e.g. diverse stakeholders, limited funding, complex governance), and doing it quickly, Delaware will become a laboratory for reform for the nation.

My Take:
1) Delaware's students will be expected to make AYP in 2 years.  Statistically speaking, this requirement fails to take into consideration the divserse learning styles and curve of each child.  

2) The Reform will be managed face-to-face?  Between who?  School Boards, nor Delaware's School Board Association, were not brought into a collaborative relationship to assist in creation of the State's Application.  We have been repeatedly marginalized.  In scanning the Application, there are multiple instances of the reiteration of stakeholders and school boards are repeatedly left off that list.  DOE did not reach out to school boards until the deadline was imminent and they needed a signature, at which time we were told that DOE's reforms would happen anyway and if we wanted any money, it was sign or be left behind.  Hands Tied.  Period. 

(okay, that question may land me in hot water, but it's no secret that there are many in Wilmington who believe that their schools should be run locally, not by the Red Clay, Colonial, or the Christina School Districts.  Therefore, I believe, it deserves to be asked.)

Rochester, NY
Rochester, NY, Mayor Bob Duffy wants control of his cities schools, joining a growing cohort of urban leaders vying for education reform through mayoral control.  In Duffy's view, public safety, economic development and public education would all be better served under a consolidated government.  Though he appears to be gaining the support of both the NY Legislature and Governor Patterson,  the move is not without controversy and opponents, including the education union and some school board members who are mounting a fight.  (The School Board would cease to exist if the state's third largest district falls under Duffy's control.)

According to the http://www.democratandchronicle.com/, Duffy says, "This is about aligning systems that are critically important for the future health of our city and our children," He envisions a district that would integrate social service and nonprofit organizations to provide a comprehensive "kids zone."

By law, the city of Rochester pays $119 million to the school district annually. Savings would come through combining departments, while educational quality would improve in part through a more comprehensive social service net, Duffy said.

Mayoral Control
Arne Duncun has gone so far as to say, he would consider his time as education secretary a "failure" if more mayors didn't take over control of their city schools by the end of his tenure. 

Rochester isn't alone. as reported by Dakarai Aarons efforts "are under way in Detroit and Milwaukee to institute mayoral control, spurred by frustration over sometimes glacial academic progress.

"Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (who is running to replace Doyle) have been unsuccessful so far in their attempts to get the state legislature to pass a mayoral control bill, most recently in a special session two weeks ago. Barrett is still pushing forward, and the state senate's education committee is holding a hearing on the issue Jan. 5.

"In Detroit, Emergency Financial Manager Robert C. Bobb recently asked for academic control of the schools. He and others have expressed support for Mayor Dave Bing having a say in how the schools are run. The Michigan House will take up the issue in a series of hearings starting Jan. 14."

In October, reporter Lesli A. Maxwell produced an examination of Mayoral Control as education reform for the Wallace Foundation's, Leading for Learning Report.  Maxwell cites 18 cities who have explored the change in education leadership.  There are the heavy-hitters -- New York City, Washington D.C. and Chicago -- as well as efforts in smaller cities like Harrisburg, PA; Yonkers, NY; Providence, R.I.; Trenton, NJ; and Hartford, Conn.

Even our neighbor, Philadelphia, developed a model of control in 2001when the school district reverted to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Currently, the Mayor appoints two members of the School Reform Commission and the Governor appoints three others. 

What mayoral control does present is a direct line of accountibility for school performance to one person, the mayor.  If voters don't like the direction of their public education, they have the ability to change leadership every four years.  When Mayor Bloomberg ran last fall in NYC, his education record was a central issue in the election.

"No mayor has exercised such unlimited power over the public schools as Mr. Bloomberg," Diane Ravitch, a professor of education at NYU, former assistant secretary of education and frequent critic of Bloomberg, has written.

In the eyes of some critics, this is simply going too far. "We still think there are reasons to keep mayoral control," United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in her introduction to the union's report on school governance. But she continued,"The experience of the last seven years points strongly to a need for a governance system that is more democratic, more accountable and more transparent."

In New Mexico,

The push for mayoral control reflects rising frustration and desperation over poor student achievement, crumbling buildings, bureaucratic wrangling among school officials and revolving-door superintendents.



The districts have standardized their curriculums, ended "social promotion" of kids who fall too far behind, opened new schools to give students more choice and brought in millions of dollars in corporate donations.


But education specialists continue to debate whether kids really get a better education under such arrangements, whether any academic gains will be permanent, and how much credit mayors should get for the successes.

Kenneth Wong, a Brown University education professor, examined test scores of the 100 largest school districts from 1999 to 2003. He found that students in mayor-controlled school systems often perform better than those in other urban systems. Test scores in mayor-run districts are rising "significantly," he says.


However, Wong says in his study that "there is still a long way to go before (mayor-controlled) districts achieve acceptable levels of achievement."

Delaware school boards by contrast are slow moving machines that levy power among seven unpaid individuals with rotating elections of one or two seats per year.  It takes a minimum of five years to replace a board in Delaware and often longer. 

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to advocate my way out of a seat on the CSD BOE.  School Boards provide local accountibility representative of all parts of a district.  Candidates must reside in defined geographic nominating districts and are elected by all voters who choose to hit the polls on election day.  They are both accountible and accessible in ways that a mayor may not be.

In an April article for Edweek.com, former executive director for the New York Commission on School Governence, Joseph P. Viteritti found that:

Mayoral Control produces a mixed bag of results.  Mayoral control of public schools, now found in more than a dozen localities across the nation, has become part of the landscape of American urban education, even as the idea has played out differently from city to city.

Boston and Chicago are prototypes. In Boston, where the governance change was carried out in 1992, the mayor has worked closely with school professionals to implement new programs. In Chicago, where it was enacted in 1995, the mayor, at least initially, worked around school people. Detroit is a case study of mayoral control undone: The plan there went down in a 2005 referendum after six rocky years characterized by racial, partisan, and regional antagonism. The District of Columbia is a recent convert (2007); Los Angeles came close, but never quite got there. And talk about a move to mayoral control has been heard in such diverse places as Albuquerque, N.M.; Dallas; Memphis, Tenn.; Milwaukee; Minneapolis; Newark, N.J.; Rochester, N.Y.; and Seattle.

Veteritti further writes:

In New York City, our Commission on School Governance recommended that responsibility for the analysis and dissemination of performance data be turned over to the Independent Budget Office, which does not report to the mayor or rely on him for funding. Putting city hall in control of the schools increases the risk of politicizing education and the assessment of school performance. If a city is seriously considering mayoral control, education presumably is already a high political priority, so achievement data can be an irresistible temptation around election time.

So, returning to my question of mayoral control and the role it could play in the City of Wilmington:  The Jury is out on whether it works, though it is a favored model U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncun.  However, even in Duncun's home town, Chicago, longitudinal data seems to indicate that his own changes to education failed to spurr sustainable progress. 

I certainly don't have the answer.  But, it's a question worth asking ... and especially in light of regulation changes coming from DOE that could open the door for the elimination of local control in schools failing to make AYP.  You can check out those changes in detail at http://transparentchristina.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/delaware-regulation-changes-and-their-potential-impact/ thanks to a fellow blogger who's made that information easily accessible.

Time will tell.