There they go again…

For reasons unclear to us, the Projo often seems to find that pitting one neighborhood against another makes for good news.

The Projo editorial staff came out today in favor of the Achievement First Mayoral Academy Charter application.

The article can be found at the following link:

http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/ProJo/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=VFBKLzIwMTIvMDEvMTU.&pageno=MjI.&entity=QXIwMjIwMA..&view=ZW50aXR5

In the editorial they state “Some in the richer neighborhoods worry that their schools could suffer if some of the city’s education resources go to new charter schools”.

Here is the link to ESPEC’s statement, found on this blog:

http://espec.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/espec-statement-letter-on-the-achievement-first-mayoral-academy-charter-school-application/

We certainly don’t make that assertion anywhere.

And FYI: Who were among the first to oppose the AF application? Parents living in poorer neighborhoods of the city:

http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Olive/ODE/ProJo/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=VFBKLzIwMTEvMTIvMDY.&pageno=NQ..&entity=QXIwMDUwMQ..&view=ZW50aXR5

http://www.wecanri.org/

Parents THROUGHOUT the city are concerned that their schools may suffer if some of the city’s education resources go to new charter schools… get it?

And we agree with the Projo editorialists, the bottom line should be increasing educational opportunities for ALL students, in ALL neighborhoods, via addressing the barriers to meaningful change, posted in our letter/blog.

Congratulations to Hope High School Students!

An article in today’s Providence Journal details how students at Hope High School, organized as Hope United, met with Sodexho to have a fresh salad bar installed in the school cafeteria, the first in the City of Providence.

Details can be found at the following link:

Students lead the charge for healthy eating on Page A1 of Tuesday, January 10, 2012 issue of The Providence Journal

Hopefully, this is just the earliest of many examples of community partners seriously working with students, parents, and other stakeholders to help institute positive changes in our schools.

ESPEC Statement (Letter) on the Achievement First Mayoral Academy Charter School application

East Side Public Education Coalition

                                                                                    January 8, 2012

Board of Regents

Rhode Island Department of Education

255 Westminster Street

Providence, RI 02903

To Whom It May Concern:

The application submitted by Achievement First to the Rhode Island Department of Education to open two Mayoral Academy charter schools has provided community members from Providence and beyond with an opportunity to participate in a discussion about the programs and structures that will allow all children in public schools to receive the support and challenge they need to succeed in school and life. Both Achievement First’s proposed program and achievements and successes happening now in Providence’s public schools have informed our understanding of what is required to create and sustain such schools and the system that supports them.

We believe we must find ways to do what we know works to improve the public system. Rhode Island public school students trail the nation in measures of academic achievement and face an appalling racial and socioeconomic achievement gap. As we address these challenges, we must find the political will to face barriers to the institution of meaningful changes, which include:

-       a longer school day and school year

-       accessible high quality early childhood education

-       providing wraparound support services

-       community partnerships that allow for expanded learning opportunities and more time for learning

-       high quality curriculum matched to the needs of the learner

-       school-based decision-making by principal, teachers and parents on budget allocation, hiring and personnel management

-       meaningful professional development which meets both national standards and local needs

-       an assistant principal in every school with 400 or more students

We support strategic planning and investments that leverage these strategies for the benefit of as many children as possible.

Given the district’s dwindling finances and stagnant population, the establishment of Achievement First charter schools at the scale proposed by the charter application could have the effect of closing at least one district school and pulling resources away from Providence Schools at the time they are most needed. Given that the district has a high number of schools that struggle to support their students, including those schools identified as Persistently Low Achieving (PLA) schools for which closure is an option, we understand the urgent need for alternatives and choices. However, Providence has chosen to keep these schools open and invest in their staff members, students, and structures in order to improve student achievement. We need to focus on improvements that can be made in the existing public schools, learning from and keeping what works and changing what does not. We are concerned that if RIDE were to approve this charter application, it would divert scarce resources from our existing public schools and decrease the possibility that all children in Providence public schools would have the opportunity to attend high performing schools.

Mayor Taveras and Superintendent Lusi have stated that they wish to learn from Achievement First’s successes in other states to bring better practices to the Providence Public Schools. It is important to note that while there already are numerous “bright lights” in the Providence Schools, as acknowledged in the Education Opportunity Working Group’s November 2011 “Educate Providence” report, the Providence Public School Department (PPSD) does not have a system in place to identify, acknowledge, celebrate, and disseminate best practices already in existence. We contend that PPSD should use its resources to study and disseminate best practices already in our system before bringing in an outside organization to run our schools. Without the habits of sharing knowledge within the district, there’s no clear way for a newly introduced organization to share its practices.
Though Achievement First would present an option that could appeal to a number of PPSD families, the prospect of opening a new school will cause a level of disruption that our district can’t sustain. Choices about the schools offering educational options to the students in our district should align with the mission and vision of the district. However, the district’s vision isn’t at all clear at this time. We believe that the plans from the Mayor’s office and the Superintendent’s office need to be aligned and clarified, with appropriate and meaningful public input, before we make such potentially impactful decisions about introducing new schools into PPSD.

We are concerned about the unacknowledged cost impact that proposed Achievement First schools may pose. When Providence closed several schools last year, a leading rationale was transportation cost reduction. However, because they are not neighborhood schools, the Achievement First charter schools will increase transportation costs significantly due to the need to bring children from four different communities to the schools.

We are also concerned that the Achievement First schools may exacerbate rather than ameliorate the district’s equity issues. For example, an advantage of charter schools is that they have the potential for more flexibility than in-district public schools. Achievement First uses that flexibility to offer a significantly longer school day that allows educators to create a more effective learning environment. However, the length of the Achievement First school day stands in stark contrast to that of the Providence Public Schools’ standard school day. It seems inequitable that if this application were approved, some Providence children would have an 8.50 hour day and 190 -195 day school year, while others would have only a 6.08 hour day and 180 day school year. We want to know how the district can use its resources to pursue expanded and extended learning for all students.

We support choices and welcome innovation in our school district. We are not opposed to charter schools. However, we are not convinced that this is the right choice, and note that because the deadline for prospective charter schools to apply to RIDE is March 1, 2012, it is likely that additional charter applications, such as that of the Meeting Street School, will be submitted that offer both options to Providence students as well as potential threats to the district’s finances. We therefore suggest that the Board of Regents at the very least delay making a decision about the Achievement First application until we have a fuller picture of the charter options for the 2013 school year.

While the individual members of ESPEC hold diverse views, we agree that it is not clear that bringing these particular Achievement First charter schools to Providence at the currently proposed scale is the best decision. We therefore oppose the charter application as it currently stands. We agree with the concerns raised by other community groups about the financial costs, the failure to serve the whole student population, and the loss of public accountability inherent in the Achievement First application. We have observed that the public process to date has been divisive and unhelpful to parents who are genuinely seeking information. We believe strongly that concerned parents and community groups should pull together so that energy currently devoted toward and against Achievement First is instead directed toward identifying the assets of the schools we currently have in Providence and working systematically and swiftly toward their improvement.

As Mayor Taveras and Providence Public Schools administrators implement improvements that improve the learning experience and outcomes of all our children in all our schools, we must manage our scarce resources as wisely as possible both to encourage innovation and to preserve and invest in existing schools. We are aware of how challenging this is, and in that light want to question whether establishing Achievement First Schools in Providence via the Mayoral Academy charter school structure is the best move we can make now for long-run success.

Sincerely,

Jill Davidson

Michael Kenney

Bill Mott

Harlan Rich

Kim Rohm

Karina Wood

on behalf of the ESPEC Steering Committee

cc:        Governor Lincoln Chaffee

Mayor Angel Taveras

Superintendent Susan Lusi

Julie Tremaine, Executive Editor, East Side Monthly

Linda Borg, Education Reporter, Providence Journal

 

PPSD Registration Dates for Kindergarten students

PPSD has posted the dates for registration for Kindergarten in Providence Public Schools.

This can be found at the following link:

http://www.providenceschools.org/media/159414/registration dates for new kindergarten students.pdf

Note that if you have any interest in sending your child to your neighborhood elementary school, you have the best chance of getting your choice if you enroll your child in Kindergarten at that school. Once the slots are filled by neighborhood students (80%), the remaining slots are given to children from outside the neighborhood (20%)(there may be some exceptions made to this for siblings). If seats reserved for neighborhood children are not filled, they will be given to non-neighborhood students who chose to opt for a non-neighborhood elementary school. After Kindergarten, the only seats available in later grades generally become available through attrition. Hence, it may be much more difficult to enroll your child in your neighborhood elementary school in 1st grade or beyond.

More on Achievement first and “school reform”…

While we are pondering our student-centered, positive, district-supporting response to the AF debate (and it is coming soon), we have run across the following blog posts and articles in the media. A theme emerges, which we will let speak for itself:

The first is a blog post from Keith Catone, a senior research associate at Brown’s Annenberg Institute for School Reform, written as a response to the presentations made at one of RIDE’s open meetings to discuss the AF application:

http://bottomupeducation.org/2011/12/09/achievement-first-is-racist-but-who-isnt/

The second is an article from Time.com:

http://ideas.time.com/2011/12/09/why-are-the-rich-so-interested-in-public-school-reform/

The third is an Op-Ed piece from the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/opinion/the-unaddressed-link-between-poverty-and-education.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

There is also an older Op-Ed from the Times that echo’s some of our previous comments about the need for all stakeholders, including teachers unions, to come together to support positive, student-centered reform:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/opinion/teaching-with-the-enemy.html

About a woman of valor

Margarita Arentsen, a single mother of four and fairly recent transplant from Texas to RI, has, for all intents and purposes, held the Hope High School PTO together by herself since the beginning of this school year.

She has set up a Face book page:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hope-High-PTO/240600925985740

and attends PAC and SIT meetings, in addition to meetings with school administrators, Sodexo, Hope United (the activist student group at Hope), and others.

Several years ago the school department had a “Facilitator of School Support and Community/Family Engagement” at Hope that helped communicate with and motivate parents to participate in the PTO. Since that position was discontinued, the Hope PTO has been run (and essentially consisted of) a very small number of dedicated parents.

This is written to express great appreciation for all the Margarita has done, to ask both parents and students to chip in to support the Hope PTO (before it vanishes), and to ask the school department to really support parent engagement through the active assistance of a facilitator, rather than the passive placement of “parent zones” which, if there is no PTO, are little more than wasted space.

Yet another viewpoint on Achievement First

Aaron Regunberg writes in GoLocalProv today about a letter sent to Governor Chafee, in opposition to Achievement First’s application to manage Mayoral Academies in Providence.

http://www.golocalprov.com/news/11665/

We were asked to sign on to the letter. Many members of our steering committee wanted to sign. A few did not. Ultimately, we missed our chance to be signatories to this letter.

I’m okay with that.

The letter spells out a number of very solid reasons why a network of Achievement First schools in Providence might have a negative effect on our schools and school children. We agree with most if not all of them.

We’ve asked why the Superintendent of Schools and School Board supported the AF application. We were told that students needed as many good opportunities as they could get, and that perhaps Providence could glean some “best practices” from being able to observe AF managing schools up close.

It makes you wonder though… If the school department sees many of the practices of Achievement First as desirable, or perhaps even something to emulate, why not introduce those practices to the Providence Public schools? And if you do bring in AF, don’t you establish two “classes” of education, where the AF kids get additional resources, longer school days, more flexible educational practices, and so on, relative to the kids in Providence Public Schools?

Aaron goes on to state that the letter is summed up by the last paragraph, which states:

“Our repudiation of Achievement First is not an affirmation of the status quo nor is it a condemnation of all charter schools. The persistent achievement gaps that exist in our schools must be addressed, but no organization or methodology should claim to close those gaps while posting mixed academic results and undermining democratic processes. We implore your help in creating education policies, developed in conjunction with parents, teachers, students, and other local stakeholders, that help all young people enrolled in our public schools.”

ESPEC provided the first sentence to that paragraph. And while we completely agree with the statements in the rest of that paragraph, some of us wanted to push the paragraph in a different direction.

Aaron states that “much of the pro-AF rhetoric I’ve heard lately has attempted to frame all opposition to Achievement First as coming from the teachers union and as being against educational change in general”.  Some of us wanted the last paragraph to state that positive change in our schools was not going to come given the union’s intransigence, or as a result of adherence to current contractual imperatives. Some felt that these statements would detract from the letter, and ultimately the group signing the letter (which includes union representation) did not want those statements included.

Our contribution was an attempt to honestly state the obvious. Unions are important. Unions provide protections to our students and our teachers. Unions though should not guide educational policy. A significant resistance to substantive change in how our schools are run comes from the union. Why do we still have ineffective teachers in some of our students’ classrooms? How many years has it taken to put a teacher evaluation protocol in place? How difficult was it to gain the concession to add 5″ to the school day (less than 1″ per period), still leaving Providence with one of the shortest school days in the State? Why, in order to have parent teacher conferences, do our children need to stay home two days in the middle of a school week? Why did the City sign on to a contract essentially guaranteeing all teachers their jobs for the next three years (in the face of the designation of PLA schools, a shrinking student body [which would shrink more if AF started competing for students], etc.)? How could Providence even begin to emulate some of the positive elements of a Charter school, given contractual constraints?

The most wonderful thing about this group’s letter is also perhaps the most distressing. What a large, diverse group of concerned citizens who signed on to this letter! And yet, this group came together to essentially say “no”. Yes, they make a plea in the last paragraph for the involvement of multiple stakeholders in developing policies to help all young people in our public schools, but who will operationalize this?

Hopefully, this group will continue to work together, and with the City, parents, and students, now and in the future, in an open, honest, and transparent fashion, to promote, support, and develop positive change in our schools, focusing on the needs of our students first and always. That’s something we’d sign onto in a heartbeat.

Upcoming dates for Kindergarten Registration

Providence schools has posted a schedule on-line and instructions for registering your child for kindergarten. These can be found at:

 

http://www.providenceschools.org/media/159414/registration dates for new kindergarten students.pdf

 

Note that if you are seriously interested in your child attending your neighborhood Providence Public school, you stand the most chance of getting your child into the school if you apply when your child enters Kindergarten. Once seats are filled, regardless of whether a child is from the neighborhood or outside the neighborhood, the only way to get your child into your neighborhood school (eg. in first grade) will be to fill seats empty by attrition.

Nathan Bishop PTO Fundraiser at Mills Tavern Tuesday November 15, 2011

Please come support our school and our PTO at the Mills Tavern Fundraiser!
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 | 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm | 101 North Main Street

$25 Per Person suggested donation         Hors D’oeuvres & Drink Ticket Included

Tickets will also be available at the door.

The money raised from this event will go directly toward enrichment for students at Nathan Bishop Middle School.  Your support will help promote teaching and learning by providing critical educational materials and opportunities for both students and teachers.

For information e-mail: nciniglio@gmail.com

2011 Sustainable Schools Summit on November 16th at Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence

Apeiron Institute for Sustainable Living to host the 2011 Sustainable Schools Summit on November 16th at Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence.

 

The Apeiron Institute for Sustainable Living will host the 2011 Sustainable Schools Summit on Wednesday, November 16^th at Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence from 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm.  The Summit will bring together teachers, students, parents, administrators, facilities managers, and other members of school communities from across the state to showcase successful local initiatives and to provide participants with the knowledge, resources, and support network to move their school toward greater sustainability.

 

The event, now in its fourth year, is made possible through partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, Rhode Island College, Providence Public Schools, Aramark, and Sodexo. Agenda highlights include Opening Remarks by Commissioner Gist and Providence Schools Superintendent Lusi, as well as a Keynote Address by RI’s Teacher of the Year, Shannon Donovan.

 

Participants will have the opportunity to attend hands-on workshops addressing topics ranging from “School Green Teams in Action” to “State and National Curricular Models” and visit a variety of exhibitors offering resources and programs to improve school sustainability.

 

The event will close with a presentation on the Green Ribbon Schools Program in RI and an evening panel sharing the inspiring story of Nathan Bishop, a school whose community rallied to restore and improve the building and is now showcased as one of the State’s leading high performance schools!

 

For more information about the event or to register go to www.apeiron.org.

Meeting tonight at Hope High School

A reminder that tonight, November 8, 2011, at 6:30 PM, Superintendent Lusi will be at Hope High School along with our East Side City Councilors to meet with the community.

The Superintendent will make a presentation about Providence Schools initiatives and the strategic outlook for the district.

This follows on a similar presentation made at Nathan Bishop Middle School last week. Dr. Lusi had received a number of questions in advance from ESPEC, and answered these as well as numerous other questions from the audience.

A synopsis was posted recently on Councilman Zurier’s website:

http://www.samzurier.com/images/stories/articles/Ward_Letters/11-7%20ward%20letter.pdf

We would encourage everyone to attend this meeting. While our Elementary and Middle Schools are thriving, Hope needs our attention and support.

Hope to see you there!

It is…. but it isn’t…

Headline in today’s Projo:

“Providence superintendent says new teacher hiring process is intact”

Story is found at this link:

http://www.projo.com/ri/providence/content/lusi_on_contract_10-02-11_9OQL33B_v16.693f1.html

According to today’s Projo, “Supt. Susan Lusi says the new teachers’ contract does not dismantle the district’s new hiring process nor does it allow seniority to once again be the dominant factor in assigning teachers to classrooms.”

The article then goes on to describe all of the ways the system goes around or negates the criterion-based hiring (CBH) process that was introduced three years ago, and allows seniority to be a dominant factor.

The intent of this process was to hire teachers based upon certification, performance and merit. Of course seniority might play a role, but it was not the deciding factor. Principals and a committee of peers would interview candidates, and choose the best candidate for the position. HR was to be sure that candidates were appropriately vetted for the position.

We and others have been very concerned that the new collective bargaining agreement with the PTU undermines this process… and now we hear this from the Superintendent herself.

In the article, Sup’t Lusi describes the matching process which occurs in January or February. This basically shuts down CBH to deal with displaced teachers. After “speed-dating”, Principals and teachers submit their rank order lists to a “match” system. What the article doesn’t mention is that in this system (at least as done this year), you have to rank EVERY teacher who is applying for a job, even the ones you would not want. The article also does not mention that if there are not enough positions available for displaced teachers, they potentially can “bump” junior teachers based on seniority.

“Lusi concedes that the contract does give some priority to seniority…” The interview process not only gives an additional 10 points to senior teachers based on years of teaching, but also states that at least 5 of the interviews must be given to teachers based on seniority, and a minimum of 7 applicants (if they exist) must be invited to apply. Given that this process is time-consuming, how many Principals are going to go out of their way to identify and interview an additional 5 or 10 junior teachers and give them a chance to interview?

Lusi also states “I personally would like to see the criterion-based hiring process last longer but not forever,” Lusi said. “The goal over time is to have more and more teachers placed via this process.” Does this statement make sense? If the goal is to see teachers placed by this process, why not advance the process, streamline the process, support the process, and not it allow to be undercut?

According to the article, she also stated that there was nothing to prohibit external candidates from applying for these jobs. Yet, if there is a pool of displaced individuals, and they are prioritized in several ways based on seniority, AND the contract has a no layoff provision, how would an outside candidate ever get a foot in the door?  Lusi also faults the school department for not doing a better job of evaluating teachers and terminating ineffective staff, or managing people who go out on leave. Yet, there still is no evaluation process in place. The processes that were put forth by RIAFT and RIDE have a several year timeline before a teacher who is identified as ineffective can ultimately be dismissed.  And when the school department was assessed several years ago, Human Resources was identified as a department in need of serious review and repair. Has that happened to date? We have a lot of faith in Spencer Dickinson as an individual, but how much support does he have?

And probably the most important question of all: How far does this contract go in improving the overall educational experience for our kids? We’re not holding our breath…

Kudo’s to the Providence School Board

Without rehashing all of the painful details of the PPSD/PTU collective bargaining agreement approved this past week by the City Council, let us summarize:

.
The collective bargaining agreement:

.
Eliminates site-based management
Effectively makes a sham of criterion-based hiring
Inserted a clause which prevents firing of teachers for cases of financial exigency

This essentially has the effect of making it nearly impossible to fire teachers

We are facing the identification of up to 14 Persistently Low Achieving Schools, which may, through various turn-around models, lead to the need to release teachers (who can’t be released).

.
Ultimately, the City may be facing new lawsuits to deal with a pool of teachers who can’t teach, but also can’t be fired.

.

Parents are already grumbling about sub-par teachers… some of these are individuals who slipped in through a variety of cracks, including a match system that makes you rank even the teachers you don’t want, and the forced placement of displaced teachers. We’d be very interested to get feedback from parents throughout the city.

.

Our School Board was recently stripped of its ability to participate in or vote on collective bargaining agreements by Senator Jabbour and the General Assembly. We are pleased to see then that they stood up to the Superintendent, the Mayor, and the City Council, and passed a resolution stating that the contract is in no way binding upon the School Board.

http://www.projo.com/education/content/school_board_resolution_09-28-11_9OQKHFD_v11.78bc1.html

http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/09/school-board-doesnt-recognize.html

.

This is ultimately important, because as we all know, the School Board WILL be left holding the bag when things start to go south.

And just so everyone is clear, this is an appointed school board that is standing up to the Mayor’s office, and voting its conscience.

News from the City Council’s Internal Auditor: FISCAL AUDIT OF THE NEW TEACHERS CONTRACT

Kathy Crain was nice enough to attend the City Council Finance Committee meeting tonight at City Hall.

She reports the following:

Matt Clarkin (the Internal Auditor) did an analysis of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and puts the projected savings at $21,686,274 over the next three years. He did not include the retirements of 55 teachers because he does not believe those to be part of the CBA negotiations. He adds that the savings resulting from increasing the school day 5 minutes/year for three years with no increase in pay is $14,727,272 over the course off the next three years. Perhaps the most interesting point, however, is the one that was brushed aside. Matt Clarkin writes this of the No Layoff Provision:

‎”A new layoff provision has been included in this Agreement. Specifically, this new provision prohibits the School Board from laying off or terminating PTU members for financial reasons. This new provision removes an option the School Board had available to balance future budgets and could result in the establishment of a new pool of displaced teachers. The Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) is expected to identify more Providence schools as “Persistently Lowest-Achieving” (PLA). Additional funds are available to a PLA-designated school. THe designated school must undergo an improvement or corrective plan, and there are four School Reform Models (Turnaround Model, Restart Model, Transformation Model and School Closure) for each PLA school to choose. Dependent upon the Reform Model chosen, there could be teachers displaced from the PLA school. For example, the Turnaround Model requires that no more than 50% of the teachers currently at a PLA-designated (sic) be rehired. The Turnaround Model would likely result in new teachers being hired and a number of the teachers who worked at that PLA school being displaced at the beginning of the new school year. It is unclear as to whether this layoff provision will prohibit the School Department form laying off teachers who were displaced from a PLA school. If layoffs in such instances are prohibited, THE END RESULT WILL LIKELY BE A NEW POOL OF DISPLACED TEACHERS BEING MAINTAINED WITHIN THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME TO QUANTIFY THE FUTURE PROJECTED COSTS TO THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT, BUT DEPENDENT UPON RIDE’S DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL PLA SCHOOLS, THE REFORM MODEL CHOSEN, AND THE MOVEMENT OF CURRENTLY EMPLOYED TEACHERS FROM AND TO THESE SCHOOLS, THE TOTAL COST OF A NEW POOL OF TEACHERS COULD BE SIGNIFICANT. (emphasis added).”

.

Kathy goes on to state:

“If the City Council approves this, then our elected officials – the Mayor and the City Council – are willfully and knowingly approving a very short term fix that (a) will cost the School Department significantly in the long run, and (b) does very little in terms of educational reform. The Mayor has cut a deal that doesn’t even save money in the long run. How incredibly short-sighted.”

.

.

Anyone remember the GM “Rubber Room”?
http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/06may/auto2_jobsbank.htm

.

.

The final meeting is:

WEDNESDAY, 5:30pm:

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TEACHERS CONTRACT, City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall. Parents and all PVD residents encouraged to give public comment.

.

.

Parents from all parts of Providence should come to this Council hearing and  speak out on the teachers contract.

News from the Education Subcommittee Hearing on Teacher Hiring Practices, held this evening at City Hall

Kathy Crain was kind enough to provide us with the following synopsis of tonight’s meeting. We have heard similar concerns (really shock and dismay) from other parents who attended the meeting:

“The Committee discussed the ramifications of the mediated version of Criterion Based Hiring and its implications for the next three years.  The SB Attorney was there to answer questions on behalf of the District.

Here are the main points:

- The District expects that we will have many schools identified by RIDE as “Persistently Low Achieving” (“PLA Schools”) within the next three years.  At an earlier meeting, Dr. Lusi speculated that up to half of our schools will receive that designation by 2013.  Pursuant to the Federally mandated alternatives for PLA Schools, the District expects that up to half of the staff at each of those schools will be removed from the school, thereby becoming “Displaced Teachers”.   According to the agreement entered into by the Mayor and the PTU, the District will still be obligated to provide those Displaced Teachers with employment.  Therefore, in accordance with the mediated version of CBH, every year (beginning in Jan/Feb and continuing until there are no longer any Displaced Teachers),  the District will begin identifying  displaced teachers and vacancies around the District.  Displaced teachers will be placed into existing vacancies through a match process.  The assignment will be permanent.  There will be no criterion based hiring processes implemented in the District until ALL displaced teachers have been matched with positions, effectively ending Criterion Based Hiring.

- The Union is arguing that if there are too many displaced teachers and not enough vacancies, the mediated version of CBH gives a Displaced Teacher the right to “bump” the most junior teacher with the same certification if the Displaced Teacher has seniority over that teacher.  It is unclear whether or not that means the Displaced Teacher is then “matched” into that position.  The School Board Counsel noted that it is unclear what the Mayor’s position is on this.

- The SB Attorney also noted that the School Board was opposed to the Mediated Version of CBH and passed a new Criterion Based Hiring Policy in  late May that removed seniority as a factor in hiring.  It was passed in Executive Session and the minutes were sealed.  They were unsealed about a month ago.  When asked why the minutes were sealed, the SB President stated that it was because the Board had been asked not to vote on the policy until the Mayor had finished negotiations with the Union.  I then added that the Mayor had specifically asked the Board not to vote on it, but we did so in Executive Session anyway.  Despite the sealed minutes, the School Department had been made aware of the new policy, but failed to enforce the policy because the Mayor issued an “Executive Order” to the School Department to stop all CBH processes until he was done with negotiations.  Despite the protests of the School Board, the School Department complied with the request of the Mayor.

-My additional comment on this is that this is exactly why the Mayor came up with the Jabbour Bill that stripped the Board of its powers.  He knew we were going to reject the CBA and had to figure out a way to get around it.   It’s a sad day for education in Providence.”

.

The following meetings are scheduled for the next 2 days:

.

TUESDAY, 5:00pm:

Council Finance Committee meets, 3rd floor conference room, City Hall — Council’s Internal Auditor will present FISCAL AUDIT OF THE NEW TEACHERS CONTRACT.

.

WEDNESDAY, 5:30pm:

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TEACHERS CONTRACT, City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall. Parents and all PVD residents encouraged to give public comment.

.

.

Again, it is super-important that parents from all parts of Providence come to these Council hearings and meetings this week at City Hall and speak out on the teachers contract.

.

If you can only come on one night, the most important one is the PUBLIC HEARING on the Teachers Contract on WEDNESDAY, 5:30pm.

Public Hearings this week…

MONDAY, 5:30pm:

The Education Subcommittee Hearing is at 5:30 p.m. Monday, Sept. 19, City Hall, 3rd floor, on TEACHER HIRING PRACTICES as codified in the new teachers contract. Public comment will be taken. Parents and all PVD residents are encouraged to attend, express your views and ask questions.

.

TUESDAY, 5:00pm:

Council Finance Committee meets, 3rd floor conference room, City Hall — Council’s Internal Auditor will present FISCAL AUDIT OF THE NEW TEACHERS CONTRACT.

.

WEDNESDAY, 5:30pm:

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TEACHERS CONTRACT, City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall. Parents and all PVD residents encouraged to give public comment.

.

.

It is super-important that lots of parents from all parts of Providence come to these Council hearings and meetings this week at City Hall and speak out on the teachers contract.

.

If you can only come on one night, the most important one is the PUBLIC HEARING on the Teachers Contract on WEDNESDAY, 5:30pm.

Putting the needs of students first…

Here we go again.

Parents throughout the city were impressed with efforts to make sure that teachers were the right “fit” for their school and for the job they were hired to do. Criterion Based Hiring, though imperfect, held the promise of a collegial, cohesive, and effective teaching team in a Providence Public School building.

And it seemed to be working. Though there have been some glitches and complaints about the implementation and practice, Principals were able to assemble a great team of teachers to work on behalf of our students.

CBH was also the product of an order from RIDE to remove seniority as the sole determinant of teacher placements (when certifications were in place, etc.).

Now we learn that this year, CBH has become a casualty of:

1) A collective bargaining agreement agreed to by the Mayor (which the Providence School Board was effectively excluded from participating in the negotiation or ratification of) which provided for no teacher layoffs or dismissals for three years (except for just and good cause, which as we know currently does not include ineffective teaching).

2) An external hiring freeze imposed because suddenly there were teachers in the system with nowhere to go.

3) The school department had “neither the time nor the money” to fill existing vacancies pursuant to the existing CBH policy.

The school board has now publicly washed their hands of this, ratifying the placement of teachers outside the CBH protocol. At least they had the wherewithal to make the placements for 1 year (as opposed to the positions being awarded as permanent placements). This did also state that the Superintendent had to comply with CBH after the 2011-2012 academic year (unless the Superintendent decides to change the procedure again, which is allowed under Section 2 of the CBH policy).

And what about this new contract?

Site-based management is gone.

In the event of a decrease in the number of teachers in an area of certification, teachers will no longer be transferred according to their “system wide area of certification seniority” but according to their “date of hire”! How is that different than seniority??

The school day is 5 minutes longer this year, and in 3 years’ time it will be 15 minutes longer, and this is touted as a significant improvement in instructional time. Really??

We have also heard that some schools on the West Side have more than 26 kids in a classroom, something the school department promised would not happen as a result of school closings.

So…

We will be working with other parents and parent groups throughout the city to bring a message back to the School Department and Mayor’s office:

We are tired of back room dealing.

We are tired of promises made but not kept.

We are tired of systems and contracts that put the needs of everyone else before those of our students.

We won’t stand for it.

.

.

.

The text of the Providence School Board’s resolution follows:

RESOLUTION RATIFYING AND APPROVING CERTAIN NON-CBH TEACHER ASSIGNMENTS BY THE SUPERINTENDENT

WHEREAS, the City of Providence and the Providence Public School Department (the “PPSD”) are in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis; and

WHEREAS, as a result of this crisis, the Providence School Board (the “PSB”) voted to close several schools and authorized the PPSD to send preliminary dismissal notices to all 1,934 of the teachers employed by the PPSD (the “Dismissal Notices”); and

WHEREAS, on May 2, 2011, the PSB authorized the rescission of the great bulk of the Dismissal Notices and further, approved a plan to recall most of the teachers (the “PSB Recall Plan”), which involved the scheduling of due process hearings to consider the appeals of those teachers whose dismissals were not to be rescinded; and

WHEREAS, in July of 2011, a measure was signed into law by the Governor which purported to transfer the “power and duty to enter into” a CBA with the PTU from the PSB to the Mayor; and

WHEREAS, on or about August 2, 2011, the Mayor and the PTU, without the involvement or agreement of the PSB, tentatively agreed to a successor CBA which provided that there would be no teacher dismissals or layoffs due to economic exigency for the three-year term of the CBA; and

WHEREAS, on or about August 9, 2011, the PSB authorized the rescission of the great bulk of the teacher dismissal notices that had not been rescinded pursuant to its May 2, 2011 resolution; and

WHEREAS, Section 2 of the PPSD CBH Procedure expressly provides that “[t]he Superintendent or his designee has the authority to make changes to this Procedure at any time; material changes will be made in consultation with the PTU and brought to the attention of the PSB;” and

WHEREAS, on or about August 13, 2011, the newly-hired Superintendent informed the PSB that under the changed circumstances, she was assigning some of the teachers who recently had been displaced as a result of, among other things, school closings, into existing vacant teacher positions based upon certification eligibility, seniority and the PPSD’s professional judgment as to student need, so that the schools would be appropriately staffed at the opening of school; and

WHEREAS, as of August 31, 2011, the PPSD, which had been operating under an external hiring freeze, had neither the time nor the money to fill the existing vacancies pursuant to the PPSD’s existing CBH Procedures; and

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby

RESOLVED that:

1.
The Superintendent’s decision on or about August 13, 2011 to place some fifty- eight (58) teachers into regular teaching assignments outside of the PPSD CBH Procedures, as reflected in the attached Exhibit A, is hereby in all respects ratified and approved; and

2.
The Superintendent is hereby authorized to fill teacher position vacancies and assign teachers during the 2011-12 academic year as necessary; provided, however, that

3.
The assignments reflected on the attached Exhibit A and those made pursuant to the authorization provided in 2, above, are or will be only for the 2011-12 academic year, unless the involved principal, teacher and the Superintendent all agree at the end of the 2011-12 academic year to make the assignment more permanent; and provided further, that

4.
The Superintendent shall thereafter comply in all respects with applicable PPSD CBH Procedures.

Passed on September 1, 2011

.

.

See also the recent Projo article on this subject:

http://www.projo.com/ri/providence/content/providence_school_hirings_09-06-11_14Q4GA1_v15.5f65d.html

Say it isn’t so…

As mother nature prepares to come crashing down upon our heads, it is becoming evident that something is rotten in the city of Providence.

A great deal has happened over the past few months. All of our teachers were fired, and then many were rehired. We reported in February that Superintendent Brady assured parents that teacher reassignments would be made according to the criterion-based interview hiring process. See:

http://espec.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/statement-from-the-providence-east-side-public-education-coalition-espec-on-the-providence-teacher-dismissals/

We reported in May that the Providence School Board would rehire teachers following a process which utilized a Matching event followed by Criterion based hiring (CBH). See:

http://espec.wordpress.com/2011/05/03/providence-announces-plan-to-rescind-teacher-dismissals/

This appeared to be a step in the right direction. While CBH has imperfections, it would have eliminated seniority as the overriding factor in appointing teachers, and would have also eliminated the now annual, pernicious, bumping process which often led to the loss of excellent junior teachers. CBH was also a response to Commissioner Gist’s order to eliminate seniority as the sole determinant (coupled with appropriate certification) of deciding which teacher might receive a given position. Note that no one believes that seniority is unimportant. We all value our excellent senior teachers, and do believe that seniority should be taken into consideration as part of a placement process. We are dismayed though by the ongoing retention of ineffective tenured and senior teachers in our school system.

We have since lost one Superintendent and gained another.

http://www.projo.com/education/content/brady_says_goodbye_07-16-11_K3P6GMJ_v39.47a5b.html

http://www.projo.com/education/content/sue_lusi_arrives_07-24-11_FIP9PRF_v18.599c8.html

In July, a back-room, last minute bill submitted by Paul Jabour essentially stripped the Providence School Board of its power to ratify labor contracts. See:

http://www.projo.com/education/content/providence_board_loses_07-02-11_NIOV6BT_v9.3f31f.html

Shortly after, our School Board president, Kathleen Crain, resigned. See:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/providence_school_board_07-12-11_1AP4PR1_v13.37989.html

Her resignation reflected her disappointment over the direction the Mayor was taking PTU contract negotiations, and his decision to effectively exclude the School Board from discussions about the collective bargaining agreement.

Our Mayor negotiated a contract which was ratified by the union 2 weeks ago:

http://www.projo.com/education/content/providence_teachers_vote_08-10-11_67PLHSM_v9.4fae3.html

That contract guaranteed that every fired teacher would be returned to this district. This comes after 5 schools were closed, and teachers were fired, purportedly to deal with declining enrollment, inefficient utilization of school buildings, and to help our ailing economy.

So what else have we learned?

First, that the Providence School Board (now being loaded with new Mayoral appointees who did not participate in the usual community vetting/public question and answer sessions), just voted to endorse the proposal to open up to 5 new Mayoral Academies (Charter Schools):

http://www.projo.com/education/content/PROVIDENCE_MAYORAL_ACADEMY_08-23-11_J9PT9TD_v24.3f6a4.html

The West Side Public Education Coalition (WSPEC), representing the community most adversely impacted by the school closings, has publicly denounced this decision, and notes that supporting Charter Schools could mean as much as $12.5 million less would be available to children attending Providence Public schools.

http://wspec.org/news/press-release-wspec-opposes-proposed-charter-schools

Second, we just learned that the Mayor’s office, while touting the savings engendered by all of the new municipal workers’ contracts, failed to mention that the new teacher’s contract contained 2 three percent raises in later years:

http://www.projo.com/ri/providence/content/NEWS_RELEASE_OMISSIONS_08-26-11_BMPUDTR_v48.43cdd.html

The Mayor’s office also touted the fact that the school day was to be lengthened, and common planning time is no longer to come out of the school day. The school day lengthening only amounts to an increase of 5″ per day per year! While we welcome the “fix” to the common planning time fiasco, we have yet to learn when common planning time will occur.

Third, we have heard from reliable sources that teachers have been assigned (force-placed) in positions at Vartan Gregorian, Martin Luther King, and Nathan Bishop Middle School around and outside of the Criterion Based Hiring process. Some of the placements may have occurred even after a teacher was identified via CBH. This would appear to violate the Commissioner’s order and RIDE’s BEP.

In our February post, we supported Mayor Taveras’ concept of transformational reform. Reform was supposed to right-size schools, provide the best teacher and the right teacher for every classroom, and help deal with our “category 5″ financial crisis. What we are seeing now looks like something taken from Mayor Cianci’s “Politics and Pasta”: back-room deals, fiscal decisions made for political expediency, the needs and desires of the PTU put before those of our children.

Now as we are all facing a true, hopefully no more than, category 1 storm, we call upon the Mayor, his aides, the Providence School Board, and the Providence Teacher’s Union to re-earn our trust. Decisions need to be made in a transparent fashion. Decisions need to be made in the best interests of our students, first and foremost. Letters are being written. Protests are being organized. We will not allow the needs of our students to be sacrificed.

Reflections on change and “Institutional Memory”

I came across an article in the Projo the other day.

Entitled “Providence’s School Management Team Dispersing”, it details the “exodus” of five of six top managers of the Providence School Department, including Tom Brady, Sharon Contreras, Stefanie Federico, Matthew Clarkin, and Kim Rose. The details can be found at the following link:

http://www.projo.com/ri/providence/content/providence_exodus_06-27-11_NIOPV5N_v17.3e699.html

Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Educational Policy, is quoted as stating, “It could set back a district for years in terms of the loss of valued leadership, institutional memory and just people who know how to get things done.”

Warren Simmons, executive director of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, is quoted as saying that too much emphasis is placed on the superintendent as school savior, the superhero who rides into town and saves the day (lack of “” per the article).

Around the same time, I received an email message from a friend, attaching a news article link and telling me that “we dodged a bullet.”

The article was about a new superintendent being chosen to lead Cumberland’s Schools.

http://breezepapers.com/2011/06/28/cl/thornton-tapped-to-lead-cumberland-schools

This was very important to me not because of who was chosen, but who was not… my child’s middle school Principal, Michael Lazzareschi.

http://www.projo.com/news/content/CUMBERLAND_SUPERINTENDENT_06-21-11_A9OOSQQ_v41.3ad31.html

So this got me thinking…

It has always been clear that dynamic, charismatic leaders can make something good into something great. Even better than making something great is leaving behind a structure or framework to continue that level of greatness.

We are all very dismayed by the turmoil at 797 Westminster. I’m sure Carleton Jones and Paula Shannon are doing their best to hold things together until Susan Lusi arrives. The concerns that have been aired about how difficult it may be to hire a management team have some truth to them… it is frightening to think about our school system trying to move forward without a strong central office. All the groundwork that has been laid over the past few years (aligned instruction, curriculum development, criterion based hiring) may be lost in the shuffle over school closings, teacher firings, endless court cases, and now this leadership drain.

Frankly I was also very frightened about the prospect of losing our wonderful middle school principal.

But the comment about institutional memory got me thinking…

Institutional memory in the Providence School system is alive and well, and resides in the form of committed parents, teachers, and school administrators. For the moment, I’d like to focus on the parents.

It was institutional memory that recently led some parents to protest the reassignment of the Vartan Gregorian Principal without any parental engagement. My wife and I (as parents) have served on several Principal selection committees at several schools over the years. This decision was a fait accompli, foisted upon the Principal and school community without any outreach to or involvement of the parents.

It was institutional memory that recently led the Martin Luther King PTO to protest the recision of the plan to place an Assistant Principal in their school. We all remember that the number of administrators in a school was usually based upon the number of students, and MLK will likely top 600 children this coming year as it receives students from some of the elementary schools which have been closed.

RIDE and PPSD are both struggling to come up with a teacher evaluation plan. And yet, it is institutional memory that allows any active parent in school building to know who the ineffective teachers in that building are (at Classical, for example, they are the teachers whose students (sometimes the brightest) year after year are getting tutors to help comprehend the material that is so poorly taught in class). Why is systematizing an evaluation process so difficult?

Active PTOs support numerous school events throughout the year, year after year (another form of institutional memory). Some go so far as to bring in supplemental programming, or provide support to teachers whose classroom needs are unmet by the limited school department budget.

Even among our School Board, consider the institutional memory possessed by Ms. Crain, Mr. Touray, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. Oliveira, Mr. Wise, Mr. Lalli, and Mr. Gould (before his departure) as either parents of children who attend or have attended PPSD schools, or as individuals who went to our schools themselves. No matter what side you take about the school closings and teacher firings, you have to appreciate that the Board made impossible decisions within a ridiculous time constraint. The Board members took their fiduciary and educational responsibilities seriously, and have served the City honorably. The Mayor recently appointed an education task force, many members of which also possess significant amounts of institutional memory. Hopefully this task force will work alongside the School Board, and not attempt to supplant it.

The loss of our Principal at Nathan Bishop would have been devastating. And yet, our Principal has set our ship on a smooth course. Along with a strong PTO (which came together before the school reopened) and dedicated teachers, he has established a strong esprit de corps and culture within the school. If he leaves at some point, of course we would want another dedicated, dynamic principal, but the groundwork for a great school has been laid.

So, what is the point here? Yes, the school department needs strong central leadership. But the existing and incoming leadership needs to recognize the resources that already exist here. No, parents cannot write curricula, or establish pedagogy, but we can play a role in helping to determine the direction in which our school system should move. Although parental engagement has been slowly improving, it is still often unidirectional, and trivializes the participation of parents in the process of governance. I’m sure teachers and administrators hate to consider this, but parents are both the purchasers (as taxpayers) and consumers (as parents of school children) of school department services, and have every right to work as partners with the administration to support and improve our schools.

Along with a change in leadership, there needs to be a change in the attitude toward parental engagement. Parents are a source of institutional memory for the Providence school system, and must be allowed to work alongside administrators toward the common goal of making our schools high achieving facilities that benefit all children, and are the schools of choice for Providence residents.

Congratulations to Hope High School’s Theater Program

Once again, Christine Auxier and her theater students at Hope High School have been invited to attend the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in August.

They will be performing “Triangle”, about the historic Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911.

This is the third time in the past decade that Hope High’s students have attended this festival.

More information in the Projo:

http://newsblog.projo.com/2011/06/providences-hope-high-taking-t.html

 

You can read more about the festival at the following:

http://www.edfringe.com/about-us