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.
This blog seems almost contradictory in nature. The beginning states that you are okay with the fact that ESPEC did not sign onto this letter. Yet later you state the need for the group of community organizations, unions and individuals that did sign on to continue working together for the betterment of our school system. Where would that leave ESPEC? We should not let perfect be the enemy of good, and yet it seems that ESPEC has not signed on to this letter because it is not perfect. Achievement First – no matter how you slice it – will take money away from public schools. East Side schools included. So the letter doesn’t say everything that ESPEC would like it say. But it says a lot. Unions need to evolve. I think most, if not all, agree on that. But community organizations, ESPEC included, should find a way to rally around a common cause with unlikely allies, even when there may be some disagreement on the underlying issues. This blog seems to suggest that ESPEC will not join in that united front, but instead will serve as a commentator on the sideline. At the Rally against Achievement First at the State House, Matt Gabor, a member of WSPEC, asked if we could imagine what our collective efforts could accomplish if we were fighting FOR something with the City, instead of against it. There is power in numbers, and there is great power in numbers that reflect the demographics of an entire City. There is still time for ESPEC to sign onto the letter, which is not just a statement against Achievement First, but a statement in support of better public schools. Just as the unions need to evolve, so does the District, and so does ESPEC. I hope ESPEC will reconsider. It would send a message to the Mayor and the Governor, but it would also send a message to the rest of the City that ESPEC cares about public education throughout the entire City, not just the East Side.
I tend not to comment on comments to our blog posts, but in this case I’ll make an exception.
We were discussing signing on, and while dealing with word-smithing and so on, lost track of time and the date when the announcement of this letter was being made. But because of the issues raised both above and below, we were foot-dragging, and most of that was on my part.
We’ve been hoping that groups from all over the City would come together to find common goals in support of our students and our schools. It is something we have discussed and promoted from early in our existence.
But this group came together to say “no”. What happens if the AF application is dismissed? How about the next charter application? Won’t many of the concerns raised about allocation of resources apply? Despite some of Aaron’s assertions, some of the signers of this letter are from the Union. The same objections would apply.
Our country is paralyzed because of “no”. We can’t move forward on health care, deficits, taxes, or myriad other issues of national importance because of a culture of “no”.
Will this diverse group remain together to work toward positive, student-centered goals, “better” public schools, and “evolution” of the union? We would hope so. And if it does, we’ll be there to work along side them.
But (and the reason for this post)… this issue has nothing to do with the East Side. It is disappointing that you, of all people, would pull the “East Side card” in your comments.
And perhaps we will reconsider… but we needed to make clear what our concerns were, and the letter just didn’t do that, even with some edits that were made based on our concerns.
“this issue has nothing to do with the East Side”??
That line of thinking governed the response of ESPEC during the last round of school closures this past spring. Talk to the families who send their kids to Martin Luther King- that school (with others across the City) is bursting at the seams as a direct result of the school closures, greatly affecting the East Side.
Make no mistake, the proposed Achievement First Mayoral Academy will financially affect the entire district, East Side included.
But that’s not really the point. Even if this isn’t an East Side issue, where is ESPECs support for the rest of the district?
By the way, a main point of the letter delivered to the Governor last Monday was to refute his statement that Providence “demonstrated broad support” for the proposal. Indeed, although we proved that there is broad-based community opposition to the proposal, we also clearly state our belief that education policy in Providence “should be designed by a broad group of stakeholders, including educators, parents, teachers and students”. The issue we face is before us now and it needs to be dealt with now. It is not too late to add signatories.
See http://www.we-thepeople-can.org/, a site being developed to give more information on this issue.
Just let me know if you would like to see the letter delivered to the Governor.
It’s all about language, isn’t it?
Our hesitating to sign the letter has nothing to do with this being an East Side or non-East Side issue. The concerns are outlined above.
Of course this is a citywide issue, and of course any charter coming in would potentially impact East Side and all Providence schools. And yes, ESPEC cares about public education throughout the city.
To respond to your comment about the school closures this past Spring, we would respectfully disagree. ESPEC in fact did support WSPEC’s protestations, questions, and concerns about the school closings. See: http://espec.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/important-questions-being-asked/ from our March 2011 blog. But again, we were being asked to join a chorus of “no”. ESPEC recognized the fiscal imperatives that led to the decisions being made, and as such, could not join the chorus. And, there was such vehemence directed against the East Side, that we could not really participate in meetings to show our (limited) support. Note also, sadly, that none of the vitriol directed against the East Side was staunched by elected officials. We did strongly encourage affected individuals to work with the City to ensure that the schools students were being transitioned into would be acceptable, and this did happen several months later, such that much of the sturm und drang that occurred as a result of the announcement of these closings was not realized… we heard relatively good things from those whose kids went to the repurposed Bridgham, and East Side schools welcomed displaced children with open arms.
As mentioned above, we may sign on to the AF letter.
But now we have gotten some broader concerns into the public arena.
Some PPSD officials have publicly stated that they supported the AF application in order to give students a variety of options, and access to resources and services not currently offered in the PPSD schools. We would like to see these resources and services (including a longer school day) offered to ALL students throughout the city, through the public schools.
But in order to see these positive changes, the broad group of concerned citizens signing onto this letter will need to push for these services.
And so, we’ll offer this challenge… that the group of signatories not disband after this letter is submitted, and that they work together not only as a group saying “no”, but as concerned citizens who push for positive, student-centered change, with the needs of the students ALWAYS as their primary focus. Hopefully the elected officials who signed on will also put the needs of the students first.