Guess I’ll Have To Listen To Jensen Today
Over at Kilroy’s, Nancy Willing states that John Young and Lillian Lowery will be on the Rick Jensen show today. Warning: Nancy’s info had better be correct! 😉
Consider this an open thread on the subject. Hey, maybe someone will answer my questions!
My questions:
1. Who wrote the assessment plan? Specifically, the part that assessed, and removed, teachers.
2. Was there an outcry of unfairness prior to the teacher interviews? Which leads to the next question…
3. Was the assessment plan reviewed by the parties involved?
4. Who wrote the interview questions?
5. Who decided which teachers would have to move to another school?
Yes, yes, I know I should have been paying attention, but I wasn’t. Deal with it.
Tags: Christina School District, Delaware Education, Race To The Top
I have only heard a few bits of Jensen, just enough to confirm his reputation. But last week on 4/21 Jensen hosted a phone call with Sec. Lowery, and another with John Young, which were actually calm, logical, and journalistically useful. As I recall he asked some of your questions.
Here is the district’s PZ Plan in simplified layout so parents and community can understand the process. For Stubbs School
http://www.christina.k12.de.us/PartnershipZone/Stubbs/PlanSubmission/Approved_Submission_2011-01-05.pdf
For Glasgow H.S.
http://www.christina.k12.de.us/PartnershipZone/Glasgow/PlanSubmission/Approved_Submission_2011-01-05.pdf
Okay, I’m starting to read the 67 pages Kilroy just linked to. Sheesh!
Come on, guys, are my questions really that difficult?
I’ll get back to you once I’ve finished reading 67 PAGES!
And as I type Kilroy added another 98 pages! Come on, Kilroy, I thought you liked me!
Jensen has already taken sides. What a hack.
I’ll keep listening, but I’m not feeling like I’ll be getting a fair shake by Jensen. Shocking, I know.
6. Who told WDEL and the News Journal CSD “rescinded” the plan? Where did this construction and verbiage come from?
7. Who in the Markell Administration decided to duke it out publicly instead of working it out in a meeting?
6. The Department of Education and the Governor of Delaware told WDEL and NJ that CSD “rescinded” the plan. The verbage came directly from the state.
7. Only Markell can tell us that.
Elizabeth, could you answer my questions, as well?
Comes down to this, the Christina superintendent deviated from the agreed plan and the board needs to take corrective action. A DOE rep was in on the interviews and should have said stop! We not following the plan.
Just wanted to put the link to the PZ Plan for reference and it does look complex.
So… the problem is really with the superintendent?
What side did he take, pandora?
From my POV, as I’ve followed this story, a major issue seems to be that the Markell administration appears firmly convinced there’s nothing that wouldn’t benefit from being run ‘like a business.” While I appreciate the potential merits of that, many things, particularly things involving our children and our neighborhoods, have other factors involved. This is recognized, in educational environments, by having engines for “stakeholder” input… like elected school boards and PTA organizations. When those people are upset, it doesn’t matter whether your numbers run… you need to stop and talk more.
In a business environment this would be a stockholder revolt. Wise leaders ignore those at their peril.
yep. I’d be happy to, but I’m a short time schedule today.
I’ll start now:
1)Who wrote the assessment plan? Okay, it’s actually a Teacher Selection Plan. The PLAN itself was written by the CSD administration and its PZ design teams in conjunction with DOE for advisement and with union leadership collaboration. At the end of the day, the Union leadership and CSD board approved the MOU – the governing document as an instrument of the plan. Let me know if you have more questions about this part.
2)Was their any cry of unfairness before teacher interviews? No. Although some individual board members were contacted by interviewees who had completed the interview with complaints. The complaints; however, had nothing to do with the brewhaha that erupted at the end of the process.
“Who decided which teachers would have to move to another school?”
Apparently the teacher’s interviews were scored and those score had to meet the criteria. Do make note the interview wasn’t about deeming teachers effective or ineffective. It was about finding the best teachers to fit the PZ Plan and the directions of the schools
3)Was the teacher selection process reviewed by the parties involved? The PZ plan was approved by the board, the union, and the Department of Education. The MOU was the agreement between the Board/CSD and the CEA/union. Basically, on paper, the plan looked good. In implementation, we did not follow the plan with fidelity, we used only the interview component to select the teachers when the MOU says we’ll use multiple measures and further, under scrutiny, the board found that the two documents were at times conflicting.
sorry for the multiple post. please free to delete the two duplicates.
4) Who wrote the interview questions? I do not know who authored the questions in the PZ plan nor who authored the questions that were actually asked.
5. Who decided who would move? Well, apparently, each interviewee was scored by the interviewers. Someone set a cut score. Those who scored below the cut score were told to voluntarily transfer out. I have no information as to how this rubric was formulated. Nor is it ever mentioned in either document, the PZ plan or the MOU.
Elizabeth, does CSD superintendent know this information? The more I learn about this the more all roads seem lead to the superintendent.
Does the CSD superintended know this information? Yes. It has been articulated many times in many ways. She has publicly told the media that she believes the MOU/PZ plan/Teacher Selection Process was completed with fidelity.
Regardless of the board’s vote this past Saturday to rescind the April 19th motion, I continue to believe that the process lacked fidelity. And I said as much before I voted to rescind. We acted faithfully. And we were bullied into compliance when phone call and a meeting would have sufficed!
Pandora, you’re welcome to wander over to my blog, http://www.elizabethscheinberg.blogspot.com for more information.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth,
First as a CSD parent (although my son graduated from Newark High a few years ago), I would like to thank you for your service on the board. Second, thank you for your blog, your letters, and your other efforts to keep the community informed as to CSD issues. Third, thanks for withstanding the pressures of the past three weeks. It is appreciated.
So I’ve spent a decent part of this evening looking through blogs and various documents (have not listened to the Board recording) and I’m coming right back to where I started — which is that there is still key info missing. Particularly this:
Well, apparently, each interviewee was scored by the interviewers. Someone set a cut score. Those who scored below the cut score were told to voluntarily transfer out. I have no information as to how this rubric was formulated. Nor is it ever mentioned in either document, the PZ plan or the MOU.
Interviewing is an art, not a science, but if someone has developed a scoring and ranking plan that can’t be too hard to get. And I don’t get how you wouldn’t expect that there would NOT be a scoring and ranking for interviewees. I’ve never been involved with interviews or organized an interview board that doesn’t have some way of evaluating the experience. Otherwise, what is the point?
So it still looks to me that we have alot of sturm and drang over an interview process that no one really thought would result in the displacement of teachers. Once it did — and that displacement earned some pushback from teachers, kids and parents — the Board decided to override the interview process and results. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition, right? But this high profile fight doesn’t have much to do with the kids — it looks to me that it has everything to do with who gets to say how the RTTT plan is actually implemented. And whatever political axes to grind there are — corporate control or input, vouchers, whatever. And I wonder if the failed communication comment by one of the board members has to do with a failed attempt to push how far a board could push in RTTT requirements. Maybe not.
I don’t have a dog in this fight other than in trying to get a straight story, which I’ve given up on. I should have taken the hint from lots of references to other stuff to read, rather than a head on dealing with the questions. NCLB and RTTT are largely efforts to paper over the fact that the education of our kids is much less of a priority than getting the infrastructure in place to incarcerate them. Less of a priority than making sure that the Saudis have all of the military hardware they can play with. Instead, we’ve let our governments convince us that a world class education should not cost much more than day care. Teachers are supposed to work for almost minimum wage, teachers should spend some of those wages on supplies for kids, they should plan on unpaid hours, kids can live without books, music, art, recess, and then be pushed and pulled into whatever the instructional flavor of the month is. We spend more effort in demonizing the kids (and their parents) with genuine learning challenges rather than just helping them overcome those challenges — you know, like ADULTS would.
Educating kids is not (quite) rocket science. We know (largely) what works, and we know (largely) what those costs are. What is unfortunate is that we don’t have leadership — anywhere — willing to lead from that reality. But what exists as education leadership largely works at serving the politics that prioritize funding prisons and corporate giveaways rather than kids.
“Educating kids is not (quite) rocket science. We know (largely) what works, and we know (largely) what those costs are. What is unfortunate is that we don’t have leadership — anywhere — willing to lead from that reality. But what exists as education leadership largely works at serving the politics that prioritize funding prisons and corporate giveaways rather than kids.”
And do we really need to spend $8.2 million dollars for a Rupert Murdoch Wireless Generation “data coaches” to teach teachers how to read testing data in order to adapt the curriculum and teaching methods on an individual basis? $8.2 million dollars can go a long way in “parent coaches” to teach parents how to engage in their child’s education. Not blaming parents but parents are the key element in their child’s academic success not matter the color or soical status. Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton are on Arne Duncan Race to The Top dream team. Jeb and Neil Bush are both capitalizes via their education management companies. So say teacher unions are sucking the funding out of public education so I guess sending that money to Wall Street is better for our children. RTTT is not a federal mandate as it is a four-year federal grant that cannot possibly sustain such ambiguous reform goals. And I am hear to tell Republicans and Democrats are together on this fools journey.
The national Common Core Standard will be followed by a nationalized standardized test. DSTP on steroids!
Transparency is what we need! There is legislation that passed the house (Delaware) and is in senate education committee this week that calls for digital recordings of the Delaware State Board of Education to be put online for all to access. Also, in the pipeline is legislation that move the State Board of Education meeting from 1:00 pm in the cabinet room to 7 pm at a local Dover school. Also there may be action requiring all school district and DEDEO it provide month financial reports on credit card expenditures on card issues to district employees and DEDOE officials.
Yeah, the thing is, DOE could put those audio recordings online already, without being forced to by the Legislature. The fact that it hasn’t speaks volumes about Markell’s committment to transparency. It’s such a simple step to take, and costs almost nothing.
Red Clay and Christina puts recordings of their board meetings online and they are amazing. It’s like being there and I’ve been told even board members go back to review discussions on upcoming board votes.
Cassandra, the lack of a clear description of the process IS a big deal.
The teachers (and community, and board) were told their performance would be evaluated by several things. Just as in a college class, you’d have a syllabus that said your grade would be %25 quizzes and tests, %30 final project, %20 in-class participation and homework and %25 evenly split between the midterm and the final. You plan your semester, turn in all your homework, study for your tests, and you have a rough idea what your grade is, having gotten an A on all work. Then you get mono and sleep through the second half of the final.
If your professor says, “Hey, cassandra, I worked hard on writing this final, you’re one of my best students, I’m failing you because your nap offended me.” that professor is an asshole, and I hope you contest it. The ‘contract’ you agreed to means that the work you did on the midterm, the final project and the homework should COUNT for something.
In a business environment you’d assume that your resume, references, etc. would be part of the evaluation process. If your interviewer said, “Stop right here. I never hire anyone who wears Cuban heels.” you’d think he was a moron. If he just didn’t hire you (not mentioning the heels) and hired someone with what you ‘knew’ to be inferior qualifications you’d wonder what was up. If you knew someone in HR, you might ASK them to try and find out what the deal was.
That’s what happened here. No one had an issue with being interviewed. That was part of the process. People understood it as a mutual interview, so that everyone understood what we were working for, moving forward. Where the ‘compliance’ fell apart was when the interview turned out (apparently) to be the only significant factor in the process. The impression given was that if you didn’t suck-up correctly in the interview it didn’t matter what your record with the students was.
I would be hugely disappointed with a community that didn’t rise up under those circumstances, and i’m proud of the people in CSD who did. I don’t understand why people who cheer the activists in Wisconsin don’t see this EXACTLY the same way.
My 2 cents.
Where the ‘compliance’ fell apart was when the interview turned out (apparently) to be the only significant factor in the process.
See, this is where all of this falls apart to me. How do you *know* that the interview was the only significant part of the process? Even one of the CSD board members posting here says that she does not know what the scoring mechanism was. *If* that is the problem, then why not ask for that to review and evaluate rather than just overruling the process?
In a business environment you don’t get to make many assumptions about how you are evaluated in an interview. (Government is abit different.) While a job may have advertised specific requirements that need to be met, there are LOTS of intangibles that go into a decision process. And a good many of those intangibles don’t get documented in an interview evaluation package. I’ve seen lots of excellent candidates who we knew just would not fit in with our environment. And fitting in with your team or your team’s objectives is vital. The latter I would expect to be important to the school interviewers, and I just don’t know why it is so hard to just go get the basis of selection rather than showily override hiring decisions.
The fact is, the Christina community did not like the results of the interview, even though they initially agreed to the process. That is OK and perfectly reasonable, and not some kind of perfidy. Nobody has done this before, and the partnership should allow for adjustment based on lessons learned during the process.
The nit-picking about the interview process is happening only because the plan does not provide a more orderly way to pursue mid-course corrections. Since the plan lacks a “pause” button, the vote to keep the teachers, and the subsequent nit-picking about the interviews, were the only way to pause long enough to have a civil conversation about it.
Unfortunately the Markell Administration failed to have the management skills and people skills to pick up on the fundamental message being sent by the board, and instead steamrolled them. And thus the civil conversation never happened.
The lesson for future PZ plans is – build in a pause button and a process for mid-course corrections, so this doesn’t happen again.
Just wait until the Markell administration finds something it doesn’t like in the rollout of the plan, and wants CSD to change. I hope John Young will be there with a prolonged smile on his face.
All of the discussion is about the interviews. Elizabeth said: Who decided who would move? Well, apparently, each interviewee was scored by the interviewers. Someone set a cut score. Those who scored below the cut score were told to voluntarily transfer out. I have no information as to how this rubric was formulated. Nor is it ever mentioned in either document, the PZ plan or the MOU.
It’s like norming a test. You design a test, but if the results you get are clearly wrong, you have to redesign the test. In this case, the community felt the results were wrong, and asked the board to find out what happened. On Biggest Loser, originally the measurement of weight loss was straight pounds. That was deemed an incorrect scoring method, because the pounds represented different things to people who were larger or smaller to start with, so they switched to percentages. It’s not enough to have %20 fall below the yellow line. The yellow line has to represent something that the community believes is relevant to the problem.
Everyone agrees the schools need to be fixed. Not everyone agrees that the problem is the teachers, and, even among people who believe the teachers are responsible, some believe teacher education and support is the best response, and some just believe the wrong teachers were selected by this process. Markell didn’t have to go to defcon A on this, he really didn’t. This was a phone-call and a box of donuts issue. Because the authority rests with the school district, and, ultimately, the board.
I grew up in Delaware. I got most of my early education in Delaware public school. I have 5 children, and even though they don’t attend Delaware public schools, all their friends do, most of their neighbors do. I pay taxes to support the schools. The success of Delaware’s schools matters to me, and the process is NOT exactly analogous to a business environment. Governor Markell clearly would like it to be. In that, I believe he’s wrong.
The nit-picking about the interview process is happening only because the plan does not provide a more orderly way to pursue mid-course corrections. Since the plan lacks a “pause” button, the vote to keep the teachers, and the subsequent nit-picking about the interviews, were the only way to pause long enough to have a civil conversation about it.
See, this is also what I don’t get. The Markell critics say “The state never talked to the school board!” in the aftermath of the vote. But did the school board ever talk to the state before the vote? Or did it just blindside DOE like it’s accusing DOE of blindsiding Christina?
In my world, when you have a problem, you pick up the phone and call. Did anyone do this?
For crying out loud, does anyone really think the decisions on which teachers to transfer were made AFTER the interview process? Does anyone think that list wasn’t drawn up well ahead of time and based on such things as which teachers might be resistant to change, or might be a magnet for the disgruntled?
Are the deck chairs rearranged to everyone’s satisfaction yet?
Sheesh, I can see problems on all sides, and I’m sure things could have been handled better by everyone.
In the business world you don’t even get an interview unless your resume warrants the time to qualify for one. So the interview process appears to serve two purposes: 1.) to clarify that what you claimed on your resume is true, and 2.) to see if your personality/attitude suit the team you’re joining.
I think Geezer is correct. In my dealings with high poverty schools I could have made a list of which teachers and administrators (and board members) should have been gone. And some of these were very good teachers, but they were also the ones who pooh-poohed every attempt at change. Not exactly people I’d want on my team, but they would be excellent in another environment.
And this isn’t only applicable to failing schools. We don’t just let any teacher teach AP, IB, or gifted. There are requirements to teach those courses, and no one is calling foul on this. And while it may be easier to “buy into” the goals of these courses one still must “buy into” them.
Here’s my main problem: I’m uncomfortable with painting either side as the villain.
Here’s my main problem: I’m uncomfortable with painting either side as the villain.
This is what I was trying to tell you earlier. There is nuance plenty to go around. You can’t solve this by devising five questions and demanding answers.
2.) to see if your personality/attitude suit the team you’re joining.
Office politics and clique-ism. Professionals know how to look past superficial demeanor and value a person for their actual talents and skills. I have made many productive relationships at work by looking past first impressions and groupthink.
In my dealings with high poverty schools I could have made a list of which teachers and administrators (and board members) should have been gone.
This sounds awfully like the reasoning of wingnuts who say “Just let me at the budget with a red pen, and I can balance the budget.” It is in the eye of the beholder.
If you have been teaching 10 or more years, you have lived through many changes in technology and process that you initially grumbled about but now have adopted successfully.
What the hell kind of process tries to silence its critics?
I think the elephant in the room here is, who should run the schools?
I, personally, have no doubt that the movement, in the last 50 years, has been towards more federal involvement in education, and, more recently, in having corporations take over public schools in many instances. This contrasts with 19th century models of schools as an extension of small local communities.
FYI, the podcast is up for those who couldn’t tune in: http://www.wdel.com/features/Lowery-Young2011-05-03.mp3
Also, just to clarify a point. The board received testimony, at our board meeting, prior to the vote from District HR, that the interview was the sole consideration in the decision to retain/let go. The plan and the MOU call for a veritable plethora of considerations in addition to the interview. The board was simply trying to make sure we executed the MOU with fidelity.
The board recording is here: http://www.christina.k12.de.us/BOE/Meetings/RSS/CSD_BOE.xml
for best results, download and open in WMA. Discussion in earnest begins at 2:12:00
Again, thanks for this thread.
Also, the meeting in question is the 4/19/11 meeting at Shue Middle School.
Sorry I missed your lesson, but, then again, I did watch John Young’s video. Very unprofessional, and hardly conducive to communication. He did apologize yesterday, so that’s all well and good.
And although I don’t work outside the home, I am personally acquainted with the interview process since Mr. Pandora conducts interviews frequently. So, if you have gotten past first impressions of who your superiors have hired… my guess (actually, it isn’t a guess) is that that was factored into the hiring process.
This sounds awfully like the reasoning of wingnuts who say “Just let me at the budget with a red pen, and I can balance the budget.” It is in the eye of the beholder.
Wrong. My children attended Warner before and after the opening of Brandywine Springs so I actually lived this. Where do your children attend school? Normally, I don’t ask such questions, but I will demand an answer from you on this point. Simply because, unless you have had your children on the front lines of this fight your best defense is to plead ignorance – unless you have dealt with teachers/administrators in these schools who truly believe that children of certain socio-economic levels are doomed because they can’t be taught please refrain from lecturing me.
So… what schools do your children attend and/or have attended? This is a serious question.
Finally, no one is trying to silence critics, but if the only thing you bring to the table is negativity, then you are part of the problem.
unless you have had your children on the front lines of this fight your best defense is to plead ignorance
… but second-hand experience qualifies you to comment about interviewing?
One of my kids goes to a school with a poverty rate close to 40%. Shockingly this is probably not considered high-poverty. Warner’s rate is 88%. Glasgow is 58%. My other child goes to a school with a much lower poverty rate.
I’m not posting more personal details here. DL admins already have enough info to figure it out.
I am involved enough at the District level to know plenty about the high poverty schools.
but if the only thing you bring to the table is negativity, then you are part of the problem.
The negativity was the initial post searching for a villain, before doing the homework. This is human nature and is a very bloggerly thing to do, and I have been guilty of it many times myself. But it is not reality based, and it didn’t work for the CSD issue.
And actually, the blog process worked, because other people jumped in and provided more information. The trick is to separate the facts from the emotion (or at least try to).
I’m not posting more personal details here. DL admins already have enough info to figure it out.
You assume that I care enough to do this, which I don’t. I understand why you’re not answering. But to rise above your fears… I have an 11th grader who attends Concord and an 8th grader who attends P.S. duPont – she’s been accepted into Brandywine’s excellent IB program next year. Before that they attended private schools. Before that my oldest attended Warner for 4 years while my youngest attended Warner for one year. Hardly top secret information… unless it lessens your argument?
I am involved enough at the District level to know plenty about the high poverty schools.
LOL!
“What the hell kind of process tries to silence its critics?”
In the workplace, every single one.
My fault for joining your “whose school is poorer” pissing match and following you down the rabbit hole. As if it mattered. Won’t make that mistake again.
But it isn’t my school, is it? I told you where my children go to school, why won’t you reciprocate? It’s hardly a state secret. My advice… don’t talk about what you haven’t lived.
Go ahead and dismiss my arguments/experience. It isn’t a “pissing” match, and if it is… you don’t qualify to participate.
All this started by my daring to ask questions. Think about that.
And… if you don’t think the discussion of “whose school is poorer” matters, I’d suggest you un-involve yourself from District because you are being played.
“The negativity was the initial post searching for a villain, before doing the homework.”
Bullshit. I’ve read just about all I could stand to about this, listened to the folks on Jensen, etc., and I still come up with the same villain in all this. You can bleat “don’t blame the board” all you want; I don’t see how they can avoid blame.
Since you won’t say who you are, we can only surmise you DO have a dog in the fight. I suspected that anyway, as you have tried to pin the “villain” tag on everyone and everything involved EXCEPT the school board.
I did apologize for my speech, insofar as is muddied the discussion about the actions of our board. For Governor Markell and the DOE to use my opinions to fabricate the intent and sincerity of a good faith vote was sure a political baptism for me. For that aspect , I truly am sorry.
As for the content. I do not see any of it as unprofessional at all. I took to the public comment lectern, turned it to the audience, and as a parent and taxpayer expressed deep and grievous concerns about these programs. My views are actually on the issue of RTTT are actually extremely progressive and liberal in their base. On the issue of Education, Markell-Obama-Duncan are absolute corporate, center right leaning democrats.
But my main point is this: businesses and their ideas about how to execute curriculum for the good of the actual students is just a really, really bad idea. People are free to disagree, just my opinion of course.
The concepts of merit pay, demonizing teachers, ignoring parents and destabilizing schools are bad for our students. I stand behind the content of my speech, every word of it.
The negativity was the initial post searching for a villain, before doing the homework.
No — people asking serious questions aren’t being *negative* just because they aren’t following behind the astonishing groupthink going on here. My own response to heragain gets me a lecture on how this isn’t like a business when, in fact, I was responding to her own example with my *own* first hand experience.
And this:
The board received testimony, at our board meeting, prior to the vote from District HR, that the interview was the sole consideration in the decision to retain/let go. The plan and the MOU call for a veritable plethora of considerations in addition to the interview. The board was simply trying to make sure we executed the MOU with fidelity.
Could have been said earlier when the question was posed in the other thread. But still — testimony? If there was a scoring and ranking exercise, that ought to be available to see. *Fidelity* would be in reviewing that to see what was actually considered. Is this not something the Board could ask to see?
Professionals know how to look past superficial demeanor and value a person for their actual talents and skills.
This is said by someone who has never had to hire anyone to join a team. Never.
The teachers subject to the interview process likely had more information about *that* interview process than they did for the interviews that got them their jobs back in the day. And they walked right into it knowing that the process was designed to result in *invitations* to stay. Meaning that there was always a chance to go. The people assigned to the interviewing process had something in mind when they made their selections — probably something to do with creating a changed environment. I’m going pretty far out on a limb here in expecting that the people in the building are going to have the right credentials, and most of them will have great relationships with students. The question is how would these teachers fit into a *transformed* school and it seems that reviewing how that decision got done (asking for scoring and ranking sheets) would have been way more productive than just over ruling the process.
“But still — testimony? If there was a scoring and ranking exercise, that ought to be available to see. *Fidelity* would be in reviewing that to see what was actually considered. Is this not something the Board could ask to see?”
Exactly right we reviewed what was being considered at the meeting on the 19th (Board’s are not involved in day to day, that was our first meeting after the completion of the interviews). We voted to essentially call a “time out” so we could execute the MOU with fidelity. What happened next was an epic, overblown state and federal response. Again, I earnestly refer people to go to the tape and listen to our meeting. The truth is right there in digital splendor.
JY – are you guys serious, that the audio is only available to iTunes subscribers? Isn’t there a non-proprietary source?
How long is the audio? If I can get my hands on it (without iTunes) I’ll look into getting a transcription done.
here: http://www.christina.k12.de.us/BOE/Meetings/RSS/CSD_BOE.xml
if you right click on the file for the 4/19 meeting (.mp3) the save link as you will get the whole meeting as an mp3 file. No Itunes required.
it is 5:59:40 long
Sorry, John, but you did your side a great disservice with that video. And while you did own up to your mistake, the evidence is there in “digital splendor.”
Here’s my question: Why weren’t you involved in the day to day? There was a lot of money riding on this – although you did tell me in another thread that it wasn’t that much money. And while I get that school board is a “thankless” job, it is a job that you, and other board members, ran hard for. Where does your responsibility as a board member come into play? Do you see the board responsible for anything in this mess?
We voted to essentially call a “time out” so we could execute the MOU with fidelity.
You voted to overrule the decision of the people in the building, and retain and retrain everyone there.
A *timeout* vote would have left that decision in place (for some short period) and called for additional fact-finding, with some agreement to revisit approving the decision of the people in the building at some named time in the future.
School Board Delaware Code:
§ 1058. Controversies concerning rules and regulations of the school board.
The school board of each reorganized school district shall decide on all controversies involving the rules and regulations of the school board. Any party to such controversy may appeal to the State Board of Education by setting forth such grievance in a petition which shall be served within 30 days after receiving notice of the decision upon the Secretary of Education. The State Board, shall by rules and regulations provide for adequate procedures for the hearing of any such petitions and shall decide the controversy. The State Board shall overturn the decision of a local board only if it decides, after considering the advice of the Secretary, that the local board’s decision was contrary to a specific state or federal law or regulation, was not supported by substantial evidence, or was arbitrary or capricious. The decision of the State Board shall be final.
14 Del. C. 1953, § 1058; 56 Del. Laws, c. 292, § 6; 71 Del. Laws, c. 180, § 52; 74 Del. Laws, c. 233, §§ 1-4.;
§ 1059. Hearings.
A school board may administer and examine persons under oath in any part of the reorganized school district.
14 Del. C. 1953, § 1059; 56 Del. Laws, c. 292, § 6.;
§ 1060. False testimony is perjury.
Whoever, being a witness in any matter pertaining to the public schools of the reorganized school district and having been duly sworn or affirmed by the school board to tell the truth, wilfully gives false testimony is guilty of false swearing and shall be punished as perjury is punished.
14 Del. C. 1953, § 1060; 56 Del. Laws, c. 292, § 6.;
Cassandra,
Our decision was not motioned as permanent nor intended as such. We simply stayed the process. Before we could offer a plan to remediate our own mistakes, it went viral.
Not sure what this has to do with a vote to overrule the decision and process of the people in the building. Since that wasn’t about the rules and regulations of the school board.
Um, John… do you consider your video to be part of the viral?
Pandora,
Boards by definition are not day to day. We act as arbiters and are focused on policy and governance. We acted at our first opportunity to act on what 5 of us determines was a flawed process. It was a good faith vote. Nothing more.
We will agree my speech hurt the situation (mostly because of the juxtaposition to our vote that night…since you’ve listened to it you know that my speech has almost nothing to do with identifying a process problem and making a policy decision to look at said process, I am much more focused on the big picture of ed reform in my speech the vote was more of a technicality type issue). We will not agree about my right to give it or that it has value in the debate it seems.
I think the board, as governors of the district, are absolutely responsible: to our students first vis-a-vis our organization. To me this means we must ensure that our employees have the best possible environment in which to excel on behalf of our students. If we fail to ensure due process to a very explicit procedure is followed, how can we expect to have any credibility in the future. I am saddened that the result of a good faith effort to address an internal CSD process was blown out of proportion by outsiders to the process (in this case the Governor, DOE and others). It truly has moved us away from the central point: our district and board never walked away from these reforms and we support them. Out support is memorialized in votes and our ongoing efforts to execute these reforms.
Pandora, yes re: the video and viral.
Like I said before, the motion should have been tabled, not voted on based on the desire for more information. Would have saved yourselves a whole lot of this. And interviews? If I need a brain surgeon, why would I keep the obstetrician? Sure, both went to medical school, and may be outstanding in their field, but I was looking for someone to handle my brain problems. How hard is that in mourning those “wonderful, dedicated,brilliant,award-winning teachers”, that didn’t get the job?
John: With all due respect, your mistake here was to speak “as a parent and taxpayer.” When you are school board president, you don’t get to discard the job like a jacket in a hot room so you can speak your mind without reservation. Once a person is in your position, you are no longer just a parent and taxpayer.
It should surprise exactly nobody that locals are not in charge of this. As you yourself have noted quite often, that’s the problem with the entire school reform movement. So don’t act surprised that when a bump arose in the road, the powerful forces above you squashed it flat as quickly as possible. It’s not right, but it’s not surprising.
Pandora, what viral video you talkin bout?
The point, as has been made before in this thread, is that the interview was used as the only metric to decide whether or not a teacher would stay. The MOU specifically stated that it would NOT be the only metric.
In some of the testimony, I heard a phys ed teacher discuss how he was not renewed because he was made to apply for just one of the academies. However, the phys ed department would be shared between the academies. So basically, the guy was in the wrong room, interviewed by the wrong people using the wrong criteria.
Here’s the video
Geek, that is a problem, but who decided that this was the criteria? It seems to me that Christina (board, administrators, and teachers) are absolving themselves from the process. I can accept a “we all screwed up” argument, but I can’t accept the “this is one sides fault” argument.
“John: With all due respect, your mistake here was to speak “as a parent and taxpayer.” When you are school board president, you don’t get to discard the job like a jacket in a hot room so you can speak your mind without reservation.”
Haven’t been following the thread, but props for good comment writing.
I know nothing about this issue, but I just listened to John Young’s speech and I have to say that, as a piece of oratory, it is excellent.
Well crafted and delivered. Passionate without being strident. Educational without being pedantic.
I just watched the video. John’s speech was awesome and there is nothing to apologize for. Perhaps he can rescind his apology 🙂
If you haven’t watched the video, make sure you do before you swallow the spin being written here.
The warning about the venture capitalists taking over the educational system is well taken. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex and nobody called him anti-military or expected him to apologize.
The point about RTTT being 1% of his budget was also a very necessary point of perspective that had been lacking.
The invitation to work things out with DDOE was also well taken, though unfortunately ignored.
I support RTTT and I also support JY’s stance on his teachers. I don’t find that to be inconsistent at all. We are lucky to have such a passionate citizen holding DDOE’s feet to the fire.
If the Phys Ed teacher story is right, then that is one problem. But one more time — you do not know much about how a decision was made about any of these teachers unless you get a chance to see the scoring and ranking sheets. Or at least get an explanation of the methodology of selection. Which means that just overriding the work of the people in the building wasn’t about fixing or reconciling or partnering with anything. Venus’ option was a good one — just table the issue until the Board had a chance to get better data. It would have had to have been quick since apparently there was a deadline to offer teachers contracts. But certainly doable.
Anybody noting the irony of people mourning the loss of *local control*, summarily overriding the decisions of the people local to the school building in picking their team?
Frankly I don’t think that the questions asked by the people in the building were all that different from those in the MOU. But I’ll stipulate that there are areas between the MOU and the Plan that don’t exactly sync up. But you know what? The job of the Board was catching that before they signed on to it.
Regarding all the consultants and third parties being brought in in various roles, it is worrisome. The natural impulse is to resent them. But we can turn the tables on them. Remember, they work for us.
All of these consultants have submitted proposals and signed contracts that bind them to certain performance commitments. These documents are public record and are legally binding. I have read a few of these and personally I don’t think they have enough performance guarantees.
But we can get these documents, and monitor the progress of these consultants, and make sure we are getting every penny’s worth of those millions of dollars they are getting. If they slip up and try to walk off with the money without delivering everything they promised, raise holy hell. Remember, they work for us.
Mr. Young,
You’ve been a good sport so far engaging on the blogs and answering questions from anonymous people. I hope you’ll address a few more issues. Some questions:
1. Before that night, did you ever express your concerns to the DOE or anyone with the Markell administration?
2. Before that night, had the teachers expressed their concerns to the DOE or anyone with the Markell administration?
3. Was there a compelling reason that the board HAD to act that night, instead of waiting a few days, contacting the DOE and the Markell administration, getting clarification, and then calling a special meeting to take whatever action it deemed necessary?
I suspect the answers are No, No and No. But I may be wrong.
From my point of view – as an outsider – it seems like you got a bunch of complaints from disgruntled teachers ticked off they might have to drive an extra 20 or 30 minutes to work at another school, which added to your own personal and political disgruntlement over the RTTP concept, and took a knee-jerk action based on the emotion of the moment instead of waiting to get actual information (like just how the interview questions were scored).
If I’m wrong, please explain how.
Casssandra, I’m sorry that my response was lecturey. Teachers lecture. A bad habit, and I apologize.
Lecturey is AOK — I do it myself, really. It just looked like you wanted to use business as an example and then decided that wasn’t a good idea. I was mad that the grounds of the debate were changing. Sorry to snap at you.
@anon at 2:53PM
1) Yes. In person to Dr. Lowery and her deputy secretary on 12/9/10.4
2) Yes. on 4/11/11 directly to Governor Markell and Dr. Lowery at at meeting at GHS
3) A qualified yes. Voluntary transfer deadlines in the CSD were urgently upon us but I qualify that answer to the degree I bristle at the idea that a document (the MOU) that had three signatures, all of which are CSD signatures (mine among them)needed any consult with the DOE or Markell administration. Now, after the fact, if only to have avoided the nasty fallout that happened (please read Kilroy, TC and C&E First blogs for details) I wish we had.
Finally, I may indeed be guilty of having this vote and my personal views line up, but can honestly say my vote was informed by nearly two dedicated hours of board discussion about a flawed process, nothing more. I would not agree that the action was knee-jerk. On the contrary I felt it to be the result of a contemplative board making a rational decision after seeking, and getting relevant information germane to the decision we made.
Many people have, can and will continue to question our motives. I know mine was pure and I have great respect for the 4 members that voted along with me. Their decisions were also fiercely independent and based on facts presented to us in an open forum, digitally recorded for posterity and accuracy, in an exercise of elected local governance and control.
The real question is: why didn’t the people in charge know about the procedure to keep/move teachers?
Also, anon at 2:53 raises good questions.
And Jason… I get why you think the oratory is excellent. I also get that this is why you are a blogger and not a school board president. Just sayin’ 😉
Comment by Geezer on 4 May 2011 at 1:58 pm:
“John: With all due respect, your mistake here was to speak “as a parent and taxpayer.” When you are school board president, you don’t get to discard the job like a jacket in a hot room so you can speak your mind without reservation.”
School board members are elected public officials. I see nothing in the code saying school board members don’t have the same rights as other elected officials who speak-out. Rep Kowalko (good man)spoke out quite harsh in support of CSD board. Was he wrong? Robert rules of order isn’t law and John Young did violate any laws or ethic violations. What is his crime ! Passion ?
School district superintendents serve at the pleasure of their board just as Lowery serve Markell. Supers are not direct employees of the state.
The is a little issue deep deep embedded in the current events and that is the CSD board last December voted not to extend the super’s contract and requires one more vote this coming December. There appears to be a movement with so Wilmington community leaders to line up in support of the CSD super. Folks there is a deep agenda going on and there are those who want John Young out despite the current issue and you can bet Markell would like to see John go because John is not a Race to The Top team-player.
If a board member don’t support Race to The Top they should sit on their hands? Yes yes may board members throughout Delaware voted for the RTTT MOU and that because I was there at Red Clay’s RTTT MOU vote and the folks from DEDEO pretty much said if you don’t sign you’ll fund RTTT programs that are now aligned with state education regulations and that is with 100% local funds. So either way DEDOE was saying fuck you.
This all like a referendum where supporters of the referendum say if you don’t vote yes that means you don’t care about kids. 119 million dollar is how much RTTT funding is and this doesn’t include the SIG funding. The state gets 50% to piss away the way they want including more consultants at DEDOE to run a new department called The School turnaround / RTTT department.
Folks I am hear to tell you the status quo wants John Young OUT! He stood for labor whose rights were being violated as the PZ Plan wasn’t followed properly. These are the same people who agreed to the terms and “reform”. The media blitz against John is about protecting the super’s job!
Did John Young vote for or against RTTT?
On January 12th, 2010 I was one of two CSD board members who voted against the RTTT MOU with the state of DE. Elizabeth Scheinberg was the other. The measure carried 5-2, hence the CSD BOE supports RTTT as our official Board position.
Without a doubt, one of the votes for which I carry great pride, then and even more now.
Cassandra_m said: “Frankly I don’t think that the questions asked by the people in the building were all that different from those in the MOU. But I’ll stipulate that there are areas between the MOU and the Plan that don’t exactly sync up. But you know what? The job of the Board was catching that before they signed on to it.”
FYI, the MOU was signed on 1/4/11, the plan approved on 1/5/11 and interviews commenced in 3/11. The idea was that the two documents could be easily harmonized by following each they would not inherently contradict each other. The problem identified by the board was that of simply not following the Plan (again, DOE approved as opposed to the CSD based MOU that buttressed said plan). We actually were trying to help the DOE with our vote in a cruel irony, before this became a national incident.
You know, there are likely people who will buy this idea that you are a martyr here — but I’m not one of them.
You never saw the MOU or the Plan before their approval dates? Really? So the Board never had a chance to point out that these two docs didn’t quite sync up before then? Is this:
memorialized and agreed to by all of the stakeholder parties someplace?
And, as I’ve been pointing out, this:
isn’t true unless you knew the scoring and selection methodology.
We actually were trying to help the DOE with our vote in a cruel irony, before this became a national incident.
🙄
A vote to override the hiring decisions of the people in the building was meant to help the DOE? This is your story? Really?
The thing that is true here is that you had a number of options for handling this thing and you took the road that most showily communicated your disdain for the entire RTTT process. Really, man, if you didn’t want to be part of this thing — if you genuinely think that this thing is a boondoggle, you had other options for communicating that (even opting out of it) than just deciding (without good info) that the work of the people in the building selecting their team was not done with *fidelity*. If this Transformation process is about getting the people in the building to be responsible for creating their own success, you can’t be in the business of getting in the way of the decisions they make that you don’t like unless you have way better data than you got.
“I see nothing in the code saying school board members don’t have the same rights as other elected officials who speak-out.”
Who said he was prevented? But speech has consequences. John Young wants his speech interpreted as personal speech rather than professional speech. I was pointing out that such a position is disingenuous at best. If I’m the governor and someone speaks out against RTTT like John does while tossing a monkey wrench into the Happy-Face Reform parade, I squash him, just as Markell did.
I actually agree with John on almost every issue. What I dislike is the victim-playing. You chose to play the rebel; don’t cry about it now. State your case and that’s that. If your super did you wrong, fire her. Unlike someone who’s really just a parent and taxpayer, you and your colleagues have that power.
“Rep Kowalko (good man)spoke out quite harsh in support of CSD board. Was he wrong?”
Nope. He’s not trying to play both sides of the fence, and indeed is stepping into an issue he doesn’t have to. John Y., on the other hand, is trying to play two roles: He wants to be Board President (he’d quit if he didn’t) and he wants the freedom of just an average parent/taxpayer to speak without his attitude being held against him in his official position. I don’t know of anyone who gets away with that, and John Young isn’t the first to try.
“Robert rules of order isn’t law and John Young did violate any laws or ethic violations. What is his crime ! Passion ?”
No crime. It was a violation of either common sense, if he thought his actions carried no consequences, or the public’s intelligence, if he expects me to buy the line that’s he’s some sort of victim here.
“The is a little issue deep deep embedded in the current events and that is the CSD board last December voted not to extend the super’s contract and requires one more vote this coming December. There appears to be a movement with so Wilmington community leaders to line up in support of the CSD super.
“Folks I am hear to tell you the status quo wants John Young OUT! He stood for labor whose rights were being violated as the PZ Plan wasn’t followed properly. These are the same people who agreed to the terms and “reform”. The media blitz against John is about protecting the super’s job!”
This wouldn’t surprise me a bit. But it shows that John Young is trying to fight the state and the feds while also fighting a civil war within the Christina School Board.
I don’t envy him. Christina has been tightly tied to the state DoE since its conversion to a cabinet agency, and some of the most vitriolic opponents of busing hailed from the area south/east of Newark, making the district’s racial politics fairly nasty. That has more than a little to do with the resistance to top-down “reform” represented by RTTT.
“Who said he was prevented? But speech has consequences. John Young wants his speech interpreted as personal speech rather than professional speech”
I’ll meet you half way 🙂 The issue at hand was the deviation of the PZ Plan by the super and no a general debate about reform and RTTT. Moral of the story call Markell and Arne Duncan assholes on your own time. However, “if” the discussion was RTTT in the broad sense then there wouldn’t be any problem. VP of Red Clay who voted no on the MOU ripped DOE Dan and new one.
Yea sure I agree there is a fine line but surely the Mayor calling the board action criminal and a minority leader call the board near racist was unwarranted. John Young took pots shots a Markell, Arne Duncan and William Budinger aka Rodel by name. Young said nothing about Baker (pretty sure).
All and all, there is a beneficial message to come out of this and its, if there is an agreement made we need to stick to it or amend it. We honestly do need education reform and its going to be a long road. My bitch is transparency and deep deep concern in regards to the privatization of public education that Wall Street capitalizes on. George Bush one and two are gone and it’s Neil and Jeb Bush working $$$$$ the education reform. Same goes for Gingrich whom I was never for. Then you have Al Sharpton in the equation.
What sucks in none of the RTTT money goes towards more teachers to help reduce class sizes. We need to end the Delaware class size wavier.
Though I am the town idiot I had opportunities to run for a Red Clay board seat but I cannot and will not give up my voice as it is. Real reform is driven by parents like Pandora and I saw her in action many times.
Common Sense! Wait, scrolling up ! Yep still say Delaware Liberal at the top 🙂 LOL. Sad part and a reality is folks like John Young are held to hire standards to pretty much everybody here. I am sure going forward he’ll be more tactful but surely we don’t want him part of the status quo who a trying to capitalize on poverty in our schools.
I know I blowing in the wind but how RTTT and the PZ Plan was enacted is illegal per Title 1 Section 1118. Arne Duncan has given more waivers to NCLB than all US sec of Ed since NCLB inception.
John Young actions if anyone feels were inappropriate is nothing compare to the underhanded bullshit that going on between Washington USDOE and Wall Street.
I am not a victim, I own my words, every one of them. I realize the impact my speech had after the fact. My words though have no bearing on the truth of the vote. I do not seek martyrdom at all.
Words do have consequences and I have lived them. Ultimately with no regrets.
“This wouldn’t surprise me a bit. But it shows that John Young is trying to fight the state and the feds while also fighting a civil war within the Christina School Board.”
There is a fight worth fighting but once the RTTT MOU was signed its now a waiting game for RTTT to take its course just like DSTP and now NCLB. DSTP was flawed even to Markell opinion but yet it is the results of this flawed process that dictate how schools are rated. RTTT is not a federal mandate and is just a four year grant and only a fool would believe its going to turn public schools around. How can it when the target is 5% of lowest performing schools. The only good thats coming out of it job growth in education but those jobs are administrative and new bullshit jobs like data coaches.
FYI Top down reform starts in Washington and Dover with transparency and an end to underfunded and unfunded mandate. Also the feds shouldn’t get 100% control of our schools for 8% federal funding.
cassandra_m says: “isn’t true unless you knew the scoring and selection methodology.”
Exactly! This is what we received information about at the meeting (guessing you haven’t listened yet) from our own administration… that the selection methodology was the sole metric of the interview in direct opposition to the approved plan which calls for multiple measures INCLUDING and interview.
I am on this thread to help answer questions and get out facts.
I truly appreciate the pushback like yours and Geezer’s
Thanks.
“I am not a victim, I own my words, every one of them. I realize the impact my speech had after the fact.”
Well there you have it, lessons to be learned and the acknowledgement one can learn from himself.
Now did Bin Laden have a gun or not? Which is Obama! Years of bitching for his birth certificate and now more years to follow for a death certificate for bin Laden. Isn’t there laws about shooting unarmed criminals? LOL ! All and all a great day for sweet justice.
Good, John. That’s why I ultimately support you and what you’d like to see done. I should have made clear that others, not you yourself, are holding you up as a martyr.
These communications mix-ups are not an accident — they are a result of almost everybody involved having different goals. While I don’t regard Markell as the villain, the administration cannot truthfully say its highest priority is the education of Christina’s kids — it has a lot more than that at stake. So it has almost nothing in common with the Christina Board, which has no skin in the national RTTT game.
The one who seems most at fault here is Lowery, but consider that she’s trying to satisfy two vastly different agendas.
“The one who seems most at fault here is Lowery, but consider that she’s trying to satisfy two vastly different agendas.”
Wrong person! You mean Lyles CSD Super ! Lowery Sec of Ed has one agenda and that’s Markell and Skipper’s !
“surely the Mayor calling the board action criminal and a minority leader call the board near racist was unwarranted.”
More than unwarranted — destructive, bull-flinging grandstanding would be more like it. But you’ll rarely find a minority politician who can resist scoring cheap points by squawking about “The Man.” Baker’s outburst surprised me, because he usually doesn’t care enough to say anything. Jea Street, on the other hand, has built his entire career through race-based attacks on New Castle County schools, so it would have been unusual only if he had kept quiet.
Oops! You’re right, Kilroy. Christina supers become education secretaries so often that I get mixed up.
I won’t even try to wade into these waters. All I’ll say is that as a classroom teacher, the details of RttT are extremely nebulous and you can’t pin a single one of us down to give a clear and concise explanation of how these funds will impact us in the classroom in a tangible manner.
We’ve signed on for a tiny bit of federal funds (relative to our overall budgets) and are going to have to deal with the federal mandates and regulations for years to come.
Sadly to say the new drama is all about sowing seeding in protecting the CSD super. All this started when she deviated from the PZ Plan and all it would have taken was amendment to the plan.
check this out, page 18 http://www.doe.k12.de.us/reports_data/dropout/2010DropoutRpt.pdf
Tell folks how is it possible Delaware High School Dropout rate in 3.9% last year a 30 year low? And get this, Glasgow one of the PZ Plan schools high school dropout rate last year 2009-10 was 4.1% and the year before it was 9.3% thats over 50% drop from year to the next. Seem those so-called bad teacher must have been doing something right before the PZ Plan thats no even implemented yet.
Kilroy –
So having fewer kids drop out equates to educational success???
Dropout rates have zero relationship to educating the rest of the children who remain in the classroom.
Those numbers you cite are a difference of 55 kids in a school of 1,100. Statistically significant?
@anon 9:10pm I do not necessarily disagree with you, but why then is the DOE supporting the idea that it is a critical measurement of success?
Dr. Lowery speaks of it in response to one of Jensen’s questions: http://www.wdel.com/features/Lowery-Young2011-05-03.mp3
Damn-diggy good thread folks. Proud o y’all. Nice to catch up to a very civil and real conversation between blog mates.
Step away from the computer for the day, and y’all make CSD history – most comments on a CSD-devoted blog entry, ever.
I want to make one clarification to something I wrote yesterday – when talking about the interviews and scoring. Of course, interviews have bearing; however, for the particular methodology used, I stated that I did not know who chose it. In clarity, I want to explain that answer. The rubric was chosen by some combination of Human Resources, Administration, and PZ Design Team. What I am unsure of, is, who exactly was in the room creating/designing/chosing that rubric. Regardless, the HR supervisor testified on April 19th that the only measurement utilized in selecting teachers was the Interview when the plan indicated that other measurements would be included.
Despite assurances from DOE before the board met on April 19th that this was a local issue, we can all say that the situation could have been handled differently. The board should have timed out for more information. But, I think many of us really had the sense that this was the extent of information that could be offered. Certainly, no one from Christina and no one from DOE (who had reps present) piped up and said, “I have additional information!” during our public meeting. After our vote, the DOE and Gov could have timed out and brought us back into conversation. A “tsk…tsk…Christina, we think you made a misstep” would have sufficed and enabled the board to more thoroughly investigate the situation. Instead, we were villianized.
At the end of the day, every party could have done something, almost anything differently. And I am deeply sorry to the many panicked Christina parents who believed the propaganda pushed out by Markell and Friends. I voted against the RTTT MOU. But, I have taken every action to ensure fidelity to the plans that Christina’s parents, teachers, and administrators collaborative designed. Absence evidence that these reforms have worked before (and quite damningly, there is substantial evidence that these models will likely end in failure)I know that the only chance we have at success is to indeed implement with fidelity. Too many schools and districts have a history of implementing reforms without fidelity to anything. They make it up as they go along. They don’t time out. They don’t identify errors or mistakes. And they don’t take meaningful corrective action. The constituents have asked me to support the reforms. So, I will, the best way I can – to continue to be critical of implementation and to scrutinize process as we proceed. I openly admit that we all, DOE, CSD, and CEA, missed the incongruities between the MOU and the Plan. I’m just amazed at the venom that resulted.
“Dropout rates have zero relationship to educating the rest of the children who remain in the classroom.”
thank you! The high school dropout rate and high school graduation rate are not good indicators of academic success or lack off.
It is the standards and curriculum that drives real measurable success. DSTP is the sole indicator that determines NCLB rating for our schools and DSTP is flaw to the extent that the bar aka cut scores were cut and skewed in order to manipulate the outcome. We’re so bent on teaching to the test we’ve in deed narrow the scope of education and stifled teacher creativity. DSTP was replaced by DCAS the growth model test however, the new teacher evaluation via DPASII will gage teachers performance on growth not meeting the standards.
the numbers mean shit! Nothing but a shell game. We need high school graduation test and an end to social promotion. We need law holding parents more accountable.
The 9th grade dropout rate is the highest of the four years of high school and surely those dropping out in the 9th grade were pretty much dropped out academically in the 6th grade. DSTP though f’ed up does provide some interest trends. 3rd grade data seems to show strong improvement and by the eight grade even those students that showed promise in the 3rd grade turned to shit!
The new test DCAS tracks growth and the data coaches will help teachers evaluate the testing data in order to customize the curriculum. Yea IEP’s for all students and teacher required to teach 5 levels of students. No of the Race to The Top or DCAS plans really add anything to “intervention” and the SES providers suck as the ?DEDOE SES performance reports reveal no sustainable overall impact. There is no accountability on the SES providers and if they fail to help students the accountability impact falls on the classroom teacher.
Race to The Top is not real reform and is the vehicle uses to expand charter schools and introduce for-profit education management companies.
So how do we end the numbers game and measure real academic progress? SAT scores and AP scores?
HOWEVER, with the 3.9% dropout rate for last year DEDOE painted themselves in the corner. How much lower can it go? And if it increases it may indicate reform is failing. What will be a valid yardstick?
We need real transparency of finances and honestly end social promotion. But then again our community leader will come out in force.
When the Race to The Top is over who will be left behind? Doesn’t the world / America need people to collect the trash, work at McDonals, Walmart and all the service related industry? How many scientist does Dupont need?
I will additionally offer that as a competitive grant, RTTT as a national program has by its own standards winners and losers: some states “won” money, others “lost.
Why is the federal government supporting the idea that kids in South Dakota ought not get special funding and kids in Delaware should (as an example). Do the kids there count less? Are they less important?
I don’t think children should be the focus of a competition for federal funds. If the US believes it should support local education, then it should do so in an equitable manner that benefits all children of our country, not just some. No child should be a “loser” because the officials in their state ED department can’t write a compelling grant application.
100
John, to be fair to RTTT, I believe it’s intended as a lab experiment on our kids. Surely ONE of these ambitious programs will be the magic bullet that fixes our education system. Through RTTT we identify which one.
I encourage everyone to look at the dstp sample questions and grading rubrics on the state website. Do the third grade math problems and ask yourself whether you would be judged as “communicating properly” the answer. Taking those tests is a skill-set in itself… I really cannot imagine how you’d get a variety of kids, of all backgrounds, challenges and abilities, to score high on the test, unless that was your major, if not only, task.
Right now I’m tutoring for SAT/ACT testing. We know how to do that. Involves flash cards. But it is probably the dullest school segment we ever do. Interferes with “real learning” in a way that appalls me. I’m glad my job isn’t riding on it, as well.
“Through RTTT we identify which one.”
or not.
and we’re off to the next reform in the unending quest of continuous reforms that have literally plagued us with no progress since 1983 and “A Nation at Risk” kicked of this 30 year cycle of quick fix hucksterism led by politicians and consultants.
When will we, as a nation, actually ask educators how to fix education instead of self-righteously telling them how to fix their profession?
Imagine a Governor telling a doctor he/she must embrace new care techniques because a politician in DC decided that he/she “must” make medicine work better for American citizens…..and did this with nothing more than an opinion as to the “fix” which had no scientific, peer reviewed data to back up the reforms…..
There would be a revolt.
We need one in Education.
Those of us who could afford to already voted with our feet, John.
John, I agree with you. I don’t think RTTT will be successful in identifying which one, and I don’t think it’s just to use citizens as lab animals in an essentially compulsory environment. But I think the concerns I have about that are not widely shared, and I live in a democracy, which, to its credit, is trying to improve the education of its children.
I don’t think 1983 was the beginning of the problem, either. And doctors do face similar instructions, except that it is the insurance companies directly calling the shots and not through proxies in the government.
The charter system (and its twin, vouchers) is the popular model not because of the money being made in/through it (which is mind-blowingly large, for those whose hobby isn’t yet educational theory and reform) but because charter schools are smaller, largely voluntary, labs for educational innovation. In an effort to gather data about what works, policy makers and educators rely on them, and, in the process, wind up with analogies, rather than experimental sample groups.
They’re not scientists, most of these people. They don’t really understand the shortcomings of their approach, but they’re trying to accomplish something.
In testing language, 3 out of 5 points. 😉
Comment by heragain
“John, to be fair to RTTT, I believe it’s intended as a lab experiment on our kids. Surely ONE of these ambitious programs will be the magic bullet that fixes our education system. Through RTTT we identify which one.”
Yea in the meantime children get shot in the head with stay bullets! Look at the charter school lab experiment! Don’t you think we now know what doesn’t work and what does? Something worked in the past to make America’s schools the best! What happened? Could it be the breakdown in social norms impacting parental responsibilities?
remember DSTP was the fix all and it was rolled out long before NCLB and the problem now is, the same business roundtable that pushed DSTP in behind RTTT. Rodel’s Vision 2015 is embedded in Delaware plan and in fact Vision 2015 chairman Skipper former WSFS boss that needed TARP money sat on the RTTT review team in D.C.
Our public schools receive about 8% federal funding and most is via Title 1 a supplemental formulated grant to assist high poverty students in reading and meth. However its nothing more than supplant these days. Why should we give the feds 100% control of our local schools and boards for 8% of the money?
Middle school represent the so-called cracks in education. Why ? Why is does the 9th grade represent the highest number of high school dropouts? The labs should be the point of failure! RTTT does nothing to hold parents who refuse to engage accountable.
Reinventing standards and curriculum does nothing to address the identified problems associated with disruptive students and parents who don’t give a rats ass.
… to assist high poverty students in reading and meth.
So that’s what’s going on in those home ec classrooms these days! Thought I smelled something funny.
“The charter system”
Over 60% of Delaware’s charter schools aren’t meeting the standards and the perceived most successful charter school, Charter School of Wilmington has an admission process based on “intelligence”. Even Markell has concerns of “cherry picking” and “creaming of students”.
Charter schools are a great option. Choice schools are a great option. Magnet schools are a great option. But tell me, what option does a child have when his or her own parents don’t advocate for them? Traditional Public schools fail based on test scores but yet we must understand the “bright flight” impact. What’s if every parent applied the Asian A mentality? Do we fix Titanic I or operate in tandem with a Titanic II. Reach Academy for Girls that just open this year is on the verge of closure! Arne Duncan support closing failing traditional and charter schools. So greats but he and Markell have no safety net in place for those students impacted. Believe it or not, Moyer charter school was rated “Commendable” when Markell tired to close it and currently operating under contract with a for profit Wall Street listed organization K12.In Moyer’s enrollment is only 38% of charter approved enrollment.
“They don’t really understand the shortcomings of their approach, but they’re trying to accomplish something.”
Arne Duncan calls RTTT a “moon shot”! But his unproven approach is like going to war with scud missiles hitting targets at random. Some military targets and some civilian.
I told John Tanner former director of DEDOE assessment Godfather of DSTP back in 1997 that DSTP and those fucked up three tiered diplomas will victimize children particularly those who are below the achievement gap. His response was, “every war has it’s victims”. I found this to be an odd response from a BYU boy.
“So that’s what’s going on in those home ec classrooms these days! Thought I smelled something funny.”
LOL! sorry! Meth = desoxyephedrine. Ok meant to say Math. Meth comes after they dropout of high school.
What’s if every parent applied the Asian A mentality?
Then they would:
a. Get professional degrees
b. Have only one child
c. Emigrate to a country with a better education system.
The Asians who show up on our shores are Asia’s bright flight coming here.
“Emigrate to a country with a better education system.”
Well according to Duncan and Markell China has a better education system than America. We must compete with China they say! Fuck China! 🙂