Last night I attended the City Council Meeting on Priority Schools.
I’ve stared at the above sentence for quite a while, not sure how to proceed. Mainly because I think last night was simply window dressing, a box checked off… the deal is done. These schools, imo, are headed for charter conversion, privatization or closure. The only question is when this will happen. Shortly after the December 31, 2014 Plan deadline? Or after the specified four year, approximately 6 million Plan doesn’t meet the standardized test bar?
Let’s look at this 120 day requirement. By my reading of the MOU that deadline is December 31, 2014. Today is October 10th. By my calculations that leaves approximately 50 working days (more if we count weekends, Thanksgiving and Winter breaks, but I’m not seeing that happen) to agree upon and sign the MOU, locate, interview and hire a school leader and develop the School Turnaround Plan. All of this must be completed by December 31, 2014. If not…
If the State does not agree with the LEA’s [District’s] proposal, the State can refuse to agree to the MOU. 14 DE Admin Code provides that if an MOU is not agreed to within 120 days, the LEA’s options are then limited to closure, reopening as a charter or contracting with a private management organization to operate the school.
Based on this paragraph, these six public schools could be closed, converted to charter or privatized on, or after, January 1, 2015. So… all this will happen if the Districts do nothing, or propose a plan that the State doesn’t approve. And make no mistake, the State has the final say in all things.
At the meeting last night, Theo Gregory said, “It’s rolled out as a priority plan, but it’s really a takeover plan.” I agree.
BTW, what happened to the last school the State took over? Well…
“After more than a year of warnings, Secretary of Education Mark Murphy and the State Board of Education voted unanimously Thursday to revoke the Maurice J. Moyer Academic Institute’s charter, meaning the school must close at the end of the school year.”
That’s one school. How will it go with six? And there were several people last night who called out the DDOE for being MIA and not supportive of these “priority” schools until now. I would be interested in knowing exactly how the DDOE has been working with these six schools for the past 12 – 14 years.
Take a look at what the State says in regards to the School Leaders:
Selection: The District superintendent is responsible for developing a plan to recruit, assess and select one or more nominees for a School Leader. The plan should include a position description, a strategy for recruiting candidates, and a protocol for interviewing, assessing, and selecting a School Leader nominee.
i. The State and District must agree on the selection of the School Leader by December 31, 2014. After the District nominates a School Leader, the State will interview the nominee and approve or deny the nominations. If the State denies the nominations, the District must make another nomination.
ii. Should the District fail to produce an approved leader by the Plan deadline of December 31, 2014, the State may provide a list of candidates from which the District must select. [emphasis mine]
So after the District develops a plan to recruit, assess and select school leaders – along with their recruiting strategy and protocol for interviewing, assessing and selecting their nominee – the State must agree with the Districts choice. If the State doesn’t agree then the District MUST make another nomination. And… if the District doesn’t get State approval for any of their candidates by December 31, 2014, the State MAY provide a list of candidates the District MUST choose.
Take a look at those capitalized words. Why wouldn’t the State be required (MUST) to provide a list of candidates should they reject the District’s choices? If they choose not to provide a list of candidates (and it seems that is an option for them) then the District wouldn’t meet the MOU December 31st deadline and the schools would close, go charter or privatize.
See how all roads lead to these consequences. And I think charter conversion and privatization is the real priority for these “priority” schools.
What’s infuriating is that we begin these discussions pretending we’ve actually tried to help these schools. We haven’t, and the State and Districts are both guilty of this. It isn’t as if the State and District are saying, “Hey, we tried smaller class sizes, putting more teachers in the schools, implemented equitable funding, added resources like wellness centers, school psychologists and put back programs such as TAG, Technology, Reading/Math specialists, Arts, etc. and these schools are still struggling so now we need to try something different.” They can’t say that because they never did that.
Last night several council people and the public questioned the testing and asked why the test kept changing? Seems as if the answer was that the DSTP and DCAS weren’t good enough? If that’s true then what have we been basing performance on all these years? What are we basing these priority school standards on? Why do we keep changing, and paying for, tests? I wonder where our State leaders end up after leaving office? I can take a guess, but I’ll wait and see.
And can someone please tell me why, yet again, our Secretary of Education keeps citing Eastside, Kuumba and Howard as schools to emulate? Howard is a high school. It’s Vo-Tech and has a different funding mechanism. Eastside and Kuumba are charter schools. All three of these schools are all choice schools. No student is assigned to these schools by an attendance zone. And up until recently, charter school applications and requirements were constructed to control their population – mandatory volunteer hours, asking about IEPs, a parent code of conduct form, not offering free and reduced lunch, assorted fees, etc. None of which a true public school can implement. And I really resent the comparison. So, let’s cut it out.
Another point made was how the 6 million over 4 years wasn’t adequate. Sec. Mark Murhy pointed out that the schools/districts could apply for additional funding through grants and other programs. The several teachers, parents and administrators I spoke to said they already did apply for most of these, but some monies came with heavy strings attached. I didn’t get into a lot of detail over this so if anyone has insight…
But another point about funding kept coming up. Secretary Murphy said several times that schools needed to look at their budgets and apply the money they already receive in a better way. Okay, maybe that’s true. I’m a bit doubtful since school budgets seems very specific and restrictive, but okay. Now, here’s what I’d like to do. I’d like to look at every cent the DDOE and District office spends and use it in a more productive way. Talk about a ton of make-y up positions. Just think of all the money that could be directed to the classrooms if we cut DDOE and District office by 30%. There are simply too many people at these organizations – Talk about top heavy. Seriously, DDOE and Districts, cut your budget, make your staffs reapply for their jobs – Do it for the children. And, if you won’t do this then why should we take you seriously when you talk about the urgency of now and drastic measures must be taken? Stop putting our children’s skin in the game when you refuse to put your necks on the line.
In closing, I’m not feeling hopeful. I think the deal is done and DDOE and Districts are simply going through the motions. Then again, I did call this years ago. The plan for the city is charter. At the time I said they’d have to keep one or two District public schools because they’d need these schools to take the children charters won’t take or keep, but now I see that those won’t be necessary since we’ll simply privatize those public schools.
It’s really sad. I don’t think there’s anything the city can do to change this trajectory. Any ideas?