CTU files suit, citing discrimination

The Chicago Teachers Union has filed suit against the Chicago Board of Education, citing race discrimination. From the Teacher Beat:

The Chicago Public Schools' recent rounds of layoffs have disproportionately affected African-American teachers, the Chicago Teachers Union alleges in a class action filed this week.Even though black teachers make up only less than 30 percent of the teaching force, they were hardest hit by the layoffs, the lawsuit states. For example, of the 347 tenured teachers laid off in 2012, 51 percent were African-American.
In the lawsuit filed Dec. 27, the union says that the district's "turnaround" efforts, which involve the replacement of up to every teacher in a school so designated—and sometimes the conversion of the school into a charter—are to blame for the disproportional layoffs. Those schools have been located on the city's west and south sides, where many African-American teachers work. And the district's process for selecting the schools for turnaround isn't transparent or clear, the union contends.
The lawsuit seeks a moratorium on turnarounds and the implementation of "less discriminatory alternatives."

No word yet back from the district.

School Committee meets tonight!

There will be a special meeting of the Worcester School Committee this evening to consider the Level 4 plan for Burncoat Prep. You can find the plan here.
The meeting is being held at Nelson Place School* at 7:30 in the school cafeteria.

*because there's a press conference at Nelson Place about their library at 7, and most of the committee was going to be there, anyway!
 

Where does the money go?

The Denver Post asks "Where does the School Turnaround Grant money go?"
(A reminder: the STG program is what Massachusetts Level 4 schools get if they choose one of the four "turnaround models," thus at a minimum firing/"reassigning" their principal.)
First of all, I'm really glad to see they're asking. There's millions of dollars going to what is theoretically this effort; seeing in what way--if any--that money touches kids is an excellent track to be following.
And may I just ask now: please, please will someone do this for Race to the Top?
It's a three part series, and I'd recommend part I as being, far and away, the most important. The short version of what they found?

In Colorado — one of the few states willing to tally such spending — consultants are taking home 35 percent, or $9.4 million, of the $26.6 million that came to the state from the U.S. Department of Education in the past two years.

Really, this goes back to what many of us have been pointing out about this and other federal initiatives: there's real money to be made here, and lots of people have their hands out. The assertion that there simply are not this many good consultants in the country is entirely right, and this notion that you can just fly someone in (literally) and have them turn your school around for you is misguided, to say the least. 

There's a few parts here that are a problem: the question around where the money should go, for one. The article questions giving it to the schools, but the push right now is (at least in name) for community control, so running this from the central district office is not going to get you there. The notion that there should be a jump in test scores immediately (if not sooner), and how dare they fund these schools for a second year completely ignores the reality of a school that has gone through upheaval (yes, we've got people weighing in who don't know what they're talking about. Again.).

The second* and third parts of the series track the same way: you fire the principal and replace at least half the staff, and you're expecting the children's test scores to go up in every case across the board? This ignores the reality of schools as a community where children need to feel secure to do well. And just fire those pesky teachers, because clearly that--not lack of preparation coming in, children's needs outside of school, even the sinking school--is the only thing that matters when it comes to the children's success on tests. And don't even bother suggesting that there could be any other measure of success beyond those tests!

I was a bit encouraged by some of what else the Post reports grant funds being spent on:

Greenlee principal Laurie Grosselfinger said grant money is being spent on classroom libraries; new technology, including smart boards; literacy coaches; and after-school tutoring.

Farther down, another school has expanded preschool and full-day kindergarten. No mention in any of this of dealing with much outside of school: housing, nutrition, physical activity, safety, mental health, other family needs...all the rest of what we know goes into having kids who are ready and able to learn when they get to class. That's pretty disturbing, as it continues the myth that what happens outside the school somehow stays there, rather than coming straight into the building with every kid.

Which it does.

Yes, you could do this with Worcester. You'd want to pull information not only from the School Transformation Grant, but also the Race to the Top funds, as that also was spent in part on the Level 4 schools. Offhand, I'll tell you that most of the money went to extended day--required by the state--and professional development for teachers. Some of the RTTT funds went for a half-time librarian for each building (they share one) and expanded school adjustment counselor access.

*but, by gosh, those kids have matching polo shirts, so surely test scores are rising! 

Not wa(i)ving but drowning*

Besides getting University Park Campus School's designation wrong, just what was President Obama announcing on Friday?
If you remember your Schoolhouse Rock, the executive branch is there "to see that the laws get done" (to execute them, thus the Executive branch). What the Obama administration is doing is basically NOT executing No Child Left Behind, or giving waivers to particular parts of the law. Most notably, the waivers will waive the provision " that schools ensure that every student be proficient in math and reading by 2014 or risk escalating sanctions." For most schools, that will be most clearly demonstrated in no more measures of Adequate Yearly Progress, that ever-increasing line on the chart towards 100% in 2014.
One should also note that the President specifically said that he is doing this partly due to concerns about narrowing of curriculum and teaching to the test.
This does not, of course, come for nothing. The real news is in what the federal Department of Education led by Secretary Duncan will expect of states applying for a waiver. You can see the Ed department's public briefing here. The letter to state officials is here. The expectations are more or less what was required to apply for Race to the Top funding.

• College and career readiness: as the fed has already said that the Common Core is what it's looking for, and 44 states have adopted it, like it or not, that's the standard.
• "Systems of Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support": instead of declaring all schools that don't make AYP a particular number of years "underperforming," instead we get the bottom 5% ("Priority" schools) and the bottom 10% ("Focus" schools). This more-or-less parallels what Massachusetts has done with Level 4 schools (and, as has been noted, is going to get silly when we do the bottom 5%, and another 5%, and so on, year after year).
• new teacher and principal evaluation systems: and yes, "including student progress over time." It doesn't specify test scores for that, but unless someone comes up with some funding, they're going to look like the cheap answer.

Applications for waivers for this year are due in Washington on November 14, and will be subject to peer review.
A few other points worth making. Both the Secretary and the President have repeatedly said they're only doing this because Congress hasn't reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (of which NCLB was the last go-round); in other words, that Congress has not done its job ("passin' laws" per Schoolhouse Rock). Several Congressional Republicans have accused the Department of overreaching its powers. (Interestingly, Republican governors seem to be lining up to get waivers.)
This doesn't rollback grades 3-8 testing. It doesn't take the emphasis off of reading and math (to the detriment of everything else) and it doesn't give states any particular incentive to use anything other than a comparatively cheap standardized test to judge students. Moreover, as states are now expected to have "measures that are comparable in a district" for all subjects, it could well lead to the nightmare some states are already experiencing, of standardized tests in art, music, and elsewhere.
Any state that applied for and got Race to the Top dollars probably already has done most of what the Secretary is asking, anyway--Massachusetts has--so they have no real reason not to apply for a waiver.
I did get a message over the weekend that Secretary Reville is considering it.
*with apologies to Stevie Smith

School Transformation Grants

And for those who, like me, were wondering about the federal funding for the School Transformation Grants, it appears from what Superintendent Boone said tonight, that the money for the currentl Level 4 schools has already been allocated by Congress (so when Congress cuts STG, it doesn't change the money for Union Hill or Chandler Elementary).

Worcester School Committee this Thursday

The Worcester School Committee has its regularly scheduled meeting this Thursday (St. Patrick's Day) at 7pm at City Hall. You can find the agenda here. Topics include:

• Update on the Level 4 schools, particularly in light of the reception of School Turnaround Grant funds, but not at the amount originally budgeted. This is the report of the superintendent.
• a report back on science and tech initiatives at Worcester Public Schools
• a report back on the demographics of Seven Hills Charter School
• motions including the PTO Guide to Success, disaggregating MCAS scores by birthdate, admission policies at the Tech school, report on homeless students, various congratulations and recognitions, consideration of the policy handbook for next year, and a suggestion for a "Young Man of Consequence" award. All of these are either going to administration or to subcommittee.
• motion for an immediate update on MCAS training.
• motions to consider several policies now required by the state: on admission of transfer students, on animals in schools, and on head injuries.

As always, if any of these are of interest or of concern, please get in touch with a school committee member.

More Level 4s?

In answer to several rumors I've heard swirling around...
I asked today what the latest news was with another round of Level 4 schools. I am told by administration that the state is planning a new list in the fall. That would be include this spring's MCAS scores.
You should also keep in mind the cuts in School Transformation Grants considered by Congress this week. What happens if there's a list with less money?

Level 4 schools funds

I see from the WPS website that the Level 4 schools have been awarded School Transformation Grant funds by the state: $1,350,000 to Chandler Elementary and $1,200,000 for Union Hill over three years.
That works out to $400,000 a year for Union Hill and $450,000 for Chandler Elementary.

Level four schools money: up for grabs?

I was holding off on posting about this, hoping to get more complete information. I haven't, despite asking, so I share here what I do know.
Worcester sent a delegation off to present Level 4 school plans to state officials just before February break, in hopes of winning School Turnaround Grant funds. "Winning" is the term here now, because the game has changed, yet again.
The state threw open the competition for those funds to many others--I've heard 70, I've heard 100--more schools around the state. Thus it is not only a question of "did you do what we asked=getting the funds," but now also WPS (and other districts with Level 4 schools) have to show that they are doing better or more than these other schools.
I don't know how, when, or by whom the decision was made. I also should point out that Boston, due to declaring their schools early, did NOT have to compete for their funds.
Thus the question of whether we'll get money for Union Hill and Chandler Elementary at all.
The superintendent has told us that we will know by the end of the day tomorrow.
I will post here once we do.

The Sustainability of Level 4's

As of last week, the district received a response* back from the state (DESE) on the Level 4 school Turnaround Plans for Chandler Elementary and Union Hill Schools. Commissioner Chester is "submitting one proposed modification" to the plans. To quote:

1.The Redesign Grant is a competitive process and there is no guarantee that Worcester will be successful in securing Grant funding. To better understand how Worcester is planning to sustain the Turnaround Plan if STG funding is not secured, please describe:

a. The expectation, strategies, and outcomes that the district will hold the school accountable for implementing and attaining if Redesign Grant funds are not secured.

b. The supports and resources that each school can expect to receive from the district if Redesign Grant funds are not secured.

Further, as part of the suggestions for redesign planning, the state asks that the district "identify the features of the plans that will need to be continued beyond the three year grant period to enable sustained improvement and how those features will be funded."

In other words: you may not get this money (amazing how often the state has been saying that of late; that's a bit different than the message we'd gotten a bit earlier that the state was going to work with districts to get them where they needed to be in their applications). What are you going to do then? And further, as has been pointed out from the very beginning (including back when the vote was taken in April), the money goes away in three years; what are you going to do then?

Do we, by state statute, have to do something with Union Hill and Chandler Elementary, regardless of the federal funding? Yes.
Do we have to meet the stringent requirements under the STG application if we don't have the money? Well, no. The four federal choices, the list of what you had to hit under the turnaround plan (including extra learning time), much of that goes by the boards without the funds. And much of that is based on questionable (if exeunt) research, in any case.
My concern here is that the district is being boxed into saying, "yes, we're somehow going to magically come up with the funds for all of these (required by the state) additions" at the same time that we're also trying to figure out how we're going to close an $8.2 million budget gap after a large number of years in which budget gaps have already been closed by cutting services and positions.
Or, if we get the funds, how we're going to continue extra services after the funds go away in three years.
No one doubts that these two schools are needy. In Worcester, though, we have lots of schools that are needy, and I'm cautious taking the state's decision that these were our greatest need schools, and being forced to make it what our budget lives and dies by.

*sorry, no link. The School Committee got a hard copy of the letter and back-up.

Len Zaluskas

on Level 4 schools:
(note, by the way, that this is pending litigation...)
"one of their key recommendations was an extended day take place at these schools...we bargained over extending the day at both schools...Joint Resolution Committee..I'm disappointed that there was a decision rendered and this body has chosen not to honor that, as of now...have you asked the city of Worcester..or the state...could you come up with the money for it? Understanding it's not free...if 90 minutes are too expensive, why not extended the day by 60 minutes, which by my math, could be done?...the kids deserve it, the city deserves it...I think that we can come to some sort of a resolution, but we could put our minds together..invitation to bargain is much different than just meeting...did you ask the City Manager for extra funds..did you contact the state...the 60 minutes..it seems you could afford it."

What to do with STG principals?

And it seems New York City has run into the same difficulty faced by any district looking for federal turnaround money--what to do with the principals.

Teach Plus...what?

You may have caught the glowing article in the New York Times about the teachers coming in as a group from Teach Plus to some of Boston's underperforming schools (recall that Boston chose the more draconian "fire at least half the staff and principal" model for some of their schools). The ever-inquisitive Susan Ohanian did some investigating to answer the pressing question: Just who is Teach Plus?
Yes, you can find some familiar names--Gates, Bridgespan, TFA, New Schools Venture Fund--on there, along with Quaker Oats (yes, like the man in the hat).

Level 4 turnaround plans

Note that the "turnaround plans" have been created by the administration based in large part on the "stakeholder plans" that came back at last month's meeting. They also have been worked through and with the DESE (the state).

"pushing this out to the Commissioner's office for approval"
continuing conversation with union for pieces that need negotiation
principals then work with redesign teams (as they have been already)

"to date we have not received any information on the bridge grant"
state finalizing processes on School Turnaround Grants, now that they've received the money from the fed

The turnaround plan is required under state law
The redesign team works toward meeting the federal regs for the federal money

"measurable annual goals" have not been finalized yet (we don't yet have 2009-10 MCAS or retention data yet)
(the district is also coming across errors, or at least questions, in the data provided by the state in some cases)

The plan is submitted under a state-required template.

June Eressy speaks of looking forward "with enthusiasm and trepidation"
Marie Morse agrees that "this ship does not sail itself"

A few early Committee notes

No vote on federal grants tonight: the report is being filed pending the Board of Ed meeting (and the return of the chair!)

amazing CPPAC presentation tonight on the results on the roundtable in January

there are NEW DATES for the school reorg meetings! I'll send them out, but get our your eraser!

Brands and grants and post-NCLB

in no particular order

I spent the morning in another statewide Race to the Top summit with the Commissioner of Education (on which more later), so I didn't get right to this morning's news. There was a bit on the branding/reorganization/redeployment idea (which may or may not include meetings next week? They were passed by the subcommittee.).

You might have seen that there was a press conference called yesterday around the federal school improvement/transformation grants. There's some more information coming back on this tonight, but I was told earlier this week that it wasn't enough to vote on. As of nearly 2 pm today, we haven't received any information; no backup, no numbers. You might remember that heavily amended motion that was passed asked how the money could be spent (no signs from the state it could be spent, for example, on the enormously useful expansion of ELL), how it interacted with Race to the Top, how the state came to the decision on Level 4 schools, and what has to be done, federal money or no. It looks like that information will land on our desks tonight at 7? Maybe?

There's an interesting interaction here with the item I mentioned earlier, the Commissioner's district money. There's nearly half a million dollars reported out there, yet the classroom impact is minimal. The state doesn't have a good record of coming in and doing what we know works: providing outside services, getting class sizes (particularly kindergarten!) down, getting parents in the building and involved. They're very good at hiring contractors to come in and talk at roomfuls of adults. If the federal turnaround money is more of the same, what good will it do our kids?

Which brings us to today's On Point show on NPR on the re-authorization of ESEA. As I've said before, the Obama administration is proposing to the Congress that it be reauthorized along Race to the Top/STG/etc, lines. That would be the four part turnaround model, and much else brought to you from Chicago.

The superintendent on the show had one of the best suggestions I've heard yet on this. Susan Gourley, who is the superintendent in Lincoln, Nebraska, proposed that a fifth turnaround model be added. The federal administration has proposed that "Reward" districts be allowed a "research-based innovation model" for their schools. Gourley, along with the American Association of School Administrators, is proposing that this model be added to those proposed for schools deemed underperforming, thus giving them one that is based on actual research. A novel concept.

Agenda for School Committee is UP!

Find it here.
We have not one, not two, but THREE Superintendent's reports for this week, 'though two are reports back on requests for more information: the Commissioner's district money use, and the School Transformation Grants (federal funding tied to Level 4 schools; this is a partial report, so they'll be no vote tomorrow on it, and, as yet, I don't have an information on it).

On the Commissioner's district money--that's that $420,000 that came up two weeks ago, though apparently it's more like $490,000--you might find the bottom of page 3 (from the link above) a place to start. It spells out what the state and WPS agreed would be the four part focus of this grant. You can find the breakdown of where the money went starting here.

Who live-blogs the blogger?

I won't always liveblog the meetings, by the way. I am typing my notes during the meeting, which I would take, anyway, but on things that I know are of urgent interest to the community, I'll post as I go when I can. (Given a choice between that and needing to only pay attention, I'll of course choose the later. But I'm a notetaker by nature.) As last night's meeting apparently did not stream online (?), I thought it might be extra urgent. It does give the cognitive dissonance here of leaving out what I say, but I figure we can always catch up with that later. Here's some notes of what I said last night about the "likely" Level 4 schools, and a few wrap-up notes on the issue.

respect authority of superintendent, but want to ask outright: were these principals fired?
superintendent doesn't like the word, says no, we'd have to move them to apply for federal grant, but she (I'm paraphrasing) sees their having a future with WPS.

comment that this wasn't handled as well as it could be: need to let affected schools know first, but owed it to principals, staff at other schools know that they were not Level 4. Many were very concerned.

refuse to believe that Secretary Duncan and Commissioner Chester know better than we locally do about our schools and how best to run them, refuse also the notion that replacing the principal will raise test scores

measurements were solely predicated on test scores, in violation of new state law, which calls for multiple measures. MOTION for legal opinion of Level 4 list, as it uses only MCAS (in various crunched ways) and not list in new ed law. Motion passes.

four turnaround models are tied to federal grants. We only need to use them IF we are applying for the federal STG money. Four turnaround models are from Chicago, Arne Duncan. Chicago Tribune found them faulty. Why import a failed turnaround model to Worcester?
MOTION that Mrs. Mullaney alluded to : not apply for federal School Turnaround Grant, on a roll call.

This led into Mayor O'Brien's tying this to the Race to the Top grant, which as my commenters have noted, has the same four models in it. He made the motion to request the administration not to apply for the STG until more information is found (that's the terminology; it means "DON'T!"). Later amendments included finding out just what the money might be spent on, when the grant application is due to the state (Massachusetts already applied and was awarded $76 million; now districts apply to the state).
As I noted below, my motion failed 3-4; Mayor O'Brien's motion passed 6-1. This has the effect of Worcester NOT applying for STG money for now, which puts us in a holding pattern until the School Committee has more of an idea of what we're letting ourselves in for.

Motions on School Transformation Grants

The motion from Novick to NOT apply for the School Transformation Grant fails, 3-4 (Mullaney, Novick, O'Brien voting for)
O'Brien's motion that the administration not apply until further instruction, with amendments requesting dates, what the money can be used for, and what effect it will have on Race to the Top funds passes, 6-1 (Novick voting against)

Mayor O'Brien

punative to teachers
promote charter schools for underperforming schools, "but we know that's not true" because of the school that was approved
"how much of that money would get into our system...how much would get into our classroom"
how much for testing, more consulting, more models

only MCAS

bill "claims" that it's trying to get at root causes, but makes no effort to change them: "lip service without resources"

"how do we convince our best teachers to go to our most challenged schools?"...does nothing by that
"why would I or any good teacher...risk...to go to these tough schools?"
"we're seeing the results of this bad legislation played out today...why in the world would I stay?"
"I don't know what I would say...if I were being honest, I'd say, 'you'd better bid out in April'"

principal of a well performing school convinced to come over to Chandler
met the principal ripping up carpet in the summertime to get the school ready for those kids
"reward for all the work that they've done is what happened today"

Questions: two pots of money: STG "you may apply"...the state has this money?
"what can we spend it on?"
Yes, the state will (definitely) get that money (they don't have it, yet, though, it seems)
"what we've been told in general...state is in development of proposal..we do know:

• professional development,
• time in school,
• wraparound services

"we don't have any option in turnaround Level 4 schools...where are we in turnarounding Level 4 schools" (from Boone)

"under the Race to the Top funding," the Mayor says, "that money would be primarily for underperforming schools...is that accurate?"

Boone: 50% of the money must go to districts on Title 1 funding, the other 50% is outside of Title 1 formula for innovation

"if we said no to the STG" (back to the Mayor) "and came up with our own model, could we use RTTT funds to implement our own plan?"

Boone has posed the question to the state...we don't know

the assurances of the RTTT application: some kind of way we're going to meet headon with those entitlement grants (aka: we already agreed to it in RTTT, to a particular end)

now we've got Mulqueen: the same four models are in both of these, they are the exact same models...as we have already agreed

Mulqueen's interpretation is that we would not get Race to the Top funding if we reneged on those four choices, as they are in RTTT, as well.

Motion: requesting that the superintendent not make any steps on applying until we have more information on what we can use it and how to impacts su for RTTT and future federal funds