Assigned Reading

Excellent post at edspesso about the scholarship program in DC. It begins:

We seem to be more concerned today with the physical treatment of terrorists than the health and welfare of our most impoverished children. While the president works hard to compensate to our international friends for what he perceives as American arrogance, he is missing the biggest opportunity to show this nation really cares by permitting a small but successful lifeline for 2,000 Washington, DC poor children to die a slow death.

That lifeline is a scholarship program providing children from low-income homes a ticket to attend a private school of their choice, with the cost being borne by the government, in lieu of attending a neighborhood school near drug dens, pollution and barbed wire fences.

Be sure to read the entire piece.

It’s a terrible story, and any school’s nightmare. From today’s ProJo:

WEST WARWICK — An 8-year-old boy with Down syndrome walked out of Greenbush Elementary School unnoticed on Wednesday morning and was found by a neighbor less than an hour later, playing alone in a yard on Bramble Lane not far away, Supt. Kenneth Sheehan said Friday.

No one realized the boy was missing until he was returned unharmed to the school on Greenbush Road at about 11 a.m. by police officers, according to Sheehan. He said the three substitute teachers who were supervising his collaborative (integrated) classroom were fired that afternoon.

While substitute teachers need to be held accountable, one has to wonder why there were 3 substitute teachers in a single special education classroom. It seems unlikely that all three permanent teachers were ill that day. More likely, there was a meeting or some type of professional development that involved all the teachers.

While most subs work hard and do a good job, they cannot replace the regular classroom teachers. Often they don’t know the students well, and are unfamiliar with the class routines. Had one permanent teacher been in the classroom that day, would the child have gone missing, and for that long?

Only for the most essential purposes should a teacher be pulled from his or her class and replaced with a sub. Obviously illness and family situations may result in the need for a substitute.

But three teachers in the same classroom should not need to be away from their students at the same time. Especially from a classroom of children with special needs.

District leaders have fired the three substitutes. If wise, they will also review their policies relating to teachers’ classroom absences.

Certainly school budgets can be trimmed in these tough economic times. But what Middletown is considering is not the way to do it.

Middletown officials hope to close an elementary school, and to transition the town’s fourth graders to the middle school. There’s enough research for some to argue that sixth graders don’t belong in middle schools. But I know few education professionals, and still fewer parents, that want nine year old kids in the same schools or on the same buses with eighth graders.

Thankfully there are some parents in Middletown who were willing to organize. This group is acting in the best interest of the kids, and hopefully they will succeed.

Today a teacher I work with expressed her frustration.  Although a specialist for a dozen years, this is her first year in a regular classroom.  And it has taken her just eight months to become dispirited.

For most of my career, good teachers like my friend would be fed up with the union and its demands.  But today, the damage done to public schools by unions pales in comparison to that perpetrated by bureaucrats.

In an effort to control from above, administrators are placing more and more demands on classroom teachers that take time away from teaching and learning.  Paperwork, reports, and team meetings are required in the name of accountability, but take away time that should be reserved for teaching kids.

We are forced to give a variety of assessments to monitor student growth.  Anecdotal evidence and professional judgment are not enough.  In reading, we assess student progress with a tool called a “running record”.  But to get more detailed data, the district requires the DRP (Direct Reading Assessment) be administered to all students.  Those who perform less than expectations are then required to complete a more in depth assessment called a DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment), which requires about an hour for the student to complete.  The results of a DRA often require a PLP (Personal Literacy Plan), an ongoing tool that must be updated every two weeks for each child.

Students who still do not show significant progress must be referred to the PST (Problem Solving Team).  There, a variety of specialists advice us on how we can better meet the needs of these students.  More data will be collected and reviewed.  Of course, these teams only meet during school hours, so we are pulled from our classes and replaced with substitute teachers.

The administrators collect all the data.  They keep it some place safe, and share it with important people to show they are doing good work.

This week a couple of administrators will be visiting.  A substitute will replace each of us in our classroom so we can share and discuss the PLPs we’ve been keeping throughout the year.  Even more data over which the administrators can salivate.

Please forgive my cynicism.  But the joy of teaching and learning is being stripped from our classrooms by overreaching bureaucrats.  My friend is an excellent teacher, and her students are lucky to have her in the classroom.  I fear it won’t last long.

And that’s a shame.

Further Assignment:

Miss Bennett is frustrated and leaving public education.

The St. Louis Public school system is shrinking, and may close as many as 29 school buildings. Some of these buildings will be put up for sale. In an apparent effort to protect the communities, deed restrictions were added to sales contracts that would prevent the buildings from being used as porn shops, liquor stores, or…get this…charter schools!

From the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools:

According to a story in today’s St. Louis Post Dispatch by David Hunn, the district changed its sales contract deed restrictions last year to bar purveyors of beer, sex toys and rigorous educational standards after a developer flipped a purchase to Imagine Schools, which then (gasp!) opened the Academy of Careers Middle School.

The school board has since reversed its decision, and removed the charter school restriction.

With an end to vouchers in DC, unions are now taking the war to charter schools. So says Jay P. Greene in his opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

With voucher programs facing termination in Washington, D.C., and heavy regulation in Milwaukee, the teachers unions have now set their sights on charter schools. Despite their proclamations about supporting charters, the actions of unions and their allies in state and national politics belie their rhetoric.

A few pictures from the very large crowd at the RI State House in Providence.

Parents of DC voucher students received letters from the U.S. Department of Education informing them of their educational choices, in effect declaring the voucher program officially dead in DC. The letter, dated April 6, 2009, begins:

We deeply regret the confusion over whether or not your child would receive a scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Please know that we understand and sympathize with uncertainty that you and your family may have faced over the past few months, and we are committed to doing everything possible to help ensure that your child is in a safe school environment that offers strengthened academic programs.

Signed by Assistant Deputy Secretary James Shelton and Deputy Mayor Victor Reinoso, the letter provides web links and phone numbers where parents can find information about public and charter school options.

The mission of the Department of Education is, ironically, the stationary’s footer:

Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.

Sadly, I’m not sure the elimination of the effective DC voucher program lives up to this mission.
(ht Flypaper)

Central administrators and union leaders have, over the past few decades, diminished the role of the principal, particularly at the elementary school level. Tightly negotiated contracts and administrative demands have often left little room for principals to make meaningful decisions at their individual schools.

Now in Arizona, districts are asking whether the need for full-time principals is even necessary. According to an Arizona Daily Star report (ht Intercepts):

That model could change, though, as site councils across the Tucson Unified School District try to figure out how they want to spend precious, shrinking resources at their schools.

Each one has until April 30 to decide how to adapt to budget cuts of up to 18 percent, whether it means shuttering libraries, losing counselors or cutting back on administrative positions.

Some are poised to scale back on vice principals. Others are looking at half-time principals.

But that freedom to choose also means choosing no principal, if they can come up with a way to ensure duties typically carried out by principals are still completed.

In smaller districts such as mine, a full-time employee could serve as administrator to a number of schools, handling more significant behavioral and parental issues. Regular day-to-day operations and budgetary matters could be controlled by a leadership team, made up mainly of teachers and parents, similar to charter organization.

Schools would need to ensure district-wide administrators and union leaders have limited roles, similar to those they exercise today. But eliminating expensive principals in favor of retaining direct student services could have merit, and should be explored.

The decision to end seniority bidding in Providence schools will certainly have implications across the state, and even the nation.

Commissioner Peter McWalters ordered Providence to end seniority bidding in several low performing schools.  In a proposal last week, Providence Superintendent Tom Brady took it one step further, declaring that principals and school-based interview committees will have the authority to fill all teacher vacancies.  The six schools identified by McWalters will initiate the new process next school year, with all of Providence schools to follow the year after.

According to the Providence Journal, Tim Duffy, who heads the association representing school committees across the state, said, “This recognizes that student welfare trumps any kind of contract language on seniority.”

Obviously Duffy is right.  Ensuring the most qualified candidate, rather than the most senior, fills a teaching position means students will be taught by the best the city has to offer.

The response by Steve Smith, president of the AFT afilliated Providence Teachers Union, was embarrassing.  He whined, “He [Brady] ignored our ideas.  This doesn’t empower teachers.  It relies solely on the principal’s authority.”

The person hired to lead a school, the principal, should have the most significant power in determining which teachers would best fit the school’s mission and the needs of its students.  Interview committees, made up of teachers and presumably parents, will have some input.  The power will not rest solely with the principal, as Smith complained.

The union is already threatening to sue.  Of course.

The union does a good job representing the interests of the teachers.  But we must strengthen the role of those who represent the students’ best interests.  This is a giant leap in that direction.

Both McWalters and Brady deserve praise for this reform. Undoubtedly districts across the state, and perhaps the nation, will be watching as Providence puts into place this bold intiative.