Getting school turnaround right: Response to Ren. Schools
by Ron Whitehorne on Feb 02 2010
Last night I went to a meeting of the Teacher Action Group (they're also on Facebook) that talked about how to respond to Renaissance Schools.
People talked about a different vision of school turnaround in which teachers alongside parents, students, and the community had a voice in designing and implementing a reform plan. The other focal point of discussion was to press for the best options within the Renaissance Schools framework.
Key agenda points were:
-
uniting with parents and community forces to keep schools that are making real progress off the list.
-
promoting the Innovation model, as opposed to turning over schools to private or charter management, and
-
if schools are privatized, pressing for careful monitoring of how these schools operate.
Another concern was the timetable for Renaissance Schools, which favors charter and private providers and does not allow enough lead time for putting an effective plan in place.
TAG is having a meeting next Monday to kick off this effort, which hopefully will give positive expression to the frustration over the present process while recognizing that turning around our lowest-achieving schools is the right priority.
Over the next month I want to use this blog to discuss some of the key questions that are being raised in relation to Renaissance Schools, beginning today with reconstitution.
The Renaissance School plan calls for the forced transfer of all instructional staff with the option to rehire up to 50 percent. The District says this is no reflection on the professionalism of these teachers, but most teachers don’t see it that way and feel stigmatized and blamed for school failure.
How can they feel otherwise? What else can the 50 percent rule mean? Half of you may be o.k., but half of you are definitely not up to the task.
One teacher, after attending a meeting of building reps from targeted schools, had this to say: “Teachers and counselors are the bad people who have ruined these schools and will have to re-apply for their jobs. NTAs, secretarial, and maintenance people stay since they are blameless in the fiasco caused by the incompetent teachers and counselors. (What the hell did the counselors do? Allow our students to still apply to Princeton as of last week?)”
There are alternatives to reconstitution.
The Broad Acres elementary school in Montgomery County, MD is the focus of an important case study where the union, administration, and staff on the ground developed and implemented a successful alternative to reconstitution.
The problem with reconstitution is not just about what’s fair to teachers.
It's about what works.
It's about building on assets that even the lowest-achieving schools are likely to have.
It's about stability and a careful deployment of the teaching resources an urban district possesses.
Turnaround advocates rightly point out that a transformation of the culture of teaching and learning at failing schools is critical. Given this, there may be circumstances where some form of staff replacement is necessary, but it shouldn’t be arbitrary and it should only be used when a careful analysis indicates that it makes sense.
Finally we need to be clear who the target is here. The NCLB regs and the Race to Top initiative of the Obama administration are driving this process and the reconstitution language comes from Washington. The Department of Education needs to rethink its model of turnaround schools and allow for more flexibility. Ackerman, of course, developed and promoted this program, and has to take responsibility for it. But let’s be clear: Philadelphia schools need Race to the Top dollars, and as long as that carrot is tied to punitive models of turnaround, we are limited to fighting on the margins.
For some, apparently, the target is the PFT, which allegedly “sold us out” by agreeing to contract provisions that allow for the forced transfer of staff and longer school day. As PFT leadership has pointed out the administration doesn’t need the blessing of the union to reconstitute schools – those powers are in both state and federal law. What the union did was try to negotiate some protections for its members. The union needs to be part of the solution, pressing for a different turnaround model, and working with the community for the best options within the Renaissance framework over the next few months. It is not the enemy.
Make the Innovation Plan public, and make the rubric used to judge the plan public as well.
Comments (17)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 17:44.
Ron,
While I agree the Union is not the enemy I would say they left us in the dark. They didn't give us the information we should have known, nor the proper amount of time to process that information. The PFT is not the problem, I think it is the leadership They tried to rush the contract through. For that I do say they" sold us out." Why did not one member of the executive board vote no when according to the vote 1/3 Union members did? Is that representation? Sounds to me like people want to remain comfortable within the union rather than represent people.
I would agree that this issues stems from NCLB law and Race to the Top dollars. Yet regardless of who it comes from when something is wrong people should stand together and say it. I support TAG and plan to be at the meeting Monday night. I hope other concerned educators, parents, and community members will join us.
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 20:16.
I wouldn't argue with your points about the process - more transparency is definitely needed. But I guess I don't think that adds up to a sell out. My view is the leadership tried to defend the memberships interest but distrusted the rank and file's capacity to understand the compromises they were compellled to make. That does need to be a focus of internal discussion within the union. I also think the PFT leadership negoiated some very positive things in this contract which required some political courage and should be supported.
In any event I'm glad your coming to the meeting and concur with your hopes that others will join in this campaign.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 19:46.
I teach in a school that has worked diligently over the past ten years to raise student achievement through targeted Professional Development that differentiates instruction to meet the needs of all students, uses researched-based instruction that engages students in the learning process and through collaboration and support of one another as professionals. We have steadily watched our students make progress in our classrooms and as they move on to high school. We as a staff know what works for our students in our school and we have consistently proven that, as we watched our test scores rise. Last year we missed one of the thirteen targets for AYP and fell into the warning category. We have spent this year looking at the data, discovering what areas needed work and then worked in and out of the classroom to make the changes we believed would make the difference. Imagine our shock to see our school on "The List"! No one from the district or the region has visited our school to do a careful analysis of what goes on in here. We were a number on a piece of paper. Outrage has turned to disappointment and discouragement. We have worked so hard for so long. We have seen what real school reform on the ground looks like. Our students are better for it. We are a school of positive teachers with a culture based in student learning....We fear there will be no Renaissance here.... just a dismantling of good work done by good people for the people.
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 20:19.
Please email me at ronw292@gmail.com and so we can talk about ways to tell your story and work for a more positive outcome. I will respect your need for confidentiality.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/02/2010 - 21:10.
Hi Ron,
Honestly, the PFT including Jerry Jordan should have told members in detail exactly what the Renaissance Schools were and especially the fact that there will be no union teachers involved if a school becomes a Charter School. Also, did he ever think as to where all of these teachers are going??? Where they will be re-assigned??? If a teacher chooses to be Forced Transferred as the Union said, they would pick from a list of schools. What happens when all that is left to choose is too far from your home where you have your own young children to pick up from school or daycare,etc. My wife transferred to a school 2 years ago because it is only 25 minuted from our home and because of our 2 daughters. Did any thought go into that (the fact that there are numerous teachers who have young children of their own who depend upon them???
Did anyone realize yet that Ackerman had that list of 76 schools since the beginning of December and the PFT knew about it??? They kept it hush-hush because if all of the teachers found out about it ahead of time, the contract would have been voted down!!!
Did anyone question the PFT (as I did 4 times and asked the same question with no response) ----Why is there schools making AYP on that list and where will all of the teachers go??? No one responded to me.
Also, I recommend that every teacher in the District stop having the "PAC" deducted from their pay--it is going to a Union that did sell out big time.
I said it again and I keep saying it---(and this too Jerry Jordan should hear)---That there will BE MASS RETIREMENTS THIS YEAR AND NEXT, NEWLY APPOINTED TEACHERS WILL ONCE AGAIN LEAVE THIS DISTRICT AND FLOCK TO THE BURB, AND CURRENT TEACHERS WHO GET STUCK AND CAN'T FIND A SCHOOL TO GO TO (GO OUT ON STRESS LEAVE OR FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE---YOU SHOULD NOT BE FORCED TO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE)
Submitted by dkbog (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 14:37.
Hi Ron,
Any thoughts in regards to the blog by anonymous?
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 17:56.
Ok since you ask certainly I’m sympathetic about anonymous’s wife’s situation but I’m far from convinced there will be a problem placing force transferred teachers. It might be a problem in future years but doubt it will be this time around although I guess it depends on how many school are ultimately selected. I would guess it will be on the low side.
As for the PFT I think I’ve made clear in other this and other posts that I think there needed to be more transparency and confidence in the membership’s capacity to figure it out. But I don’t think there was any big conspiracy here. The list, while it seems to have some contradictions, is for the most part schools that don’t meet NCLB benchmarks and are thus eligible for sanctions.
I share anonymous’s concern that the Ren plan will lead to more retirements, fewer applications and aggravate teacher retention problems.
I think holding back your PAC contribution is a serious case of shooting yourself in the foot. If anything we need more PAC money to lobby to repeal Act 46 and make much needed changes in NCLB and Race to the Top. I think rank and file activists should be raising their concerns in the union. Personally I think the union is and will be responsive about issues related to Ren schools and hopefully will engage in a dialogue about more transparency and democracy.
Glad to hear from you and anonymous and hope we can continue to have a constructive conversation about these issues.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 19:56.
Ron,
I do feel that teachers who have been in the field for many years would be more "well rounded" as far as experience. I do not think that individuals who maintain Masters and Doctorate Degrees or any union teacher for that matter should have to "interview" for a job. If a teacher wants to stay in a Renaissance School, they should look at their past and present evaluations. My wife has been teaching Kindergarten for the past 12 years. Her school is on the "Alert List". During her interview back in 1998, she scored the highest you could get (a score of 106) and performed a mock lesson plan in front of a panel.
Why would a School District want to replace her with all of those years experience in that particular field and who has received excellent evaluations and credentials. Does the District think a newly hired teacher will be able to fill her shoes? I don't think anyone is thinking about this. And, she just transferred to a school 2 years ago because it is a lot closer to home and due to the picking up of our children at their schools. It's funny that no one is mentioning anything about that. What if the only schools left on the list are too far from our home?? She now has picked a school closer--She should have to give that up??
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 20:48.
It's not a case of hiring a new teacher to replace your wife's years of experience, but the fact that the 440 posse wants to hire two or three new teachers for the same price your is getting. They can't see beyond the worth of experience as opposed to sheer numbers when it comes to saving money. It will only be during the school year that the real price will be paid. Arlene's quick fix will boomerang on her next year.
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 06:39.
Do you know the PFT agreed to so-called "Vanguard schools?" The high school list is a slap in the face to the rest of of working in high schools. All magnet schools should have top scores - that is how they select their students in the first place. How are these schools in the "vanguard" when they don't accept all students? They will be allowed to innovate with curriculum and budget while those of the so-called "empowerment school" will be under tight SDP controls and dictates. I know I'm not the only one who finds the labels more than ironic.
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 13:08.
George Orwell would have had a field day with the way the school district labels schools and offices. Empowerment schools where the instructional program is defined from above and teachers must use scripted programs. And how about the Promise Academy - wonder who came up with that one.
Submitted by Jonny Rashid (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 10:15.
Great post, Ron. This is a complicated issue; clearly charged with a lot of emotion, I think as it should be.
Renaissance schools aside, I would say that this contract is a good one. Clearly the PFT put in a lot of hard work. You fight PFT, you lose your number one advocate. PFT's not perfect, and I think TAG wants to partner with the PFT to make changes happen.
I do disagree with the autocratic approach of the PFT. Autocracy is something of a given within how large we are--but that is not an excuse for what I thought was too much secrecy. Secrecy done in my interest is still mistrusting, at the very least.
So complain about Renaissance schools and that's all--and your nothing more than a reactionary. Protest the PFT and witch hunt Jerry Jordan, and you lose your biggest advocate. Channel emotions into productive change--one that advocates for real reform in schools using the RTTT money and the Renaissance School initiative and partner with the PFT to reform. This is what I think a responsible adult and educator does right now.
Submitted by dkbog (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 13:14.
No, it's called if you are unhappy with Jerry Jordan and the PFT (which many teachers are), then you vote someone else in come Union Election time. The Independent Team (I-Team) will have a candidate running to unseat Jordan. Vote an alternative--The Independent Team.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 12:53.
Hey Jonny,
Asking the PFT to represent the people who are paying there salaries in not too much to ask for. I don't think they abandoned us, yet at the same time the way they operated in secrecy and the way the pushed the vote through was underhanded. That should not come from folks who are supposed to represent kids.
As for Renaissance school reform it is experimentation. You may already know this but the one turnaround school in Chicago that wasn't able to push troubles kids out was the school that was link to the death of a Chicago student. I just think sitting there and saying all this is okay and we should just go with the flow is a mistake. I have a good feeling folks will be revisiting this whole reform in 5 years and saying what went wrong?
www.phillyteachertalks.blogspot.com
Submitted by dkbog (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 14:34.
I agree. I do not think this plan was entirely thought through. I still am awaitning answers as to where all of the teachers will go--there won't be enough room for them in every school.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 02/03/2010 - 20:44.
There will plenty of room next year once the Great Exodus of retiring teachers hits Philadelphia. I don't think any of the administration will be able to realize the damage their incompetence has wrought. Teachers will vote with their feet after this sham of a PFT vote.
Submitted by dkbog (not verified) on Thu, 02/04/2010 - 10:41.
That is why you unseat Jerry Jordan and vote The Independent (I-Team) candidate, Mr. Juhas who had been a high school teacher in this district for a long time. He can unseat Jordan with everyone's vote!!!!
Post new comment