The Ward 5 Quality Schools Community Engagement Meeting and the IFF Report: Why Community Meetings Must Challenge the IFF Report’s Legitimacy and Reject Its Recommendations
Written by Erich Martel, cross-posted from DCPS Watch. Erich Martel is a Retired DCPS High School Teacher (Cardozo, Wilson, Phelps)
Quality Schools Community Engagement meeting held in Ward 5. Participants were divided into small groups and not allowed to include a statement voicing their concerns about the Illinois Facilities Fund Report.
On July 31, 2012, I attended the Ward 5 Quality Schools Community Engagement Meeting, one of five ward meetings. It was initiated by the DME (Deputy Mayor of Education) to address the recommendations of the IFF (Illinois Facilities Fund) report, which recommends the closure, “turnaround” or “transfer to charter operators” of 37 DCPS schools, including five in Ward 5.
Before and during the Ward 5 meeting, the DME, DME staff and Public Agenda facilitator insisted that the meetings were not about the IFF report, but only to solicit the public’s ideas about school quality. In discussion group #3, efforts to include a statement opposing the IFF report were opposed by the DME staffer and the Public Agenda facilitator. Their response was to minimize the importance of the IFF report and to assure us that our concerns would be best addressed by describing the elements of “quality” that we want to see in our schools. The other part of their strategy was to split the participants into multiple groups, have them spend the entire time discussing, making long lists, then putting colored stickies on our preferences, and, finally, reports from each group to the whole group. No time was allotted for the whole group to vote on the recommendations.
This two-part strategy (divide participants into small groups; focus discussion on broad generalities, instead of the real issue) is designed to isolate concerned parents and community members in small groups and limit discussion to an agenda that avoids the most important issues.
The resulting lists of “qualities” will be attached to the DME’s recommendations, in his report. He will write that every quality criterion can be met by closure, turnaround, or transfer to charter operators, the IFF report’s recommendations. In the meantime, while the DME is diverting parents and residents’ concerns into make-believe discussions about school quality, the Public Charter School Board has initiated a speeded-up process for “experienced charter operators” to open new charters in DC by August 2013 and the DCPS Chancellor is seeking charter authority to cover up her and Rhee’s failed reform policies. Both charter initiatives have the full support of Mayor Gray and DME Wright.
The evidence (with links) supporting this analysis is below, followed by suggestions for moving forward. Statements or documents by the Mayor, the DME, the DCPS Chancellor and the Public Charter School Board all show that each one is seeking to increase “the number of high quality public charter school seats.” In fact, OSSE’s plan to water down graduation requirements may be part of their effort to attract charter high schools.
Evidence: The five “quality school community engagement meetings” are really about the IFF report
In written responses to the Council’ oversight questions, this past February, the DME wrote: “DME is beginning a process of community engagement based on the IFF report data. This engagement will begin in April 2012 and last through the fall. DME is working with DCPS, PCSB, and community members to hold facilitated conversations in each of the ‘Top 10’ neighborhood clusters as identified in the IFF report.”
The DME’s statement clearly means “public engagement” on the subject of the “IFF report data.” His next and final sentence attempts to shift focus away from the IFF report to something vague and undefined, “quality schools”:
Making “quality schools” an “integral part of these community conversations” does not negate the previous sentences’ focus on IFF data. More importantly, “feedback” can only be solicited for information already reported to those expected to give feedback. The community had information on the IFF report’s recommendations and its newly invented category, “performing seats,” after the report was posted in January. That is the only information which ward residents could study and then give knowledgeable “feedback.” The DME provided no information on the subject of a “vision for quality schools,” on which the community could give knowledgeable “feedback.”
There is nothing in the DME’s response that makes “the IFF report data” an off-limits topic as the DME, DME staff and Public Agenda facilitator tried to enforce.
The evidence that the Mayor, the DME, the DCPS Chancellor and the DC Public Charter Board are promoting a rapid expansion of charter “seats”
1) The Mayor supports and takes credit for the IFF Study and its recommendations.
“Action 2.2.2: Develop Strategies To Create In D.C. Public Schools And D.C. Public Charter Schools.
“The IFF study, Quality Schools: Every Child, Every School, Every Neighborhood commissioned by the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor of Education, indicated that the District will need to increase the number of educational options or “quality seats” that prepare children for future academic success in both DCPS and D.C. public charter school system. The study identified ten neighborhood clusters with a high need for quality academic seats. In conjunction with the report’s findings, the DME will engage the community in conversations to further examine academic needs in each of the neighborhood clusters. At the conclusion of the community conversations, the DME will release a report with recommended strategies to bring forth more quality seats in the District.” (Vincent Gray, One City Action Plan, p.25, July 2012: http://mayor.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mayor/publication/attachments/One_City_Action_Plan.pdf )
2) Chancellor Henderson and Mayor Gray want DCPS to have the authority to grant charters
“Henderson voiced unconditional support for chartering authority Thursday at a D.C. Council hearing.
“Henderson said the traditional school system would benefit by giving schools the kind of freedom that charters enjoy. What we know is that autonomy leads to innovation and success,” Henderson said. She added that she viewed restoration of chartering authority not as a means of competing with the charter board but as a way to collaborate and move with dispatch to place good schools in underserved neighborhoods.” “District Seeks Return of Charting Authority” by Bill Turque, Washington Post, 2/23/2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-schools-insider/post/district-seeks-return-of-chartering-authority/2012/02/23/gIQAB54YWR_blog.html
Comments:
Henderson’s touting of chartering authority as “autonomy [that] leads to innovation and success” is a deception:
a) The failure of many charter schools proves that innovation can lead to failure as well as success;
b) The current contract with the WTU allows for procedures, whereby the faculty of a school can vote to adopt a non-traditional schedule. If 2/3 or all faculty members (WTU bargaining unit) vote to adopt it, it can go into effect. Teachers who don’t like the non-traditional schedule have the right to transfer to another school.
If the issue is a longer school day, that can be negotiated via a memorandum of agreement or new contract provision with the president of the WTU.
The real reason is that Henderson does not want to go that route, because it would limit her ability to terminate teachers in schools that are closed, turned around or transferred to charters. She wants to use chartering authority as another vehicle to excess and terminate teachers.
c) Henderson has managed or co-managed DCPS for over five years. In most of the 37 DCPS schools cited in the IFF, the majority of the faculty has been hired by Rhee and Henderson since June 2007. The management and academic policies they implemented must be independently analyzed to determine the reasons for 37 schools to have failed.
3. The DC Public Charter Board is Seeking to “expand the number of high quality public charter school seats available to the DC public.”
– A speeded up process to attract “experienced charter operators” to open as early as August 2013;
– A process for new charter school start-ups to open as early as August 2014. http://tinyurl.com/cos67fl (on the DC Public Charter Board web site, 7/12/2012)
With another school year coming to a close, more excess letters will be handed out by DC Public Schools to another group of Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) members as well as Council of School Officers (CSO) union members. Among those impacted will be DCPS School Psychologists. Historically, school psychologists’ have been itinerant workers who were centrally funded and supervised directly by the Office of Special Education. School psychologists were generally responsible for several schools in most cases (sometimes more). Last school year, itinerant school social workers whose positions had previously been centrally funded by the Office of Special Education (OSE) were excessed and are now paid from the local school budget.
“WTU school psychologists will be officially excessed from their central office positions on June 1, 2012. The effective date of the excess will be the last day of school June 14, 2012”, according to a revised May 2012 “SEC and School Psychologist FAQs” that was sent to relevant staff on May 18, 2012 by Jason Kamras, Chief of Human Capital. By definition an “excess is an elimination of a Teacher’s position at a particular school due to a decline in student enrollment, a reduction in the local school budget, a closing or consolidation, a restructuring, or a change in the local school program, when such an elimination is not a ‘reduction in force’ (RIF) or ‘abolishment.” Not unlike 333 DCPS teachers who were excessed on May 4, 2012, DC school psychologists will no longer hold their current positions at the end of the school year.
DCPS Question: The SEC and school Psychologist FAQs packets posed the following question, “What will happen to the centrally-funded Washington Teachers’ Union (WTU) school psychologists who currently report to the Office of Special Education (OSE) ?
DCPS Answer:
WTU (school) psychologists “will have until August 15, 2012 to find a budgeted position at a school. If they cannot find a position by then, and if they meet certain qualifications, they will have access to the three excessing options in the WTU contract: 1) a $25,000 buyout; 2) early retirement, assuming 20 years of creditable service; or 3) a one year placement at a school during which they will continue to search for a budgeted position. To qualify for the three excessing options, WTU members must meet three criteria: 1) earn an Effective or Highly Effective IMPACT rating for 2011-12 school year; 2) attain permanent status (which one earns after two years of service in DCPS) by the effective date of excessing; and 3) have not opted into the IMPACT plus system.” Since Council of School Officers School Psychologists who are twelve month employees have a different collective bargaining agreement , they will be subject to a different set of rules than WTU members.
DCPS question: What will happen to centrally funded Council of School Officers (CSO) (school) psychologists who currently report to Office of Special Education (OSE)?
DCPS answer:
“They will receive reassignment letters on June 1, 2012 explaining that they will be working at a school site, not for OSE, next school year. They will have until June 11, 2012 to identify a principal willing to hire them. After that point, the DCPS Office of Human Capital will begin to place them into remaining vacancies. This process will be completed by June 15, 2012.”
Another reorganization is also underway for school year 2012-13 in DC Public Schools which includes a Reduction In Force (RIF) for many Special Education Coordinators (SECs).
Earlier during the DC Public Schools budgeting process for SY’ 2012-13, funding was no longer provided to local schools for Special Education Coordinator (SECs) positions. Many DC Public school principals complained about not being funded to keep their SECs. After an uproar by administrators, funding was made available to local schools for a small number of Special Education Coordinators (SECs) -approximately 40-50 according to my source. It is my understanding, that monies alloted for school social workers funding,which initially was part of the required school budget for 2012-13 was changed to flexible spending – thereby allowing principals to decide whether they wanted a school social worker or not. Last school year, all schools were required to have a .5 (half-time) school social worker at a minimum depending on the student population. Having the option to decide whether to hire a social worker or not, some schools used the monies for other positions such as the SECs position. It is sadto say that the majority of SECs will be losing their positions at the end of the school year.
DCPS question: “When will SECs who are losing their positions be officially notified?”
DCPS answer:
“Affected SECs will receive official notification that they are part of a Reduction in Force (RIF) from DC Public Schools on the last day of school, June 14, 2012. The reductions will go into effect on July 15, 2012, according to the revised May 2012 SECs and School Psychologists.
You might be wondering by now, why is DC Public Schools jumping on yet another educational bandwagon? The short and dirty answer is that DCPS claims that they are shifting to another model which no longer includes Special Education Coordinators (SECs). According to an April 26, 2012 press release by Chancellor Kaya Henderson titled: Increase in School Psychologists to Help DCPS Better Serve Students, she states: “…DCPS will shift to a new staffing model for 2012-13 school year that better utilizes the expertise of school psychologists. The change will allow schools to improve student achievement by leveraging the skills of school psychologists to build a student network that collects data, identifies students at risk for poor academic or behavioral outcomes, provides evidenced based interventions and monitors student progress.”
So here’s when being a critical thinker really comes in handy. Not for a minute do I buy the hype that this change in staffing is what is in the best interest of DC’s children. We must ask what’s really behind these changes? I for one believe that the Henderson administration and company wants to make us think that the central office is saving a boatload of money yearly when in fact they are just playing a game of musical chairs with staff. They are just shifting the funding from the central office to the local schools budget. Don’t be fooled into thinking that the reduction the central office will show in personnel costs is a cost savings measure. Not!
RIFing special education coordinators while a temporary cost saving measure to the District is a mistake and when the word gets out about the layoffs of special education coordinators (SECs), special education advocates and attorneys will be lining up to sue DCPS, litigation costs will sky rocket once again like they did pre-special education coordinator days. From where I sit, special education coordinators have been a God-send to the District of Columbia Public Schools, our students and staff.
It has been a long arduous battle for both school psychologists and special education coordinators (SECs) and their unions who have voiced concerns adamantly about the dismantling of SECs positions whose duties will probably be absorbed by local school staff and the excessing of school psychologists from the central office to local school psychologist/special education coordinator ordinairre. Here we go again-jumping from one educational bandwagon to another.
Someone has to set the record straight about what’s really happening in our schools. I’d love to hear from DC Public Schools special education coordinators and school psychologists and others about what they think the real motivation is behind the move. Feel free to email me c/o thewashingtonteacher@gmail.com or saveourcounselors@gmail.comConfidentiality assured.
Above Composite by Daniel del Pielago who says: Vince Gray and Kaya Henderson are doing nothing different than Adrian Fenty and Michelle Rhee - Disinvest in schools, Close Schools, Repeat!
The April 25, 2012 edition of WPFW’s Latino Media Collective focused on the DC Public School budget for fiscal year 2013. Mayor Vincent Gray is quick to point out that there are no proposed cuts to the DCPS budget, which is true enough. While the amount the city is planning to spend on education has not changed from 2012 to 2013, the source of those funds and the ultimate destination has. The problem in a nutshell is the cost of Michelle Rhee’s pet project the IMPACT teacher evaluation system. Bonuses paid to “highly effective” teachers was coming from private sources (mostly the Walton Foundation, i.e. Walmart). Those private funds went away along with Michelle Rhee and the cost for the bonuses now gets plowed into the budget for each individual school. So, while schools are paying for IMPACT, they won’t have money for other things like librarians, special education coordinators, etc. How this is going to improve the quality of education in DC’s public schools and in the charter school system is unclear.
Latino Media Collective co-hosts Daniel del Pielago and Oscar Fernandez were joined in the studio by Soumya Bhat, Education Finance and Policy Analyst at the DC Fiscal Policy Institute and Bruce Monroe at Parkview Elementary School Parent Leaders Sequnely Gray and Beverly West.
This broadcast gives more incite into the impact of Mayor Gray’s proposed DCPS budget on students than anything you’ll find in the mainstream press. I’m just sayin’. [haiku url=”http://www.grassrootsmediaproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/wpfw_Latino_Media_Collective_on_DCPS_-Budget_4-25-12.mp3″ title=”Latino Media Collective on DCPS Budget”]
Today is emancipation day here in the District of Columbia. It marks the day when the enslaved residents of the District of Columbia were granted their freedom. The Civil War was already underway when President Lincoln signed the Compensated Emancipation Act for the release of certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia. That was nine months before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation. I’ve always found it ironic that enslaved African-Americans in the District of Columbia were the first in the nation to receive their freedom, and yet their descendants still don’t have representation in Congress. Go figure. That was the message of a video about Free DC’s Emancipation Day celebration that I produced three years ago, which I’ve posted below.
It also seems meaningful that these reminders of our second-class status here in the District of Columbia should come just before tax day. We pay taxes here in the District despite the fact that we don’t have representation in Congress. We do have city representatives. The mayor, members of the city council and the advisory neighborhood commissions are all elected by DC residents but do they really represent our wishes? Mayor Gray’s proposed budget would cut over $20 million from the city’ s affordable housing programs, despite the fact that the citizens at Mayor Gray’s One City Citizens Summit put the need for affordable housing at the top of their list of priorities that District government should address. Mayor Gray also wants to cut $5.7 million from the subsidized child care program. Certainly this does not represent the wishes of the more than 300 parents who will lose their vouchers and possibly their jobs as well, because as any good parent of young children knows, you can’t work and raise your children without affordable and preferably quality child care. The mayor’s cuts to school budgets will mean increased class sizes, loss of librarians, special education coordinators and other “non-mandatory” staff. Whose wishes do these cuts represent? Are DC students complaining about librarians and counselors? I don’t think so. Low and moderate income residents pay 7 – 10% of their income in taxes. A family of 4 earning $26,300 a year pays $2,630 in taxes. Relatively speaking, that’s a HUGE chunk of money.
Which is why Empower DC members will be engaging in the following action:
Tax Day Delegation to Fight Budget Cuts Tuesday April 17, 2012 Meet on the steps of the Wilson Building @ 10:30 AM. We will visit our council members and give them the following message–
Dear City Council: WE PAY TAXES Don’t SCREW US in the Budget! Put My Tax Dollars Towards Affordable Housing, Childcare & Education!
For more information about tomorrow’s Tax Day Delegation contact Daniel@empowerdc.org or call 202-234-9119 ext. 104.
Cleveland Elementary Stakeholders at ABRA Protest Hearing
I was hoping this would be my last post on this subject but alas probably not. So where do things stand? As I reported previously, the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration had a hearing last night (Wednesday, March 21, 2012) to consider the position of community members who oppose the establishment of a bar across the street from Cleveland Elementary school. The hearing room was packed with parents, children, teachers and community members opposed to the granting of the liquor license. ABC Channel 7 has continued to cover this issue. Their report is below.
The video gives you a sense of how many folks were in the room, includes soundbites that are both for and against the granting of a liquor license to All Souls but unfortunately the local tv news format doesn’t allow time for details. One of the Cleveland Elementary School parents who testified in protest of the granting of the license, gave me a few details. According to her, the hearing started at 4:00 PM and didn’t end until 9:00 PM. Within those five hours the lawyers hired by the bar’s owner David Batista argued that they should be granted a liquor license because the area is blighted, the building in question is abandoned, attracts unwanted activity and that increased foot traffic near the school would make the area safer. Therefore, a legitimate business, like a bar, should be a welcome addition. Community members opposed to the license took the opposite position pointing out that adults with the impaired judgment brought on by alcohol do not constitute the kind of foot traffic that would enhance the safety of the area. Concerns were raised that the increased traffic brought on by the kind of upscale (i.e. wealthy) customers likely to frequent the bar might in fact increase opportunity crimes like theft and muggings. My favorite argument by far, which apparently caused at least one community member to break out in laughter, was that a bar across the street from an elementary school could in fact be used to educate the children (Kindergarten through 5th grade) about appropriate alcohol use. Who knew?! A bar as a learning tool! But of course. After all, today’s toddlers are tomorrow’s casual drinkers or perhaps, aiming for something a little more advanced, tomorrow’s functional alcoholics. I’m hoping to get a copy of the transcript so I can pull some actual quotes from the hearing.
There is an issue in question that could in fact make the whole thing go away. As reported previously, the District of Columbia has a zoning law on the books that prohibits establishments that serve alcohol from operating within 400 feet of a school. Although All Souls would be only 22 feet away from Cleveland Elementary School, the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration would be allowed to grant the bar a liquor license because Boston Wine & Spirits at 1905 9th Street NW is or was thought to be within 400 feet of the school. If there is an establishment already within the 400 feet prohibition zone, the ABRA has the right to ignore the law and grant the license to other businesses that want to open near a school. David Batista, the owner of the building that would house All Souls Bar, reported to ABRA when he applied for the liquor license that Boston Wine & Spirits was already within the 400 feet prohibition zone and therefore his establishment should also be allowed within the zone as well. ABRA’s investigator, who is responsible for determining whether or not a business is in compliance with DC’s zoning laws, confirmed Batista’s position. HOWEVER, what came out in yesterday’s hearing was that the ABRA investigator has no actual evidence to confirm or refute Batista’s claim that Boston Wine & Spirits is within 400 feet of Cleveland Elementary School. If in fact Boston Wine & Spirits is not within the 400 feet prohibition zone then ABRA cannot consider granting ALL Souls a license. So, is it or isn’t it? The hearing ended with a promise that ABRA would investigate that very issue. They have 90 days to consider all the issues raised in the hearing and decide whether or not to grant the license.
In the meantime, the Ward 1 ANCs will be meeting on April 5, 2012 to decide whether they want to sign on to a voluntary agreement being offered by David Batista stating that he agrees not to open All Souls bar until 5:00 PM in the afternoon. The parent group who is behind the protest of the bar conducted a survey. According to the survey, 45% of Cleveland Elementary School teachers would be reluctant to attend evening activities at the school and 33% of parents would remove their children from the school should the bar open up across the street with or without the voluntary agreement. So what seems to be a no-brainer won’t be settled until May 2012.
Comments are closed 
