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”:

“An integral part of these community conversations will be soliciting feedback from communities about their vision for quality schools.” (Office of the DME Performance Oversight Questions, 2/9/2012, p.12: http://www.dccouncil.us/files/user_uploads/budget_responses/fy11_12_agencyperformance_depmayorforeducation_responses.pdf )

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.”

. . . → Read More: Challenging the IFF Report’s Legitimacy and Rejecting Its Recommendations