Deja Vu All over Again-DC Public School Closures

By Guest Contributor, on December 9th, 2012

Cross-Posted From The Washington Teacher

Written By Candi Peterson

Plans to consolidate twenty DC Public Schools were announced on November 13, 2012 followed by a rush of public hearings and neighborhood stakeholder discussions that gave precious little time for parents, teachers and administrators to respond. The edict sounded all too familiar to those of us who were around for the first round of closures in 2008.

In a nutshell, DC’s Chancellor Kaya Henderson proposes to close twenty public schools because they are under enrolled and in DCPS’s opinion are too costly to operate. The list of school closures includes 8 elementary schools, 3 special education schools, 4 middle schools, 2 education campuses, the Choice program, 1 High School STAY program (School To Aid Youth) and 1 high school.

Two days of City Council hearings that lasted until nearly midnight with over 50 witnesses followed the school closure announcement to allow for testimony from education stakeholders. Community stakeholder meetings were subsequently scheduled to get feedback at four ward-based meetings commencing November 27 at Savoy elementary school in Ward 8, a second meeting at Sousa middle school in Ward 7 on November 28 and a third meeting at McKinley senior high on November 29 in Ward 5. The last meeting will be held at Brightwood education campus on December 5. This meeting will represent multiple wards of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

Unlike the meetings of 2008 when stakeholders were escorted off to individual classrooms for private discussion, this year’s format for ward based meetings included small table group discussions in an open meeting space like the school gymnasium. The discussions were facilitated by a DCPS staffer leading the dialogue around three main questions: [1] What has DCPS not thought about; [2] What can be done to strengthen the proposal; and [3] What could make the transition smoother. Participants reported back to the larger audience sharing their tables’ response.

We need a moratorium on public school closings and charter school openings was a common recommendation expressed at the Ward 5 and 8 stakeholder meetings. When I attended the community meeting at McKinley, I couldn’t help but feel the participants frustration and distrust that DCPS has already made its mind made up about going forward with the school closures .Robert Vinson Brannum, VP of Ward 5 Council on Education questioned the school districts intentions. “The root question is are we working on the premise that the proposal is going forward. If at the end of everything, we say don’t do it (close schools), are you going to go forward anyway”, Brannum said.

Comments from the McKinley audience ended with an obtrusive presence- none other than Ward 5 ANC commissioner Bob King. King who lives in the Fort Lincoln neighborhood has been a long time commissioner for 30 plus years and a community advocate as well as supporter of Thurgood Marshall elementary school. Commissioner King left a memorable impression when he spoke directly to Chancellor Henderson about Marshall’s rich history, community support and the corporate sponsorships he garnered from Costco on behalf of the school.”I have a written contract for $10,000 yearly from Costco, backpacks for all the students in Ward 5 and I personally delivered 68 computers, 10 smart boards and 1 projector to Marshall. You might be gone and the mayor might be gone, so please right your proposal to keep Marshall open,” King said.

The ward 7 meeting at Sousa was markedly different than either of those in Wards 5 or 8. The Ward 7 education council took ownership of their meeting, decided not to entertain DCPS’ questions and presented a proposal of their own to keep schools open. Daniel del Pielago, education organizer of Empower DC said of the plan, “it reflected the concerns of parents and community and ultimately the plan said let’s work to save and make our schools better instead of let’s close more schools and see what happens as DCPS is saying.”

Through two weeks of excruciating meetings the majority of community voices clearly oppose the closures, with only a promise from Chancellor Kaya Henderson to take the community’s recommendations into consideration before she makes a final verdict in January of 2013. A visceral lack of trust in the process exists at the community level, as DCPS and local council representatives appear to be hell bent on closing 20 schools regardless of community input, while ignoring loud persistent cries from the community to stop the madness and consider a moratorium.

. . . → Read More: Deja Vu All over Again-DC Public School Closures

Comments are closed   DC School Closures, Education   , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  

Challenging the IFF Report’s Legitimacy and Rejecting Its Recommendations

By Guest Contributor, on August 23rd, 2012

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

Comments are closed   DC School Closures, Education   , , , , , , , , ,