Friday, July 30, 2010
Detroit: Ground Zero for Duncan's Urban School District Management Philosophy
Detroit Council Says No to Mayoral Control of Schools
By Chastity Pratt Dawsey & Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki, Detroit Free Press (MCT)
The Detroit school board dodged a challenge to its existence Thursday when the City Council voted against placing a question on the Nov. 2 ballot asking voters whether they wanted the mayor and the council to have authority over the troubled Detroit Public Schools.
While those opposed to the ballot question claimed victory, City Council President Pro Tem Gary Brown was joined by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Sharlonda Buckman, executive director of the Detroit Parent Network, in saying the fight is not over.
Several council members said they opposed mayoral oversight of DPS. Still, Brown, who wrote the failed ballot question, said the council next should consider presenting the state Legislature with a resolution to change DPS's governance.
REST of the Story HERE...
[Continue Reading]
By Chastity Pratt Dawsey & Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki, Detroit Free Press (MCT)
The Detroit school board dodged a challenge to its existence Thursday when the City Council voted against placing a question on the Nov. 2 ballot asking voters whether they wanted the mayor and the council to have authority over the troubled Detroit Public Schools.
While those opposed to the ballot question claimed victory, City Council President Pro Tem Gary Brown was joined by Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Sharlonda Buckman, executive director of the Detroit Parent Network, in saying the fight is not over.
Several council members said they opposed mayoral oversight of DPS. Still, Brown, who wrote the failed ballot question, said the council next should consider presenting the state Legislature with a resolution to change DPS's governance.
REST of the Story HERE...
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Learning Matters: A look at Race to the Top
http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/learning-matters/index.html
Learning Matters is an independent, nonprofit production company focused on education that produces reports for PBS NewsHour and documentaries for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The views expressed by Learning Matters and its founder, John Merrow, do not represent those of Editorial Projects in Education or any of its publications.
[Continue Reading]
Learning Matters is an independent, nonprofit production company focused on education that produces reports for PBS NewsHour and documentaries for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The views expressed by Learning Matters and its founder, John Merrow, do not represent those of Editorial Projects in Education or any of its publications.
Has Louisiana Failed Disabled Students?
According to ABC News’ Mary Bruce Reports: Education Secretary USDOE Sec. of Education Arne Duncan has previsously said that Hurricane Katrina was “the best thing that happened to the education system in New Orleans” because it gave the city a chance to rebuild and improve its failing public schools. Do the families of students in New Orleans agree? Will the nation? And what will the legal system think? It may all play out on the public stage.
From the AP
Published Online: July 29, 2010
Suit Says La. Schools Fail Disabled Students
New Orleans
Three groups claim Louisiana's Department of Education fails to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access and are protected from discrimination.
Their complaint says more than 30 of the 80 New Orleans schools that have opened since Hurricane Katrina have violated the rights of disabled students.
State Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek said he didn't know if the alleged incidents occurred, but the sort of hardships described are unacceptable. But he said he also is disappointed the groups didn't report the alleged problems until after its news conference.
"If we had been notified, we would have worked with this organization, these students and their families to resolve any deficiencies so that their physical, emotional and educational needs are met by their local districts and schools," he said.
Eden Heilman, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the schools in question are across New Orleans. Heilman's group, the Community Justice section of the Loyola Law Clinic, and the Southern Disability Law Center filed the complaint on Wednesday.
A complaint can be filed under the disability law to try to address the problem before filing suit in federal court, Heilman said. A response should take no more than 45 days, she said.
"As the five-year anniversary of Katrina approaches, we need to take stock of where we are. We're rebuilding our schools, but leaving behind our most vulnerable children," said David Finger, Assistant Clinical Professor at Loyola University Law Clinic. "The Louisiana Department of Education has a legal and moral duty to intervene."
[Continue Reading]
From the AP
Published Online: July 29, 2010
Suit Says La. Schools Fail Disabled Students
New Orleans
Three groups claim Louisiana's Department of Education fails to ensure that students with disabilities have equal access and are protected from discrimination.
Their complaint says more than 30 of the 80 New Orleans schools that have opened since Hurricane Katrina have violated the rights of disabled students.
State Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek said he didn't know if the alleged incidents occurred, but the sort of hardships described are unacceptable. But he said he also is disappointed the groups didn't report the alleged problems until after its news conference.
"If we had been notified, we would have worked with this organization, these students and their families to resolve any deficiencies so that their physical, emotional and educational needs are met by their local districts and schools," he said.
Eden Heilman, an attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the schools in question are across New Orleans. Heilman's group, the Community Justice section of the Loyola Law Clinic, and the Southern Disability Law Center filed the complaint on Wednesday.
A complaint can be filed under the disability law to try to address the problem before filing suit in federal court, Heilman said. A response should take no more than 45 days, she said.
"As the five-year anniversary of Katrina approaches, we need to take stock of where we are. We're rebuilding our schools, but leaving behind our most vulnerable children," said David Finger, Assistant Clinical Professor at Loyola University Law Clinic. "The Louisiana Department of Education has a legal and moral duty to intervene."
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
TEACHERS: Participate in Radio Town Hall Meeting with Arne Duncan
Secretary Arne Duncan to Participate in Radio Town Hall Meeting with Nation’s Teachers
Secretary Arne Duncan will take part in a live town hall meeting with the nation’s teachers on Sirius/XM Satellite Radio’s POTUS public affairs channel on Thursday, July 29.
The program will air from 11:00 AM EDT-12:00 PM EDT and will feature a studio audience of teachers from a cross-section of public schools, drawing from a variety of districts, grade levels, and disciplines. Tim Farley, host of POTUS’s “The Morning Briefing,” will moderate the event.
Since his appointment in 2009, Secretary Duncan has spoken with thousands of teachers from around the United States to gather input on the Obama administration’s blueprint for K-12 education reform. As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, this town hall will provide an opportunity for teachers to voice their ideas and concerns directly to the Secretary. In addition to the studio audience, listeners to the program online or via radio will be able to call in with questions and comments.
The town hall will be broadcast on channel 110 on Sirius Radio and channel 130 on XM. Nonsubscribers may access the program online and free of charge by going to www.xmradio.com and clicking on “Free Online Trial.”
Looking forward to Thursday’s event, we invite teachers to consider some of the questions that the Secretary and the studio audience and listeners will discuss — questions such as…
•What can we do to enhance the teaching profession?
•How can we do a better job of encouraging and rewarding excellent teaching?
•How can we do a better job of measuring success?
Post your comments here. We will highlight a sample of your responses during the live radio program.
http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/07/secretary-arne-duncan-to-participate-in-radio-town-hall-meeting-with-nations-teachers/
[Continue Reading]
Secretary Arne Duncan will take part in a live town hall meeting with the nation’s teachers on Sirius/XM Satellite Radio’s POTUS public affairs channel on Thursday, July 29.
The program will air from 11:00 AM EDT-12:00 PM EDT and will feature a studio audience of teachers from a cross-section of public schools, drawing from a variety of districts, grade levels, and disciplines. Tim Farley, host of POTUS’s “The Morning Briefing,” will moderate the event.
Since his appointment in 2009, Secretary Duncan has spoken with thousands of teachers from around the United States to gather input on the Obama administration’s blueprint for K-12 education reform. As Congress prepares to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, this town hall will provide an opportunity for teachers to voice their ideas and concerns directly to the Secretary. In addition to the studio audience, listeners to the program online or via radio will be able to call in with questions and comments.
The town hall will be broadcast on channel 110 on Sirius Radio and channel 130 on XM. Nonsubscribers may access the program online and free of charge by going to www.xmradio.com and clicking on “Free Online Trial.”
Looking forward to Thursday’s event, we invite teachers to consider some of the questions that the Secretary and the studio audience and listeners will discuss — questions such as…
•What can we do to enhance the teaching profession?
•How can we do a better job of encouraging and rewarding excellent teaching?
•How can we do a better job of measuring success?
Post your comments here. We will highlight a sample of your responses during the live radio program.
http://www.ed.gov/blog/2010/07/secretary-arne-duncan-to-participate-in-radio-town-hall-meeting-with-nations-teachers/
$35 For Classroom Tech in India! I wonder how much they'll charge in shipping?
India unveils prototype of 35 U.S. dollar laptop
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-07/24/c_13413076.htm
NEW DELHI, July 24 (Xinhua) -- India has unveiled a prototype tablet touchscreen laptop, priced at 1,500 rupees (35 U.S. dollars) , which it hopes to roll out in the market commercially next year.
Indian Minister for Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal Friday unveiled the device, which also comes with a solar-power option, as part of a push to provide high-quality education to students across the country.
The minister said it was India's answer to the 100 U.S. dollar laptops developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., local media reported.
The laptop, developed by India's top Information Technology colleges, has no hard disk, using a memory card instead, like a mobile phone, and can run on solar power.
The minister said the Indian tablet, which would run the Linux operating system, was expected to be introduced to higher education institutions next year.
"The plan is to drop the price eventually to 20 U.S. dollars and ultimately to 10 U.S. dollars," he said.
[Continue Reading]
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2010-07/24/c_13413076.htm
NEW DELHI, July 24 (Xinhua) -- India has unveiled a prototype tablet touchscreen laptop, priced at 1,500 rupees (35 U.S. dollars) , which it hopes to roll out in the market commercially next year.
Indian Minister for Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal Friday unveiled the device, which also comes with a solar-power option, as part of a push to provide high-quality education to students across the country.
The minister said it was India's answer to the 100 U.S. dollar laptops developed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the U.S., local media reported.
The laptop, developed by India's top Information Technology colleges, has no hard disk, using a memory card instead, like a mobile phone, and can run on solar power.
The minister said the Indian tablet, which would run the Linux operating system, was expected to be introduced to higher education institutions next year.
"The plan is to drop the price eventually to 20 U.S. dollars and ultimately to 10 U.S. dollars," he said.
Duncan Favors Mayoral Control in Detroit
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/07/27/37mct_midetroitmayor.h29.html
[Continue Reading]
Published Online: July 27, 2010
Duncan: Let Voters Decide Mayor's Role With Detroit Schools
By Chastity Pratt Dawsey, Detroit Free Press (MCT)
U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said last year the Detroit Public Schools were ground zero for public education and the district's crises kept him up at night, but today he said the system faces a "tremendous" opportunity.
In an interview with the Detroit Free Press, Duncan said he is hopeful partly due to the public discussion about giving the mayor authority over the DPS. He is encouraging Detroit and other big cities to consider this path, saying that, with broad support, it can work...
Duncan: Stability, Vision Needed
DPS faces some of the nation's most dire academic and fiscal woes, making it essential for the entire community to unite and rally behind a mayor to take charge of the schools, Duncan said today.
Duncan, who has been traversing the country advocating for mayoral oversight in the nation's largest school districts, said the work to be done to improve DPS is "so difficult and Detroit has to go so far, the system can't do it by itself."
Eliminating the school board could be the way to attract new, long-term leader and plan to DPS.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Civil Rights Groups Call on Duncan to Dismantle Core Pieces of Ed Agenda
Civil Rights Groups Call for New Federal Education Agenda
By Michele McNeil on July 26, 2010 10:00 AM
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2010/07/civil_rights_groups_call_for_n.html?cmp=clp-edweek
Seven leading civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, called on U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today to dismantle core pieces of his education agenda, arguing that his emphases on expanding charter schools, closing low-performing schools, and using competitive rather than formula funding are detrimental to low-income and minority children.
The groups, which today released their own education policy framework and created the National Opportunity to Learn campaign, want Duncan to make big changes to his draft proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
UPDATE (11:35 a.m.): The Education Department just now offered this response: "We're listening. The administration is dedicated to equity in education and we've been working very closely with the civil rights community to develop the most effective policies to close the achievement gap, turn around low performing schools, and put a good teacher in every classroom. The civil rights community has thoughtfully helped guide our thinking on these critical issues and we need their continued leadership as we move forward to overhaul NCLB."
What's even more interesting is that a big event planned to release the framework this morning in conjunction with the National Urban League's annual conference was mysteriously cancelled (or postponed, depending on whom you ask) after a lot of press releases went out last week trying to drum up interest. The official explanation is that there was a "conflict in schedules." However, I can't help but wonder if the facts that President Obama has agreed to deliver a major education reform speech at the conference on Thursday, and that Duncan is scheduled to address the conference on Wednesday, had something to do with it. Surely the Obama administration was none too pleased to see that these groups planned to criticize his education reform agenda.
In addition, the National Action Network, led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, was listed on the press releases that went out late last week announcing the event as a supporter of the new framework, but in the framework released today, the group is conspicuously missing.
The groups that signed on to the framework want Duncan to dial back his enthusiasm for and "extensive reliance" on charter schools as a solution for turning around persistently struggling schools in urban areas. They also object to core components of his four models for turning around the nation's worst schools, saying that school closure and wholesale changes in school staff should only be used as a last resort. And they take sharp issue with the Race to the Top program, declaring that a reliance on competitive funding and hand-picking winners means the majority of low-income and minority kids, who may reside in the losing states, will not benefit from additional federal funds.
The supporting groups are: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Urban League; The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; National Council on Educating Black Children; Rainbow PUSH Coalition; and The Schott Foundation for Public Education.
If you think back to the 2008 campaign season, and the split that emerged on education issues within the Democratic Party, this tends to lean more towards a Broader, Bolder agenda—and group of folks—although there are elements of the Education Equality approach embedded in this document as well.
In addition to wanting Duncan to reverse course, the groups want the Department of Education to add or strengthen a few things in the ESEA blueprint, including universal access to early education for all children in all states. They want to strengthen the ability of students in low-performing schools to transfer to higher performing ones, although Duncan has been backing away from current choice provisions already embedded in the No Child Left Behind Act. And they want, among other things, for the feds to hold states and districts more accountable in how they spend and distribute money from school to school.
One thing Duncan already has agreed to do: require parental engagement as part of the school turnaround process. That's another recommendation in the civil rights groups' proposal.
[Continue Reading]
By Michele McNeil on July 26, 2010 10:00 AM
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2010/07/civil_rights_groups_call_for_n.html?cmp=clp-edweek
Seven leading civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the National Urban League, called on U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today to dismantle core pieces of his education agenda, arguing that his emphases on expanding charter schools, closing low-performing schools, and using competitive rather than formula funding are detrimental to low-income and minority children.
The groups, which today released their own education policy framework and created the National Opportunity to Learn campaign, want Duncan to make big changes to his draft proposal for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
UPDATE (11:35 a.m.): The Education Department just now offered this response: "We're listening. The administration is dedicated to equity in education and we've been working very closely with the civil rights community to develop the most effective policies to close the achievement gap, turn around low performing schools, and put a good teacher in every classroom. The civil rights community has thoughtfully helped guide our thinking on these critical issues and we need their continued leadership as we move forward to overhaul NCLB."
What's even more interesting is that a big event planned to release the framework this morning in conjunction with the National Urban League's annual conference was mysteriously cancelled (or postponed, depending on whom you ask) after a lot of press releases went out last week trying to drum up interest. The official explanation is that there was a "conflict in schedules." However, I can't help but wonder if the facts that President Obama has agreed to deliver a major education reform speech at the conference on Thursday, and that Duncan is scheduled to address the conference on Wednesday, had something to do with it. Surely the Obama administration was none too pleased to see that these groups planned to criticize his education reform agenda.
In addition, the National Action Network, led by the Rev. Al Sharpton, was listed on the press releases that went out late last week announcing the event as a supporter of the new framework, but in the framework released today, the group is conspicuously missing.
The groups that signed on to the framework want Duncan to dial back his enthusiasm for and "extensive reliance" on charter schools as a solution for turning around persistently struggling schools in urban areas. They also object to core components of his four models for turning around the nation's worst schools, saying that school closure and wholesale changes in school staff should only be used as a last resort. And they take sharp issue with the Race to the Top program, declaring that a reliance on competitive funding and hand-picking winners means the majority of low-income and minority kids, who may reside in the losing states, will not benefit from additional federal funds.
The supporting groups are: the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund; National Urban League; The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; National Council on Educating Black Children; Rainbow PUSH Coalition; and The Schott Foundation for Public Education.
If you think back to the 2008 campaign season, and the split that emerged on education issues within the Democratic Party, this tends to lean more towards a Broader, Bolder agenda—and group of folks—although there are elements of the Education Equality approach embedded in this document as well.
In addition to wanting Duncan to reverse course, the groups want the Department of Education to add or strengthen a few things in the ESEA blueprint, including universal access to early education for all children in all states. They want to strengthen the ability of students in low-performing schools to transfer to higher performing ones, although Duncan has been backing away from current choice provisions already embedded in the No Child Left Behind Act. And they want, among other things, for the feds to hold states and districts more accountable in how they spend and distribute money from school to school.
One thing Duncan already has agreed to do: require parental engagement as part of the school turnaround process. That's another recommendation in the civil rights groups' proposal.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
ACOG's Bittersweet VBAC Statement Issued July 21, 2010
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a long-overdue statement this week regarding Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC): "Attempting a vaginal birth after cesarean is a safe and appropriate choice for most women who have had a prior cesarean delivery, including for some women who have had two previous cesareans, according to guidelines released today... The College guidelines now clearly say that women with two previous low-transverse cesarean incisions, women carrying twins, and women with an unknown type of uterine scar are considered appropriate candidates for a TOLAC... These VBAC guidelines emphasize the need for thorough counseling of benefits and risks, shared patient-doctor decision making, and the importance of patient autonomy. Moving forward, we need to work collaboratively with our patents and our colleagues, hospitals, and insurers to swing the pendulum back to fewer cesareans and a more reasonable VBAC rate..."
OK. My reaction after reading their statement should have been joy. The natural birth community has waited a long time for this. To be honest, my initial reaction was anger, followed by sadness. My eyes even welled with tears thinking of all the millions of women who have been lied to for the last decade about how risky VBACs are and as a result had unnecessary surgery. Babies suffered. Mothers suffered. Doctors benefited.
We have a generation of doctors who now believe that VBACs are risky -- because ACOG said so for so many years-- and now they are being told that they are not dangerous and to go ahead and allow women a TOLAC (Trial of Labor After Cesarean). I probably don't need to tell you that a trial of labor can easily make an OB look like he tried to allow a VBAC and (s)he may have no intention of allowing moms to VBAC. If you are in this situation, ask your care provider what a "trial of labor" means to them. Will you have time limits imposed on your labor? Likely. Do you require continuous monitoring? Can you get up and walk around? Are they going to treat you like a "normal" woman in labor or like an accident waiting to happen -- IV fluids, restricting food and water, continuous monitoring, regular vaginal exams, etc. -- because attitude is everything when a woman is VBACing. She requires a lot of emotional support.
Who is going to be involved in these changes? It's not just about an OB and his patient. It's about hospitals and insurance companies. There are more than 800 hospitals across America that have banned VBACs over the last decade, the majority of those fairly recently. Can we expect these changes to be immediate? Unfortunately, probably not. If you are a VBACing woman, be very familiar with this statement and fight for your right to a VBAC. That is probably the first step. Change is not going to occur immediately. Women may even find themselves quoting this statement to their insurance companies.
I believe that what led to this statement was not evidence or the demand for VBAC by women. The evidence against repeat cesareans is strong and always has been. What led to this statement was another agency getting involved in the cesarean epidemic. The National Institute of Health (NIH) held their conference in March and at the top of the list was addressing America's insanely outrageous c-section rate. The number one reason for a cesarean is because a woman has already had a c-section. If we could raise the VBAC rate, we'll automatically lower the cesarean rate, improving lives while saving money all at once. A win-win. The statement had to come from ACOG. The pressure was on.
According to the statement issued, 60-80% of women who attempt a VBAC will be successful. I interviewed a group of CNMs in Albuquerque several years ago who loved doing VBACs, and as a result, their VBAC rate was 92.3%. The care providers in the DFW area who support VBACs also boast 90%+ VBAC rates. The Mother-Friendly guidelines state that the VBAC rate should be at least 60%.
I have written about the safety of VBACs in the past, so I wont rehash that here. You know what I believe. There are a couple more quotes I think are worth repeating here that appeared in the statement.
"Our primary goat is to promote the safest environment for labor and delivery, not to restrict women's access to VBAC." However, in another paragraph, it says "The College maintains that a TOLAC is most safely undertaken where staff can immediately provide an emergency cesarean, but recognizes that such resources may not be universally available." (Remember, the risk of uterine rupture is between 0.5% and 0.9%.) A statement very similar to this is what led to the VBAC bans in so many hospitals. Not crazy about it appearing in the statement. I think we'll see doctors referring to it in defense of continuing with not allowing VBACs.
The last paragraph says "The College says that restrictive VBAC policies should not be used to force women to undergo a repeat cesarean delivery against their will if, for example, a woman in labor presents for care and declines a repeat cesarean delivery at a center that does not support TOLAC." I could not help but think of Allison's story I wrote about last year. How things would be different for her if this statement had been issued less than a year ago. Honestly, it makes me feel sick, angry, and sad. I called her tonight after rereading the statement. She had read it this afternoon. We had the what-might-have-been conversation. It's a moot point. But now she has 3 cesareans under her belt (pardon the pun -- really not trying to be funny here), but the statement doesn't address women with more than 2 c-sections. But because she was literally forced into the third c-section solely because of a hospital policy, if they decide to have another baby, she is still going to have to fight for a VBAC.
So, yes, I am glad that ACOG issued the statement. The price was high. Women, I believe, are still going to have to fight to make this a reality. A friend of mine, former Bradley student turned Bradley teacher, Sarah Clark, aka Mama Birth, titled her post on this topic "ACOG Still Sucks." And that about sums it up...
[Continue Reading]
OK. My reaction after reading their statement should have been joy. The natural birth community has waited a long time for this. To be honest, my initial reaction was anger, followed by sadness. My eyes even welled with tears thinking of all the millions of women who have been lied to for the last decade about how risky VBACs are and as a result had unnecessary surgery. Babies suffered. Mothers suffered. Doctors benefited.
We have a generation of doctors who now believe that VBACs are risky -- because ACOG said so for so many years-- and now they are being told that they are not dangerous and to go ahead and allow women a TOLAC (Trial of Labor After Cesarean). I probably don't need to tell you that a trial of labor can easily make an OB look like he tried to allow a VBAC and (s)he may have no intention of allowing moms to VBAC. If you are in this situation, ask your care provider what a "trial of labor" means to them. Will you have time limits imposed on your labor? Likely. Do you require continuous monitoring? Can you get up and walk around? Are they going to treat you like a "normal" woman in labor or like an accident waiting to happen -- IV fluids, restricting food and water, continuous monitoring, regular vaginal exams, etc. -- because attitude is everything when a woman is VBACing. She requires a lot of emotional support.
Who is going to be involved in these changes? It's not just about an OB and his patient. It's about hospitals and insurance companies. There are more than 800 hospitals across America that have banned VBACs over the last decade, the majority of those fairly recently. Can we expect these changes to be immediate? Unfortunately, probably not. If you are a VBACing woman, be very familiar with this statement and fight for your right to a VBAC. That is probably the first step. Change is not going to occur immediately. Women may even find themselves quoting this statement to their insurance companies.
I believe that what led to this statement was not evidence or the demand for VBAC by women. The evidence against repeat cesareans is strong and always has been. What led to this statement was another agency getting involved in the cesarean epidemic. The National Institute of Health (NIH) held their conference in March and at the top of the list was addressing America's insanely outrageous c-section rate. The number one reason for a cesarean is because a woman has already had a c-section. If we could raise the VBAC rate, we'll automatically lower the cesarean rate, improving lives while saving money all at once. A win-win. The statement had to come from ACOG. The pressure was on.
According to the statement issued, 60-80% of women who attempt a VBAC will be successful. I interviewed a group of CNMs in Albuquerque several years ago who loved doing VBACs, and as a result, their VBAC rate was 92.3%. The care providers in the DFW area who support VBACs also boast 90%+ VBAC rates. The Mother-Friendly guidelines state that the VBAC rate should be at least 60%.
I have written about the safety of VBACs in the past, so I wont rehash that here. You know what I believe. There are a couple more quotes I think are worth repeating here that appeared in the statement.
"Our primary goat is to promote the safest environment for labor and delivery, not to restrict women's access to VBAC." However, in another paragraph, it says "The College maintains that a TOLAC is most safely undertaken where staff can immediately provide an emergency cesarean, but recognizes that such resources may not be universally available." (Remember, the risk of uterine rupture is between 0.5% and 0.9%.) A statement very similar to this is what led to the VBAC bans in so many hospitals. Not crazy about it appearing in the statement. I think we'll see doctors referring to it in defense of continuing with not allowing VBACs.
The last paragraph says "The College says that restrictive VBAC policies should not be used to force women to undergo a repeat cesarean delivery against their will if, for example, a woman in labor presents for care and declines a repeat cesarean delivery at a center that does not support TOLAC." I could not help but think of Allison's story I wrote about last year. How things would be different for her if this statement had been issued less than a year ago. Honestly, it makes me feel sick, angry, and sad. I called her tonight after rereading the statement. She had read it this afternoon. We had the what-might-have-been conversation. It's a moot point. But now she has 3 cesareans under her belt (pardon the pun -- really not trying to be funny here), but the statement doesn't address women with more than 2 c-sections. But because she was literally forced into the third c-section solely because of a hospital policy, if they decide to have another baby, she is still going to have to fight for a VBAC.
So, yes, I am glad that ACOG issued the statement. The price was high. Women, I believe, are still going to have to fight to make this a reality. A friend of mine, former Bradley student turned Bradley teacher, Sarah Clark, aka Mama Birth, titled her post on this topic "ACOG Still Sucks." And that about sums it up...
Friday, July 23, 2010
From the Mass Insight Blog: Engagement and Turnaround, Blaming Federal Policy
Just so there's no confusion, this is from the blog of Justin Cohen, the founder of Mass Insight, not from massinciter.blogspot.com.
Engagement and Turnaround
Blaming Federal Policy
July 20, 2010
by Justin Cohen
Both Rotherham and Russo do a nice job of pointing out the problems with this weekend’s NYTimes piece on how federal turnaround policy led to the dismissal of a popular principal. It’s nice to have other folks policing the turnaround media space!
I won’t reiterate their accurate critiques, but I will amplify one. The SIG program – which is the maligned federal policy in the article – is competitive. All states have the funds, but not all LEAs have to apply for them. And even if they do apply, the LEAs don’t have to use the funds at every school.
If the changes proposed are so anathema, the district should not have applied for them at this particular school. Yes, the funds are substantial, and leaving them on the table is difficult. But the internal logic of the article falls apart in this case, because the argument anchoring the piece is that the school was making substantial improvements without the money (even though no evidence of that improvement is presented). In other words, the article suggests that the district employed the following thought process: accept no federal money and keep doing something that we think is working; or take federal money and make a school-destroying decision. Hard to stomach.
In any event, this is not a new genre, and I’m sure we’ll continue to see “federal policy destroys local school” articles. Read them critically, my friends.
Rhee to fire 302 Teachers after new IMPACT Evaluations
Rhee to Dismiss Hundreds of Teachers for Poor Performance
By Stephen Sawchuk on July 23, 2010 11:53 AM
District of Columbia schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee plans to dismiss 302 employees, mostly for poor performance, the chancellor said this morning in an interview. They will be separated from the system as of August 13.
The results include the first full year of the district's new, rigorous teacher-evaluation system, known as IMPACT.
According to Rhee, 241 of the dismissals were of teachers who failed to meet performance standards. Most of those teachers garnered an "ineffective" rating on IMPACT. A handful of others are "excessed" teachers with a "minimally effective" rating who couldn't find new teaching positions in the district. And finally, some are being let go for licensure issues, such as not attaining "highly qualified" status under the No Child Left Behind Act, Ms. Rhee said.
The results also showed that 16 percent of the D.C. teaching corps attained the top rating on IMPACT. Those teachers will be eligible to earn performance bonuses, Ms. Rhee said.
D.C. has about 4,000 teachers in all.
MORE HERE
[Continue Reading]
By Stephen Sawchuk on July 23, 2010 11:53 AM
District of Columbia schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee plans to dismiss 302 employees, mostly for poor performance, the chancellor said this morning in an interview. They will be separated from the system as of August 13.
The results include the first full year of the district's new, rigorous teacher-evaluation system, known as IMPACT.
According to Rhee, 241 of the dismissals were of teachers who failed to meet performance standards. Most of those teachers garnered an "ineffective" rating on IMPACT. A handful of others are "excessed" teachers with a "minimally effective" rating who couldn't find new teaching positions in the district. And finally, some are being let go for licensure issues, such as not attaining "highly qualified" status under the No Child Left Behind Act, Ms. Rhee said.
The results also showed that 16 percent of the D.C. teaching corps attained the top rating on IMPACT. Those teachers will be eligible to earn performance bonuses, Ms. Rhee said.
D.C. has about 4,000 teachers in all.
MORE HERE
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Mayoral Control Debate Heating Up in Detroit
Gov. Tells Detroit: Let Residents Vote on Mayoral Control
By Chris Christoff, Detroit Free Press (MCT)
Lansing, Mich.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm had stern words for the Detroit City Council on Wednesday: Let city voters decide whether to give oversight of their school district to Mayor Dave Bing—a change she supports.
Otherwise, Granholm said, Detroit schools could wind up under state authority with a new governor after emergency financial manager Robert Bobb leaves next March.
On Tuesday, the City Council balked a second time at putting the question on the November ballot...
HERE FOR MORE
[Continue Reading]
By Chris Christoff, Detroit Free Press (MCT)
Lansing, Mich.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm had stern words for the Detroit City Council on Wednesday: Let city voters decide whether to give oversight of their school district to Mayor Dave Bing—a change she supports.
Otherwise, Granholm said, Detroit schools could wind up under state authority with a new governor after emergency financial manager Robert Bobb leaves next March.
On Tuesday, the City Council balked a second time at putting the question on the November ballot...
HERE FOR MORE
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Back to School Barbeques!
Back to School Barbeques to be Held August 23 and August 25!
Two free family events to welcome students, parents, and staff back to school will be held in August. On Monday, August 23 a Back to School Barbeque will be held at Keene Elementary School from 5:00- 7:30 p.m., and on Wednesday, August 25, a Back to School Barbeque will be held at Bayard Middle School. The events will feature food, activities, raffles, and performances, and will provide information about programs, and resources available at District schools.
Community partners include the City of Wilmington, Bayard PTA, Bear/Glasgow YMCA, Keene PTA, and Delaware State Police Troop II. Both events are free and open to District residents, staff, and their families. Children must be accompanied by an adult family member to attend. For more information, please call Bayard Middle School at 429-4118, or Keene Elementary School at 454-2018.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Governors or Superintendents: Who is Worth More?
And we thought that many of DE's superintendents were overpaid...
From the State Edwatch blog
By Lesli Maxwell on July 19, 2010 12:50 PM
Lesli A. Maxwell, who reports on state policy for Education Week, covered state government, politics, and higher education in California for eight years.
News about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's proposal to cap the salaries of district superintendents spread like wildfire late last week. Christie, a Republican overseeing a recession-battered state, has aggressively gone after what he sees as excessive spending across the public sector, and schools have been among his targets.
His announcement last week to target highly-paid school administrators struck a chord in some corners and today Christie's proposal got a ringing endorsement from editorial writers at the Star-Ledger in Newark.
Christie makes $175,000, less than the salaries of 75 percent of New Jersey's local supes, according to the Star-Ledger. It seems that local boards in New Jersey have offered especially lucrative contracts to their honchos, regardless of district size or performance, according to the newspaper.
Intuitively, it seems completely out of whack for a district superintendent to make more than the CEO of an entire state. But some of this has to do with the fact that some salaries for governors were set eons ago and don't get tweaked much. No one has to use a compensation package to get the best "hire" for the governor's office; those folks self-select by running for the office. While governors and superintendents are public servants, they operate in entirely different markets.
Still, it's instructive to compare the salaries of the two positions.
In New York, Gov. David Paterson is pulling down $179,000 (last year, he took a 10 percent pay cut) as the state's chief executive, while Joel Klein, the chancellor of the New York City public schools makes $250,000.
In California, if Arnold Schwarzenegger were taking a salary (he has forgone accepting one since his net worth is valued at somewhere between $100-200 million), he'd make $175,000, while Ramon C. Cortines, the superintendent in Los Angeles Unified, pulls down $250,000 (Cortines voluntarily took a $50,000 pay cut from what his predecessor was earning in the job). In some states, you could certainly argue that being a school superintendent is a more difficult job worthy of more compensation, though I don't think that is the case currently in California and New York, where both governors have found it next to impossible to govern much of anything lately.
In a small state like Nebraska, Gov. David Heineman makes $105,000 a year. Steve Joel, the superintendent in Lincoln, one of the state's largest districts, makes $255,000 (that's his entire compensation package, not just base salary).
What do you think? Do school superintendents—who do very hard, politically bruising, often thankless work—deserve the sort of hefty, six-figure compensation deals that Christie is going after? How should we assign value to those gigs?
[Continue Reading]
From the State Edwatch blog
By Lesli Maxwell on July 19, 2010 12:50 PM
Lesli A. Maxwell, who reports on state policy for Education Week, covered state government, politics, and higher education in California for eight years.
News about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's proposal to cap the salaries of district superintendents spread like wildfire late last week. Christie, a Republican overseeing a recession-battered state, has aggressively gone after what he sees as excessive spending across the public sector, and schools have been among his targets.
His announcement last week to target highly-paid school administrators struck a chord in some corners and today Christie's proposal got a ringing endorsement from editorial writers at the Star-Ledger in Newark.
Christie makes $175,000, less than the salaries of 75 percent of New Jersey's local supes, according to the Star-Ledger. It seems that local boards in New Jersey have offered especially lucrative contracts to their honchos, regardless of district size or performance, according to the newspaper.
Intuitively, it seems completely out of whack for a district superintendent to make more than the CEO of an entire state. But some of this has to do with the fact that some salaries for governors were set eons ago and don't get tweaked much. No one has to use a compensation package to get the best "hire" for the governor's office; those folks self-select by running for the office. While governors and superintendents are public servants, they operate in entirely different markets.
Still, it's instructive to compare the salaries of the two positions.
In New York, Gov. David Paterson is pulling down $179,000 (last year, he took a 10 percent pay cut) as the state's chief executive, while Joel Klein, the chancellor of the New York City public schools makes $250,000.
In California, if Arnold Schwarzenegger were taking a salary (he has forgone accepting one since his net worth is valued at somewhere between $100-200 million), he'd make $175,000, while Ramon C. Cortines, the superintendent in Los Angeles Unified, pulls down $250,000 (Cortines voluntarily took a $50,000 pay cut from what his predecessor was earning in the job). In some states, you could certainly argue that being a school superintendent is a more difficult job worthy of more compensation, though I don't think that is the case currently in California and New York, where both governors have found it next to impossible to govern much of anything lately.
In a small state like Nebraska, Gov. David Heineman makes $105,000 a year. Steve Joel, the superintendent in Lincoln, one of the state's largest districts, makes $255,000 (that's his entire compensation package, not just base salary).
What do you think? Do school superintendents—who do very hard, politically bruising, often thankless work—deserve the sort of hefty, six-figure compensation deals that Christie is going after? How should we assign value to those gigs?
Sunday, July 18, 2010
What IS Mother-Friendly Care?
I've been tossing this phrase, Mother-Friendly, around for months now, but I am beginning to realize that people have very different ideas of what constitutes true Mother-Friendly care, as defined by the Coalition for Improving Maternity Services (CIMS).
First, let me say that Mother-Friendly is short for the Mother-Friendly Childbirth Initiative (MFCI). There are 10 steps, which I will address in this post. They are very specific and some steps are harder to achieve than others. Do not just assume that your care provider is Mother-Friendly. Put them on the spot. Ask them. These steps are based on the evidence.
A Mother-Friendly Care Provider, Hospital, Birth Center, or Home Birth Practice:
1. Offers all birthing mothers access to a doula, or anyone else they wish to have at their birth. She also has access to professional midwifery care.
2. Provides their statistics to the public about all aspects of their birth care, including measures of interventions and outcomes.
3. Is respectful and sensitive to the beliefs, values, and customs of the mother's ethnicity and religion.
4. Provides the birthing woman with the freedom to walk, move about, and choose her positions during labor and birth and discourages the supine (flat on back) position.
5. Has clearly defined policies and procedures for collaborating with the original caregiver during the perinatal period when transfer from one birth site to another is necessary. They will also link the new mother and baby to appropriate community resources, including during and after the pregnancy and follow-up breastfeeding support.
6. Does not routinely practice the following procedures that are unsupported by scientific evidence, including by not limited to the following:
*shaving
* enemas
* IVs
* withholding food or water
* early rupture of membranes
* Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM)
* Induction rate of 10% or less
* episiotomy rate of 20% or less, with a goal of 5% or less
* total c-section rate of 10% or less in community hospitals and 15% or less in high-risk hospitals
* VBAC rate of 60% or more with a goal of 75% or more.
7. Educates staff in non-drug methods of pain relief and does not promote the use of analgesic or anesthetic drugs not specifically required to correct a complication.
8. Encourages all mothers and families, including those with sick or premature infants, to hold, touch, breastfeed, and care for their babies to the extent compatible with their conditions.
9. Discourages non-religious circumcision of the newborn.
10. Strives to achieve the WHO-UNICEF "Ten Steps of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative" to promote successful breastfeeding:
1. Have a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff.
2. Train all health care staff in in skills necessary to implement this policy.
3. Inform all pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding.
4. Help mothers initiate breastfeeding within a half-hour of birth.
5. Show mothers how to breastfeed and how to maintain lactation even if they should be separated from their infants.
6. Give newborn infants no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated.
7. Practice rooming in; allow mothers and infants to remain together 24 hours a day.
8. Encourage breastfeeding on demand.
9. Give no artificial teats or pacifiers to breastfeeding infants.
10. Foster the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and refer mothers to them on discharge from hospitals or clinics.
This is the criteria the members of the Tarrant County Birth Network support, believe in, and ultimately practice. Next time someone says they are Mother-Friendly, you'll be able to know exactly what that means. It's not just a catch-phrase - sure, no one is hostile towards mothers - but are they truly supporting these mothers and fathers in becoming a family? Step number six is pretty intense and where a lot of care providers do not qualify for Mother-Friendly status.
Mother-Friendly status is what all care providers should be striving for. Ask your care provider if he/she is Mother-Friendly and what they are doing to become Mother-Friendly. This is the way we are going to change maternity care in the US. This market is consumer driven, and you are the consumer. Demand Mother-Friendly care.
[Continue Reading]
First, let me say that Mother-Friendly is short for the Mother-Friendly Childbirth Initiative (MFCI). There are 10 steps, which I will address in this post. They are very specific and some steps are harder to achieve than others. Do not just assume that your care provider is Mother-Friendly. Put them on the spot. Ask them. These steps are based on the evidence.
A Mother-Friendly Care Provider, Hospital, Birth Center, or Home Birth Practice:
1. Offers all birthing mothers access to a doula, or anyone else they wish to have at their birth. She also has access to professional midwifery care.
2. Provides their statistics to the public about all aspects of their birth care, including measures of interventions and outcomes.
3. Is respectful and sensitive to the beliefs, values, and customs of the mother's ethnicity and religion.
4. Provides the birthing woman with the freedom to walk, move about, and choose her positions during labor and birth and discourages the supine (flat on back) position.
5. Has clearly defined policies and procedures for collaborating with the original caregiver during the perinatal period when transfer from one birth site to another is necessary. They will also link the new mother and baby to appropriate community resources, including during and after the pregnancy and follow-up breastfeeding support.
6. Does not routinely practice the following procedures that are unsupported by scientific evidence, including by not limited to the following:
*shaving
* enemas
* IVs
* withholding food or water
* early rupture of membranes
* Electronic Fetal Monitoring (EFM)
* Induction rate of 10% or less
* episiotomy rate of 20% or less, with a goal of 5% or less
* total c-section rate of 10% or less in community hospitals and 15% or less in high-risk hospitals
* VBAC rate of 60% or more with a goal of 75% or more.
7. Educates staff in non-drug methods of pain relief and does not promote the use of analgesic or anesthetic drugs not specifically required to correct a complication.
8. Encourages all mothers and families, including those with sick or premature infants, to hold, touch, breastfeed, and care for their babies to the extent compatible with their conditions.
9. Discourages non-religious circumcision of the newborn.
10. Strives to achieve the WHO-UNICEF "Ten Steps of the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative" to promote successful breastfeeding:
1. Have a written breastfeeding policy that is routinely communicated to all health care staff.
2. Train all health care staff in in skills necessary to implement this policy.
3. Inform all pregnant women about the benefits and management of breastfeeding.
4. Help mothers initiate breastfeeding within a half-hour of birth.
5. Show mothers how to breastfeed and how to maintain lactation even if they should be separated from their infants.
6. Give newborn infants no food or drink other than breast milk unless medically indicated.
7. Practice rooming in; allow mothers and infants to remain together 24 hours a day.
8. Encourage breastfeeding on demand.
9. Give no artificial teats or pacifiers to breastfeeding infants.
10. Foster the establishment of breastfeeding support groups and refer mothers to them on discharge from hospitals or clinics.
This is the criteria the members of the Tarrant County Birth Network support, believe in, and ultimately practice. Next time someone says they are Mother-Friendly, you'll be able to know exactly what that means. It's not just a catch-phrase - sure, no one is hostile towards mothers - but are they truly supporting these mothers and fathers in becoming a family? Step number six is pretty intense and where a lot of care providers do not qualify for Mother-Friendly status.
Mother-Friendly status is what all care providers should be striving for. Ask your care provider if he/she is Mother-Friendly and what they are doing to become Mother-Friendly. This is the way we are going to change maternity care in the US. This market is consumer driven, and you are the consumer. Demand Mother-Friendly care.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Death of Blognetnews...
BlogNetNews.com quietly slipped away last week.
Sad to say it looks like they are the've become the lastest casualty of the recession. From the Facebook page of Dave Mastio, creater of BlogNetNews.com:
[Continue Reading]
Sad to say it looks like they are the've become the lastest casualty of the recession. From the Facebook page of Dave Mastio, creater of BlogNetNews.com:
I think blognetnews is gone for good,
or at least until the economy picks back up again.
Education Reformers: Willfully Blind
The grassroots organization, Teachers' Letters to Obama, held a teach-in Tuesday night featuring educator turned Congresswoman Judy Chu and conservative education scholar turned critic, Diane Ravitch. (You can hear the recording here.) Once you load Elluminatelive, give it a few minutes for the for the dialogue to begin.
The following excerpt is from Living in Dialogue Blog by Anthony Cody.
The Education Reformers: Willfully Blind
By Anthony Cody on July 15, 2010 8:19 PM
...There is an oil and water phenomenon at work here. Our perception of the reality in our schools is so drastically different from that of the administration that the two cannot seem to coexist in the same space and time.
To be fair the paradigm of school reform we are facing did not begin with this administration. They have merely adopted it for whatever reasons. But let's be clear about what we are up against. We can offer positive solutions all day long, but until we share a common awareness of reality, we will not be heard. So what is at the heart of this disconnect?
The central claim of the "education reformers" in and out of the administration is that our schools, and in particular, teachers who hold low expectations, are the reason for the differences we see in performance between different socioeconomic groups. To bolster this, they cite research that shows that some teachers are better able to lift student performance than others. So, if we had nothing but great teachers like these, our problems would be solved. But while many of us have invested heavily in our own efforts to become more effective, and in processes such as National Board certification that offer ways to demonstrate and elevate our practice, these processes alone are not going to eradicate the inequities faced by our students.
Ironically, the administration co-opts the language of the Civil Rights Movement to proclaim education as "the civil rights issue of our generation." The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s were deeply concerned about education, but they understood very well that fighting poverty was fundamental to the health of their communities. So-called reformers have turned civil rights on its head, and no longer worry about the resegregation of schools, or the vast inequities in funding between wealthy and impoverished schools, or the widespread poverty and violence in these communities. Now these are dismissed as excuses offered by the real culprits, those teachers who set low standards and allow their students to fail, and the unions that protect them...
Re-post: What We Have Here Is a Failure to Educate
A Report from Delaware Liberal By nemski:
If you are a parent of a child in the Delaware public school system, yesterday you most likely received your child’s DSTP (Delaware State Testing Program) scores. Things might be fine with your child, but things are not fine across the board as a matter of fact education in Delaware is getting much worse.
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/07/16/what-we-have-here-is-a-failure-to-educate/
Spoiler: RTTT is not the answer.
[Continue Reading]
If you are a parent of a child in the Delaware public school system, yesterday you most likely received your child’s DSTP (Delaware State Testing Program) scores. Things might be fine with your child, but things are not fine across the board as a matter of fact education in Delaware is getting much worse.
http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/07/16/what-we-have-here-is-a-failure-to-educate/
Spoiler: RTTT is not the answer.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
FOIA Request Forces Mississippi Consolidation Plan Public
Secret's Out on School Consolidation in Mississippi
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rural_education/2010/07/secrets_out_on_school_consolidation_in_mississippi.html
By Mary Schulken on July 13, 2010 4:56 PM
The facts are now out on school consolidation in rural Mississippi.
On Tuesday, local advocacy group Southern Echo posted on its web site a table and a map showing data used to recommend consolidation of 18 rural, high-poverty school districts in the state. The state commission studying consolidation and the consultant that prepared the report had kept that information secret, but Southern Echo and the non-profit MS Delta Catalyst Roundtable used the state's open records law to get the data from the state Department of Public Instruction.
That disclosure may provide additional fuel for groups such as Southern Echo that are fighting consolidation. Earlier this year, a commission appointed by Gov. Haley Barbour tentatively recommended merging rural, predominantly African-American districts in the Mississippi Delta. Then, in June, confronted with public criticism over secrecy and anger at the prospect of disbanding school districts, the commission asked for more time for its members to reach a consensus.
The consolidation debate in Mississippi began in January, when Barbour appointed a panel, the Commission on Mississippi Education Structure, to look at closing school districts in that state. Barbour has said he would like to see a reduction of the state's 152 districts to about 100, which he has said would save the state millions of dollars over time.
The table and map show the Quality Distribution Index (student performance) rankings, the enrollments, and the cost per student of central office expenses for the 2008-2009 school year for the 18 districts targeted for consolidation. The consultant's report based its projections of cost savings on that data.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Teachers Letters to Obama: Is Chuck on the mark?
From Living in Dialogue by Anthony Cody
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2010/07/hthe_devil_in_the_details_hard.html
After 18 years as a science teacher in inner-city Oakland, Calif., Anthony Cody now works with a team of experienced science teacher-coaches who support the many novice teachers in his school district. He is a National Board-certified teacher and an active member of the Teacher Leaders Network. With education at a crossroads, he invites you to join him in a dialogue on education reform and teaching for change and deep learning. For additional information on Cody's work, visit his Web site, Teachers Lead. Or follow him on Twitter.
Also, checkout Teachers Letters to Obama at
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=166176941518&ref=ts#!/group.php?gid=166176941518&v=wall&ref=ts
The Devil in the Details: Hard Lessons from a Turned-around School
By Anthony Cody on July 12, 2010 2:07 PM
Congress is currently considering reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, with some modifications put forward by the Obama administration. This law was originally enacted with little input from educators, and our students and schools have paid the price. Over at Teachers' Letters to Obama, we are seeking letters from teachers expressing our firsthand understanding about what works and what does not, as a means of informing those who make policy. Los Angeles teacher Chuck Olynyk has offered such a letter.
From: Charles V. Olynyk
Social Studies teacher
Los Angeles Unified School District
stiepnik@yahoo.com
Dear President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Members of Congress:
Several members of our Teachers' Letters to Obama (TLO) group of educators recently had the honor of sharing with Secretary Duncan our concerns with the direction of federal education reform's Race to the Top initiative. I was one of them--or rather, was scheduled to be, as the conversation was cut short.
Following that, in various publications were reports of Department of Education assertions that teachers support RTTT. This claim is expressly contrary to the position statement we issued, nor does it reflect the sentiments of thousands of teachers who have reported corresponding with you, Mr. President.
Some clarification is in order.
Improvement or "turn-around" programs for struggling schools must be flexible and participatory. Teachers, students, and community members need to be involved in discussions and problem-solving. Moreover, we do not believe the current four options are adequate and recommend instead the strategies in the Strengthening Our Schools proposal now before Congress.
I will speak directly to one attempt to "improve" a struggling school.
Until June 25 of this year, I taught World History at John C. Fremont High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District. While we were a school with a checkered past, (including having principals lasting an average of 23 months) we were a school on the move. Our test scores were on the rise, in fact had been for a number of years. We were not on the California list of worst schools because of said rise.
It can be attributed to dividing the 4600 students on a year-round calendar into thirteen Small Learning Communities, each with one counselor seeing to the needs of 400 students. Teachers shared the same kids. Problems could be spotted. Help could be given.
Additionally, from October through December, the Fremont faculty voted to collaborate with the Los Angeles Education Partnership (LAEP) to strengthen the SLCs and improve instruction and support for students. At the same time, Fremont finally developed a Single Plan created by teachers, parents and students. This was the first time that teachers wrote the single plan document rather than an administrator. It was the first time that the parent advisory councils at Fremont wrote out their recommendations and these were embedded in the single plan. The plan called for clear action steps to address the key focus areas such as ELA, Math, Graduation, Parent Engagement, and Attendance.
Yet, on December 9th, 2009, Superintendent Ramon Cortines designated us for "reconstitution". That later became "restructuring.". What I do know is that the principal did not have to reapply (because it was his first year), but the entire staff was told to reapply or be moved elsewhere; they were also reassured that most would have their jobs, as long as signed and agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding, which would assign additional duties to the returning staff. Teachers were also "invited" to joined "committees" to advise the restructuring/reconfiguration of Fremont High. You will please make note that the teacher input was to be of a purely "advisory" nature. Parents were to be informed and made a part of the process, as were students.
Yet a new structure for the school was developed without teacher input. The thirteen learning communities or SLCs were to become six Academies of 500 each, and three 9th Grade Centers of 600 students, served by a single counselor. I cannot stress enough that to increase the counselors' caseloads by such percentages will prove detrimental to the students, whose education is to be improved by this folly. Add to this, in a school where the average 10th grade student misses 25-30 days out of a 162 day school year (year-round schools on our schedule have longer but fewer days than traditional schools), a block schedule, which was voted down by the faculty, is now being instituted; for those not involved in education professionally, each day missed by a student will actually impact them all the more severely.
In addition, the Superintendent said the parents and students would be informed. Yet a group of teachers were able to collect over 700 signatures of parents who lived nearby and who were not informed at all of changes at the school, nor input solicited.
Another factor has to be tossed in: while teachers were reassured by Superintendent Ramon Cortines, the Local District 7 Superintendent Dr. George McKenna III and the principal that most teachers would retain their jobs if only they were to reapply, it turns out that in order to obtain a School Improvement Grant (SIG), that Fremont could retain no more than 50% of the original faculty. Aside from the issue of just being plain underhanded, you will now have a faculty at a "struggling school" (which did not make the California worst schools list because of improvements in test scores), which has had the average teacher last less than three years and the average principal last 23 months, with 50% new staff. It should also be noted than many of the positions for Fremont, which begins the school year on July 6th, remain unfilled or will be filled by long-term substitute teachers.
Getting rid of all the teachers or even half the teachers does little to address the deeper problems. The key is to personalize the learning, to develop relationships. I keep thinking of an anthropology book called "Small Is Beautiful," by Schumaker, which can be applied to those struggling schools. Isn't this the concept behind Small Learning Communities, to personalize education, the village raising a child, to cite the West African proverb? To be able to have (besides the smaller class sizes we all long for but will probably never appear) a group of teachers sharing a group of students (at the Mont, each SLC is about 400, which works for US) so that we know the problems of the kids and are able to plan for grade-level and vertical teaming, lowering the number of students who "slip through the cracks." One of the successes we had in the use of SLCs is what I call the Legacy Effect. Brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews and cousins learn to look forward to being in the same program, which builds success.
Extending the year won't do it, nor will an introduction of block scheduling, because these students already have a bad track record for attendance; the block schedule looks like a quick-fix to recover lost credits. Our faculty has also voted against it. So, short of reducing class sizes, I think this might be the best path. Growth and progress seem slow, but do you want to build quick and shoddy or for long-term? At this point, not only will there be a shortage of qualified teachers (isn't that what NCLB was about, to begin with?), but now I personally know juniors who have decided that they do not wish to sacrifice their educations to this grand experiment--and they have brothers and sisters... Many sophomores I know are following suit. The New Fremont will not only bleed qualified teachers, but the students we entered this profession to serve.
It is my hope that I put a human face on what is happening in the name of RTTT and school improvement. The "turn-around" program for Fremont High School has been neither flexible nor participatory. Teachers, students, and community members were not involved in discussions nor problem-solving. Let this travesty not repeat itself in other schools. Learn the lesson of Fremont High. I recommend you closely examine the strategies in the Strengthening Our Schools proposal now before Congress.
The future of our schools is in your hands.
Charles V. Olynyk
The subject of "turn-around schools" will be the focus of the Teachers' Letters to Obama teach-in next Tuesday, July 13, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm Pacific time, 8:30 to 10"30 pm Eastern time. We will hear from Congresswoman Judy Chu, who has introduced legislation in Congress called Strengthening Our Schools, which offers a much sounder framework for school improvement. We will also talk with Diane Ravitch, who has been a vocal critic of NCLB and its step-children, Race to the Top and the ESEA Blueprint. The registration is now full, but the recorded session will be posted soon afterwards.
What do you think of Chuck's experiences at Fremont High? How could we do a better job supporting teachers and students at struggling schools?
[Continue Reading]
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2010/07/hthe_devil_in_the_details_hard.html
After 18 years as a science teacher in inner-city Oakland, Calif., Anthony Cody now works with a team of experienced science teacher-coaches who support the many novice teachers in his school district. He is a National Board-certified teacher and an active member of the Teacher Leaders Network. With education at a crossroads, he invites you to join him in a dialogue on education reform and teaching for change and deep learning. For additional information on Cody's work, visit his Web site, Teachers Lead. Or follow him on Twitter.
Also, checkout Teachers Letters to Obama at
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=166176941518&ref=ts#!/group.php?gid=166176941518&v=wall&ref=ts
The Devil in the Details: Hard Lessons from a Turned-around School
By Anthony Cody on July 12, 2010 2:07 PM
Congress is currently considering reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, with some modifications put forward by the Obama administration. This law was originally enacted with little input from educators, and our students and schools have paid the price. Over at Teachers' Letters to Obama, we are seeking letters from teachers expressing our firsthand understanding about what works and what does not, as a means of informing those who make policy. Los Angeles teacher Chuck Olynyk has offered such a letter.
From: Charles V. Olynyk
Social Studies teacher
Los Angeles Unified School District
stiepnik@yahoo.com
Dear President Obama, Secretary Duncan and Members of Congress:
Several members of our Teachers' Letters to Obama (TLO) group of educators recently had the honor of sharing with Secretary Duncan our concerns with the direction of federal education reform's Race to the Top initiative. I was one of them--or rather, was scheduled to be, as the conversation was cut short.
Following that, in various publications were reports of Department of Education assertions that teachers support RTTT. This claim is expressly contrary to the position statement we issued, nor does it reflect the sentiments of thousands of teachers who have reported corresponding with you, Mr. President.
Some clarification is in order.
Improvement or "turn-around" programs for struggling schools must be flexible and participatory. Teachers, students, and community members need to be involved in discussions and problem-solving. Moreover, we do not believe the current four options are adequate and recommend instead the strategies in the Strengthening Our Schools proposal now before Congress.
I will speak directly to one attempt to "improve" a struggling school.
Until June 25 of this year, I taught World History at John C. Fremont High School in the Los Angeles Unified School District. While we were a school with a checkered past, (including having principals lasting an average of 23 months) we were a school on the move. Our test scores were on the rise, in fact had been for a number of years. We were not on the California list of worst schools because of said rise.
It can be attributed to dividing the 4600 students on a year-round calendar into thirteen Small Learning Communities, each with one counselor seeing to the needs of 400 students. Teachers shared the same kids. Problems could be spotted. Help could be given.
Additionally, from October through December, the Fremont faculty voted to collaborate with the Los Angeles Education Partnership (LAEP) to strengthen the SLCs and improve instruction and support for students. At the same time, Fremont finally developed a Single Plan created by teachers, parents and students. This was the first time that teachers wrote the single plan document rather than an administrator. It was the first time that the parent advisory councils at Fremont wrote out their recommendations and these were embedded in the single plan. The plan called for clear action steps to address the key focus areas such as ELA, Math, Graduation, Parent Engagement, and Attendance.
Yet, on December 9th, 2009, Superintendent Ramon Cortines designated us for "reconstitution". That later became "restructuring.". What I do know is that the principal did not have to reapply (because it was his first year), but the entire staff was told to reapply or be moved elsewhere; they were also reassured that most would have their jobs, as long as signed and agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding, which would assign additional duties to the returning staff. Teachers were also "invited" to joined "committees" to advise the restructuring/reconfiguration of Fremont High. You will please make note that the teacher input was to be of a purely "advisory" nature. Parents were to be informed and made a part of the process, as were students.
Yet a new structure for the school was developed without teacher input. The thirteen learning communities or SLCs were to become six Academies of 500 each, and three 9th Grade Centers of 600 students, served by a single counselor. I cannot stress enough that to increase the counselors' caseloads by such percentages will prove detrimental to the students, whose education is to be improved by this folly. Add to this, in a school where the average 10th grade student misses 25-30 days out of a 162 day school year (year-round schools on our schedule have longer but fewer days than traditional schools), a block schedule, which was voted down by the faculty, is now being instituted; for those not involved in education professionally, each day missed by a student will actually impact them all the more severely.
In addition, the Superintendent said the parents and students would be informed. Yet a group of teachers were able to collect over 700 signatures of parents who lived nearby and who were not informed at all of changes at the school, nor input solicited.
Another factor has to be tossed in: while teachers were reassured by Superintendent Ramon Cortines, the Local District 7 Superintendent Dr. George McKenna III and the principal that most teachers would retain their jobs if only they were to reapply, it turns out that in order to obtain a School Improvement Grant (SIG), that Fremont could retain no more than 50% of the original faculty. Aside from the issue of just being plain underhanded, you will now have a faculty at a "struggling school" (which did not make the California worst schools list because of improvements in test scores), which has had the average teacher last less than three years and the average principal last 23 months, with 50% new staff. It should also be noted than many of the positions for Fremont, which begins the school year on July 6th, remain unfilled or will be filled by long-term substitute teachers.
Getting rid of all the teachers or even half the teachers does little to address the deeper problems. The key is to personalize the learning, to develop relationships. I keep thinking of an anthropology book called "Small Is Beautiful," by Schumaker, which can be applied to those struggling schools. Isn't this the concept behind Small Learning Communities, to personalize education, the village raising a child, to cite the West African proverb? To be able to have (besides the smaller class sizes we all long for but will probably never appear) a group of teachers sharing a group of students (at the Mont, each SLC is about 400, which works for US) so that we know the problems of the kids and are able to plan for grade-level and vertical teaming, lowering the number of students who "slip through the cracks." One of the successes we had in the use of SLCs is what I call the Legacy Effect. Brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews and cousins learn to look forward to being in the same program, which builds success.
Extending the year won't do it, nor will an introduction of block scheduling, because these students already have a bad track record for attendance; the block schedule looks like a quick-fix to recover lost credits. Our faculty has also voted against it. So, short of reducing class sizes, I think this might be the best path. Growth and progress seem slow, but do you want to build quick and shoddy or for long-term? At this point, not only will there be a shortage of qualified teachers (isn't that what NCLB was about, to begin with?), but now I personally know juniors who have decided that they do not wish to sacrifice their educations to this grand experiment--and they have brothers and sisters... Many sophomores I know are following suit. The New Fremont will not only bleed qualified teachers, but the students we entered this profession to serve.
It is my hope that I put a human face on what is happening in the name of RTTT and school improvement. The "turn-around" program for Fremont High School has been neither flexible nor participatory. Teachers, students, and community members were not involved in discussions nor problem-solving. Let this travesty not repeat itself in other schools. Learn the lesson of Fremont High. I recommend you closely examine the strategies in the Strengthening Our Schools proposal now before Congress.
The future of our schools is in your hands.
Charles V. Olynyk
The subject of "turn-around schools" will be the focus of the Teachers' Letters to Obama teach-in next Tuesday, July 13, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm Pacific time, 8:30 to 10"30 pm Eastern time. We will hear from Congresswoman Judy Chu, who has introduced legislation in Congress called Strengthening Our Schools, which offers a much sounder framework for school improvement. We will also talk with Diane Ravitch, who has been a vocal critic of NCLB and its step-children, Race to the Top and the ESEA Blueprint. The registration is now full, but the recorded session will be posted soon afterwards.
What do you think of Chuck's experiences at Fremont High? How could we do a better job supporting teachers and students at struggling schools?
More from Detroit -- This time its Mayoral Control
Detroit Council Told to Put School Control Issue on Ballot
By Peggy Walsh-Sarnecki, Detroit Free Press (MCT)
Detroit City Council members said Monday that they need more information about how mayoral oversight of Detroit Public Schools would operate before putting the issue on the November ballot.
Change for Better Schools has collected 30,704 signatures supporting mayoral oversight and is to present the petitions to the council today.
The group cites several reasons for pushing for the change, including the fact that the district has had four superintendents since the school board was reconstituted in 2006, DPS's 30% dropout rate and its dismal scores on national tests.
The group's plea to the City Council: Even if you don't agree with us, let the people decide... MORE HERE!
A friend lost, A community mourns
Rest Peacefully, friend.
this song is dedicated to Tom Pitts, who selflessly supported the autism cause, who through his dedicated volunteerism helped to provided support for children and adults with autism and their families. Tom's wife and family are in our hearts today and always.
Memories
Let them fill your mind,
warm your heart
and lead you through.
this song is dedicated to Tom Pitts, who selflessly supported the autism cause, who through his dedicated volunteerism helped to provided support for children and adults with autism and their families. Tom's wife and family are in our hearts today and always.
Memories
Let them fill your mind,
warm your heart
and lead you through.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Centering
Centering is coming to Fort Worth! No, it's not a yoga pose. It is actually a method of maternity care. I hope this post explains the Centering program and you will be as excited as I am.
Centering is typically done by midwives -- at least I haven't heard of any OBs doing it. In very simple terms, it's group prenatal care. Often, "patients" have the option of doing their prenatal appointments in this manner where it is offered. If a woman chooses to "center" she'll be put in a group with other women who are due about the same time or month, depending on the size of the practice.
The women arrive at the same time at the clinic, birth center, or office. They will each weigh themselves, as well chart their own blood pressure and do their own "pee stick." This puts their health care directly in their own hands. Then, each will have a couple of minutes with the midwife to measure fundal height and listen to the baby. The midwife will typically ask if she has anything she wants to talk about that is too personal for the group. If not, she goes to the circle and waits for the other women to join the group.
The group usually sits in a circle. It is not a classroom by any means! There will usually be a topic, such as the size of the baby, typical pregnancy symptoms, etc. Your midwife is sitting eye to eye with the group. This puts her on a different level with her clients. She has the opportunity to get to know these women in a very different setting than a provider-patient setting.
Because less than 1/4 of pregnant women take a childbirth class, this also meets a need -- whether they know it or not! -- to become educated on the process of labor and birth. This is very empowering to have this knowledge. Many women find that the fears they previously felt about giving birth are replaced with excitement and anticipation.
The group cheers each other on. They become a resource and support for one another. The midwife may not know the best place to buy a nursing bra, but I bet someone in the group does!
The appointments run about an hour in length. 94% of women who have centered say they would do it again. From a business standpoint, this is such a smart model. It saves the midwife hours in her day. Centering groups are usually made up of 8-12 women. From the consumer standpoint, women are not sitting in a waiting room and then only getting their provider's attention for a few minutes each month.
The UNT Midwives are beginning Centering in August. There are midwives practicing Centering all over the country, with great success. I expect we will start seeing more and more of this trend. It's a good thing and I am grateful it has found its way to Fort Worth!
[Continue Reading]
Centering is typically done by midwives -- at least I haven't heard of any OBs doing it. In very simple terms, it's group prenatal care. Often, "patients" have the option of doing their prenatal appointments in this manner where it is offered. If a woman chooses to "center" she'll be put in a group with other women who are due about the same time or month, depending on the size of the practice.
The women arrive at the same time at the clinic, birth center, or office. They will each weigh themselves, as well chart their own blood pressure and do their own "pee stick." This puts their health care directly in their own hands. Then, each will have a couple of minutes with the midwife to measure fundal height and listen to the baby. The midwife will typically ask if she has anything she wants to talk about that is too personal for the group. If not, she goes to the circle and waits for the other women to join the group.
The group usually sits in a circle. It is not a classroom by any means! There will usually be a topic, such as the size of the baby, typical pregnancy symptoms, etc. Your midwife is sitting eye to eye with the group. This puts her on a different level with her clients. She has the opportunity to get to know these women in a very different setting than a provider-patient setting.
Because less than 1/4 of pregnant women take a childbirth class, this also meets a need -- whether they know it or not! -- to become educated on the process of labor and birth. This is very empowering to have this knowledge. Many women find that the fears they previously felt about giving birth are replaced with excitement and anticipation.
The group cheers each other on. They become a resource and support for one another. The midwife may not know the best place to buy a nursing bra, but I bet someone in the group does!
The appointments run about an hour in length. 94% of women who have centered say they would do it again. From a business standpoint, this is such a smart model. It saves the midwife hours in her day. Centering groups are usually made up of 8-12 women. From the consumer standpoint, women are not sitting in a waiting room and then only getting their provider's attention for a few minutes each month.
The UNT Midwives are beginning Centering in August. There are midwives practicing Centering all over the country, with great success. I expect we will start seeing more and more of this trend. It's a good thing and I am grateful it has found its way to Fort Worth!
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Close it or Help It?
Educational Historian, Dianne Ravitch sets the record straight...
In New Book, Diane Ravitch Recants Long-Held Beliefs from Education Week on Vimeo.
From another point on the political spectrum, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, sees much to be happy about in the book, which also characterizes current attempts to tie teachers’ pay to their students’ test-score gains as “teacher bashing.“She’s open to new ideas, and when they don’t work, she has the courage to say that,” the union leader said of Ms. Ravitch.
Christina Seeks Candidates for Open Board Seat
Christina School Board Member Resigns; Board Looks for Candidates to Fill Seat
John Mackenzie, who has served on the Christina School Board for seven years, has announced he must resign his board seat because he is relocating outside the district. His current term was not scheduled to expire until 2013.
An interim board member for District C will be appointed by the school board to serve for the remainder of the year. That person will have the option to run in the 2011 election to serve the remainder of the term.
The board is seeking nominations for that person. To qualify, nominees must reside in District C.
For more information, call the board secretary at 552-2653.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Feds Send $3.5 Billion in Title I Funds to the States, Districts Look for Ways to Dodge Rigidity...
Just a snippet of :
$3.5 Billion in Turnaround Aid Flowing to States
From: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/04/21/29turnaround.h29.html
[Continue Reading]
$3.5 Billion in Turnaround Aid Flowing to States
From: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/04/21/29turnaround.h29.html
Tanking Applications?
But Mr. Manwaring said districts that don’t want to undertake any of the turnaround approaches have a simple way of avoiding it.
“Effectively, a district that doesn’t want to participate in this can tank the application,” he said. “In most states, districts will be required to apply, but it doesn’t mean they have to apply well.”
Ms. Whalen said the federal department is willing to provide flexibility to states and districts so that they can deliver successful results in the neediest schools. One key to that, she said, is allowing states that can’t undertake turnaround strategies in all targeted schools by next fall to roll over 25 percent of the aid they receive this fiscal year to use in the next one.
“We are focused on quality, not quantity,” she said. “We’re trying to meet local needs based on what they are saying they have the capacity to do.”
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Full Day Kindergarten Deadline -- Thursday July 15th
REMINDER: The Deadline to Apply for Full-Day Kindergarten is
THURSDAY, JULY 15
Great news for Christina families—the District will expand Full-Day Kindergarten options to all of our elementary schools this year. (Note: Full-Day Kindergarten is already available in city elementary schools.) You must apply by the July 15 deadline to be considered for a Full-Day Kindergarten seat. Availability is limited, so please apply early!
Some families participated in the School Choice option for Full-Day Kindergarten for 2010, and have received notification about their child’s Choice placement for 2010. Those families will have priority to either stay in their choice school or return to their feeder school for Full-Day Kindergarten. Those families will be contacted first to discuss their preferences, and to submit required forms.
All suburban elementary schools will offer a total of 44 choice seats for Full-Day Kindergarten, and these will be filled as available. If more applications are received than seats that are available, a lottery process will go into effect for those seats with priority assigned to feeder students.
The deadline for applying for Full-Day Kindergarten is July 15, 2010.
Parents will be notified by mail during the week of July 26, 2010.
All remaining seats will be assigned half-day Kindergarten. All suburban schools will continue to offer half-day Kindergarten.
Full implementation of unlimited Full-Day Kindergarten is anticipated in 2011.
Children must be age 5 by August 31 to attend Kindergarten.
To Apply for Full-Day Kindergarten Choice:
The deadline for Full-Day Kindergarten Choice Re-Opening applications is Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Kindergarten Choice Re-Opening Forms are available in English and Spanish at every Christina Elementary School, and at the District Administrative Office. They are also available online at www.christina.k12.de.us/FDK. For more information, please contact the Education Options office at 552-2618.
COMPLETED APPLICATIONS must be mailed, faxed or hand delivered to:
• School Choice/Education Options Office
600 North Lombard Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
• Fax completed applications to: 302-429-4138
Schools will not accept applications. They must be mailed, faxed or hand delivered to the address and fax number listed above.
Congratulations!
Go to Mr. John Young and Ms. Shirley Saffer in their election to the offices of President and Vice President, respectively.
I've got a crazy day ahead of me, but if you run into your friendly neighborhood board member chaperoning a field trip at the Brandywine Zoo, be sure to say "hi!"
It's been a while since I recapped a meeting from the perspective of a parent turned board member, so I'll get that up this evening. Nancy, sorry to make you wait until then... But, you're right, it was a good board meeting, and I want to do it justice. Oh, for the first time in several months, we even adjourned that same day the meeting started!
Til then, folks, try to stay cool!
Elizabeth
[Continue Reading]
I've got a crazy day ahead of me, but if you run into your friendly neighborhood board member chaperoning a field trip at the Brandywine Zoo, be sure to say "hi!"
It's been a while since I recapped a meeting from the perspective of a parent turned board member, so I'll get that up this evening. Nancy, sorry to make you wait until then... But, you're right, it was a good board meeting, and I want to do it justice. Oh, for the first time in several months, we even adjourned that same day the meeting started!
Til then, folks, try to stay cool!
Elizabeth
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Christina Sees Smaller Tax Increase Than Expected
For More, Go Here:
Taxes are going up in the Christina School District but not as much as anticipated.
Updated at WDEL:
By LeAnne Matlach
Updated Wednesday, July 7, 2010 - 7:24am
Taxes are going up in the Christina School District but not as much as anticipated.
WDEL's LeAnne Matlach reports Audio Here
The district operating referendum approved in May increases taxes by 20 cents per $100 assessed property value but the debt service, tuition tax and match tax are being lowered by 5 and a half cents.
District CFO Bob Silbur says the reduction in some of the tax rates does not mean services to students will be cut.
The Christina School Board elected a new board president and vice president at Tuesday night's board meeting.
John Young will serve as president and Shirley Saffer vice president.
Young said the board is a unit where no one has more power than any other but he will do his part with whatever he can.
Dr. John Mackenzie announced his resignation at the meeting and Eric Anderson took the oath of office and became the boards newest member.
[Continue Reading]
Taxes are going up in the Christina School District but not as much as anticipated.
Updated at WDEL:
By LeAnne Matlach
Updated Wednesday, July 7, 2010 - 7:24am
Taxes are going up in the Christina School District but not as much as anticipated.
WDEL's LeAnne Matlach reports Audio Here
The district operating referendum approved in May increases taxes by 20 cents per $100 assessed property value but the debt service, tuition tax and match tax are being lowered by 5 and a half cents.
District CFO Bob Silbur says the reduction in some of the tax rates does not mean services to students will be cut.
The Christina School Board elected a new board president and vice president at Tuesday night's board meeting.
John Young will serve as president and Shirley Saffer vice president.
Young said the board is a unit where no one has more power than any other but he will do his part with whatever he can.
Dr. John Mackenzie announced his resignation at the meeting and Eric Anderson took the oath of office and became the boards newest member.
When a goodbye is so unexpected and sudden
when the pain seems unbearable
and the loss impossible
it is the wise heart that knows
that sometimes
it has to look back
and remember
in order to look forward
and hope
[Continue Reading]
when the pain seems unbearable
and the loss impossible
it is the wise heart that knows
that sometimes
it has to look back
and remember
in order to look forward
and hope
Monday, July 5, 2010
Public Board Meeting, 7/6/10
Tuesday, July 6
Board of Education
General Business Meeting
7:30 pm
Bancroft Elementary
Agenda
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Selection by the Bancroft Boys Choir
Pledge of Allegiance led by Jermaine Sanders, Bancroft Elementary School 5th Grader
III. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER
Mr. Eric M. Anderson Pg. 1
IV. REORGANIZATION OF CHRISTINA BOARD OF EDUCATION
A. Officer Election Process and Motion to Authorize Executive Secretary to Initiate Procedure For Pgs. 2-3
Officer Election Under 14 Delaware Code §1045
B. Executive Secretary Call for Nominations for President and Election of President
C. Elected President Call for Nominations for Vice President and Election of Vice President
D. Appointment of Superintendent as Executive Secretary
E. Election of Representative to DSBA Board of Directors and Alternate
F. Election of Representative to DSBA Legislative Committee and Alternate
G. Membership In Delaware School Boards Association Pg. 4
V. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THIS EVENING’S AGENDA
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 7, 2010 – Agenda Preparation Meeting Pgs. 5-7
B. June 8, 2010 – Executive Session Meeting Pg. 8
C. June 8, 2010 – Regular Session Meeting Pgs. 9-17
D. June 22, 2010 – Executive Session Meeting Pg. 18
E. June 22, 2010 – Regular Session Meeting Pgs. 19-20
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
VIII. CITIZENS BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPORT
IX . SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT
A. Report of The Community School
X. ACTION ITEMS
A. Administrative Personnel Recommendations
B. Approval of 2011 Tax Warrant and Resolution Pg. 21
C. Citizens Budget Oversight Committee
D. Renewal of Leases – Networks Program Pg. 22
E. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Personnel Recommendations Pgs. 23-26
2. Monthly Financial Report Pgs. 27-36
3. Choice Recommendation – 2010-2011 Pgs. 37-38
4. Choice Termination Recommendation – 2009-2010 Pg. 39-40
5. Bid Awards:
Bid Number Name of Bid
(a) Bid #05-10-04 District Wide Asphalt and Concrete Repairs Pgs. 41-42
(b) Bid #06-10-05 Christina High School Gym Floor Pg. 43
(c) Bid #06-10-06 Gauger-Cobbs Middle School 4.1 HVAC Unit Replacement Pg. 44
(d) Bid #CSD-2010-18 Elementary Counselors Pgs. 45-46
6. Resolutions on Upcoming Meetings:
(a) Resolution on Agenda Preparation Meeting, Monday, August 9, 2010, Pg. 47
12:00 Noon, Drew Educational Support Center
(b) Resolution on Executive Session Meeting, Tuesday, August 10, 2010, Pg. 47
6:00 PM, Downes Elementary School
F. Student Re-Admission Recommendations
G. Student Expulsion Recommendations
H. Items Pulled From Consent Agenda
XI. BOARD MEMBERS’ COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Other District/Community Meetings, Site Visits, Training Seminars, Conferences Attended
XII. ITEMS SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD
A. Information Requests
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING BOARD MEETING: AUGUST 10, 2010, DOWNES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
[Continue Reading]
Board of Education
General Business Meeting
7:30 pm
Bancroft Elementary
Agenda
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Selection by the Bancroft Boys Choir
Pledge of Allegiance led by Jermaine Sanders, Bancroft Elementary School 5th Grader
III. OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEW SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER
Mr. Eric M. Anderson Pg. 1
IV. REORGANIZATION OF CHRISTINA BOARD OF EDUCATION
A. Officer Election Process and Motion to Authorize Executive Secretary to Initiate Procedure For Pgs. 2-3
Officer Election Under 14 Delaware Code §1045
B. Executive Secretary Call for Nominations for President and Election of President
C. Elected President Call for Nominations for Vice President and Election of Vice President
D. Appointment of Superintendent as Executive Secretary
E. Election of Representative to DSBA Board of Directors and Alternate
F. Election of Representative to DSBA Legislative Committee and Alternate
G. Membership In Delaware School Boards Association Pg. 4
V. APPROVAL OF OR CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO THIS EVENING’S AGENDA
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. June 7, 2010 – Agenda Preparation Meeting Pgs. 5-7
B. June 8, 2010 – Executive Session Meeting Pg. 8
C. June 8, 2010 – Regular Session Meeting Pgs. 9-17
D. June 22, 2010 – Executive Session Meeting Pg. 18
E. June 22, 2010 – Regular Session Meeting Pgs. 19-20
VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS
VIII. CITIZENS BUDGET OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE REPORT
IX . SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT
A. Report of The Community School
X. ACTION ITEMS
A. Administrative Personnel Recommendations
B. Approval of 2011 Tax Warrant and Resolution Pg. 21
C. Citizens Budget Oversight Committee
D. Renewal of Leases – Networks Program Pg. 22
E. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Personnel Recommendations Pgs. 23-26
2. Monthly Financial Report Pgs. 27-36
3. Choice Recommendation – 2010-2011 Pgs. 37-38
4. Choice Termination Recommendation – 2009-2010 Pg. 39-40
5. Bid Awards:
Bid Number Name of Bid
(a) Bid #05-10-04 District Wide Asphalt and Concrete Repairs Pgs. 41-42
(b) Bid #06-10-05 Christina High School Gym Floor Pg. 43
(c) Bid #06-10-06 Gauger-Cobbs Middle School 4.1 HVAC Unit Replacement Pg. 44
(d) Bid #CSD-2010-18 Elementary Counselors Pgs. 45-46
6. Resolutions on Upcoming Meetings:
(a) Resolution on Agenda Preparation Meeting, Monday, August 9, 2010, Pg. 47
12:00 Noon, Drew Educational Support Center
(b) Resolution on Executive Session Meeting, Tuesday, August 10, 2010, Pg. 47
6:00 PM, Downes Elementary School
F. Student Re-Admission Recommendations
G. Student Expulsion Recommendations
H. Items Pulled From Consent Agenda
XI. BOARD MEMBERS’ COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Other District/Community Meetings, Site Visits, Training Seminars, Conferences Attended
XII. ITEMS SUBMITTED BY THE BOARD
A. Information Requests
XIII. ADJOURNMENT
UPCOMING BOARD MEETING: AUGUST 10, 2010, DOWNES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Thursday, July 1, 2010
BOLD Fort Worth
I know, I know, everything revolves around "Birth" (aka BOLD - Birth On Labor Day) and the Tarrant County Birth Network these days. I have a great post that I'm working on, but I have to get this information out. Bear with me.
The date is set for our local production of "Birth" -- September 25, 2010 -- with proceeds benefiting TCBN. It will be held at Martin Hall on the Texas Wesleyan University campus. There will be a matinee and also an evening performance with a Birth Fair linking the two. Each performance will by followed by a "Talk Back" -- led by DFW's own Joe Gumm -- with a panel of birth professionals from our community. We are so fortunate to have such a strong birth community with so many talented birth advocates.
We need help in several areas including: marketing, sponsorship, printing, concessions, vendors, silent auction, community calendars, tickets, "goody bags," childcare for event, etc. Some jobs will be on the day of production, but many will need to be done before the big day. Some are people-oriented and others can be done from your computer. There is something for everyone.
You can also find updates on Facebook. Join us online to keep up with what's happening: Volunteer Page and BOLD Fort Worth page. Our first Volunteer Meeting will take place this Tuesday, July 6 in Keller. You can find out more about it at "Events" on our Volunteer page on Facebook.
We are so excited for this BOLD event. We hope to make it an annual tradition, making people aware of their choices in maternity care. BE BOLD FORT WORTH!
[Continue Reading]
The date is set for our local production of "Birth" -- September 25, 2010 -- with proceeds benefiting TCBN. It will be held at Martin Hall on the Texas Wesleyan University campus. There will be a matinee and also an evening performance with a Birth Fair linking the two. Each performance will by followed by a "Talk Back" -- led by DFW's own Joe Gumm -- with a panel of birth professionals from our community. We are so fortunate to have such a strong birth community with so many talented birth advocates.
We need help in several areas including: marketing, sponsorship, printing, concessions, vendors, silent auction, community calendars, tickets, "goody bags," childcare for event, etc. Some jobs will be on the day of production, but many will need to be done before the big day. Some are people-oriented and others can be done from your computer. There is something for everyone.
You can also find updates on Facebook. Join us online to keep up with what's happening: Volunteer Page and BOLD Fort Worth page. Our first Volunteer Meeting will take place this Tuesday, July 6 in Keller. You can find out more about it at "Events" on our Volunteer page on Facebook.
We are so excited for this BOLD event. We hope to make it an annual tradition, making people aware of their choices in maternity care. BE BOLD FORT WORTH!
Creating 'Promise Neighborhoods': Where Are the Universities?
Commentary
Creating 'Promise Neighborhoods': Where Are the Universities?
By Russell Olwell
When Barack Obama was on the campaign trail in 2008, one of his promises for helping America’s young people was to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone, a massive effort to bring health, social-service, and educational resources to bear on the issue of poverty in a 97-block area of Central Harlem, in New York City.
The Obama administration was not quick to fund and implement this effort, however, and educators and activists have watched as the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation (i3) initiatives received faster launches from the U.S. Department of Education, and far more funding.
Yet just when it looked as if children’s-zone founder Geoffrey Canada’s dream might be dead at the national level, the Education Department began seeking proposals in late April for up to 20 planning grants to develop new "promise neighborhoods" addressing youth and family needs, from birth to age 21. ("Department Spells Out Rules for Promise Neighborhoods," April 30, 2010.) These relatively small grants will support efforts to study and pull together plans for such an undertaking. A later competition, with more money involved, would then supply funding for implementation grants.
In less than a month, 941 organizations filed statements of intent to enter the planning-grant competition, indicating a highly competitive race for a very limited number of awards. (The final number and list of applicants are still to be released following the June 28 deadline, but Education Department estimates show at least 339 organizations participating.) Applicants could be nonprofit agencies, or institutions of higher education, working in concert with local school districts, other community groups, and local government.
But who filed statements of intent? Did colleges and universities join the field, to champion blighted neighborhoods in the cities or rural areas where they are based?
A look at the list of filers would indicate not. While institutions of higher education would seem to be the perfect applicants for these grants, given the range of resources needed to do this sort of work, it appears that many colleges and universities, even those with some commitment to their communities, decided to sit this one out.
Of the 900-plus organizations that filed statements, more than 800 were either public school districts or local organizations. This should come as no surprise, as local residents and their organizations have a real stake in turning around their communities. And the sight of new money, any new money, for community development would bring serious interest and enthusiasm.
But there were differences in the makeup of the statements. Programs to help Native American communities, for example, were one area in which 31 percent of filers were colleges or universities, some of them tribal institutions, but many not. It would seem then that at least when it comes to issues involving Native Americans, colleges and universities seem as likely to step forward as other community groups.
Their percentage dips, though, when we look at filers focused on rural areas generally, a high priority of the planning-grant competition. Here, colleges and universities made up only 12 percent of the field. In the poorer areas of rural America, universities, extension agencies, and branch campuses can serve as well-funded institutional sources for community-development activities similar to those that make up a promise neighborhood. But relatively few universities stepped forward in this area.
It is when we look at programs focused on urban America, though, that colleges and universities seem inexplicably to recede from the picture. Among the more than 700 statements of intent in the urban competition, fewer than 100 came from institutions of higher education, the rest coming from community organizations, local schools, and nonprofits. Across the categories, colleges and universities (including community colleges) accounted for only 11 percent of this filing group, with public school systems, local nonprofits, and other local groups filling the role one might have expected higher education to take up. Over the whole planning-grant competition, only 12 percent of the intents-to-apply were from institutions of higher education.
It might be that taking on a project like this, with a short timetable and a small chance of success, might not appeal to many colleges and universities. But given the struggling economy in many urban areas, and the impact this poverty can have on the community, it is hard to see why more of these institutions did not seem poised to take leadership roles in this undertaking.
It is also hard to imagine a better source of “promise” for neighborhoods than institutions of higher education—whether they are community colleges, four-year regional institutions, or research universities. The vast majority of parents living in distressed areas view college as an important goal for their children and see education as a necessity in this new century.
While building “promise neighborhoods” might not be on every college and university agenda, and while presidents and provosts may have many pressing concerns competing for their time and energy, I would argue that nothing is of higher importance than the effort they put into building ties with their local communities, developing plans to help K-12 education and serve local youths, and improving the viability of their surrounding neighborhoods.
If higher education does not take a central role in bringing promise and hope to people who need it, other groups that may lack the resources needed to do the task well will take up that challenge instead. Wouldn’t it be better if they worked together?
Russell Olwell is a professor of history at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, where he is also the director of GEAR UP, the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs project.
[Continue Reading]
Creating 'Promise Neighborhoods': Where Are the Universities?
By Russell Olwell
When Barack Obama was on the campaign trail in 2008, one of his promises for helping America’s young people was to replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone, a massive effort to bring health, social-service, and educational resources to bear on the issue of poverty in a 97-block area of Central Harlem, in New York City.
The Obama administration was not quick to fund and implement this effort, however, and educators and activists have watched as the Race to the Top and Investing in Innovation (i3) initiatives received faster launches from the U.S. Department of Education, and far more funding.
Yet just when it looked as if children’s-zone founder Geoffrey Canada’s dream might be dead at the national level, the Education Department began seeking proposals in late April for up to 20 planning grants to develop new "promise neighborhoods" addressing youth and family needs, from birth to age 21. ("Department Spells Out Rules for Promise Neighborhoods," April 30, 2010.) These relatively small grants will support efforts to study and pull together plans for such an undertaking. A later competition, with more money involved, would then supply funding for implementation grants.
In less than a month, 941 organizations filed statements of intent to enter the planning-grant competition, indicating a highly competitive race for a very limited number of awards. (The final number and list of applicants are still to be released following the June 28 deadline, but Education Department estimates show at least 339 organizations participating.) Applicants could be nonprofit agencies, or institutions of higher education, working in concert with local school districts, other community groups, and local government.
But who filed statements of intent? Did colleges and universities join the field, to champion blighted neighborhoods in the cities or rural areas where they are based?
A look at the list of filers would indicate not. While institutions of higher education would seem to be the perfect applicants for these grants, given the range of resources needed to do this sort of work, it appears that many colleges and universities, even those with some commitment to their communities, decided to sit this one out.
Of the 900-plus organizations that filed statements, more than 800 were either public school districts or local organizations. This should come as no surprise, as local residents and their organizations have a real stake in turning around their communities. And the sight of new money, any new money, for community development would bring serious interest and enthusiasm.
But there were differences in the makeup of the statements. Programs to help Native American communities, for example, were one area in which 31 percent of filers were colleges or universities, some of them tribal institutions, but many not. It would seem then that at least when it comes to issues involving Native Americans, colleges and universities seem as likely to step forward as other community groups.
Their percentage dips, though, when we look at filers focused on rural areas generally, a high priority of the planning-grant competition. Here, colleges and universities made up only 12 percent of the field. In the poorer areas of rural America, universities, extension agencies, and branch campuses can serve as well-funded institutional sources for community-development activities similar to those that make up a promise neighborhood. But relatively few universities stepped forward in this area.
It is when we look at programs focused on urban America, though, that colleges and universities seem inexplicably to recede from the picture. Among the more than 700 statements of intent in the urban competition, fewer than 100 came from institutions of higher education, the rest coming from community organizations, local schools, and nonprofits. Across the categories, colleges and universities (including community colleges) accounted for only 11 percent of this filing group, with public school systems, local nonprofits, and other local groups filling the role one might have expected higher education to take up. Over the whole planning-grant competition, only 12 percent of the intents-to-apply were from institutions of higher education.
It might be that taking on a project like this, with a short timetable and a small chance of success, might not appeal to many colleges and universities. But given the struggling economy in many urban areas, and the impact this poverty can have on the community, it is hard to see why more of these institutions did not seem poised to take leadership roles in this undertaking.
It is also hard to imagine a better source of “promise” for neighborhoods than institutions of higher education—whether they are community colleges, four-year regional institutions, or research universities. The vast majority of parents living in distressed areas view college as an important goal for their children and see education as a necessity in this new century.
While building “promise neighborhoods” might not be on every college and university agenda, and while presidents and provosts may have many pressing concerns competing for their time and energy, I would argue that nothing is of higher importance than the effort they put into building ties with their local communities, developing plans to help K-12 education and serve local youths, and improving the viability of their surrounding neighborhoods.
If higher education does not take a central role in bringing promise and hope to people who need it, other groups that may lack the resources needed to do the task well will take up that challenge instead. Wouldn’t it be better if they worked together?
Russell Olwell is a professor of history at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, where he is also the director of GEAR UP, the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)