It was explained to our board tonight at our monthly meeting the DOE PZ Turnaround Unit will NOT generate any further reports to be shared with our board regarding our PZ schools.
Wow... I'm not sure I completely understand what went down, but it sounds very significant.
Yes, Mike, it is significant.
Does this mean you are no longer accountable for any PZ requirements? Or are you still expected to meet all PZ requirements, but without the reports?
CSD is still accountable for all PZ requirements. RTTT is a federal program with all of the federal strings attached. The major issue is that the State of Delaware submitted an application that promised absolute commitment to PZ and the schools and districts that would be affected. The establishment of DOE Turnaround Unit was part of that application. When Delaware won the grant, DOE withheld 50% of the award to a tune of $59.5 million. The TU was created and funded by these monies. TU's major function has been to approve PZ plans and perform compliance reporting. The Unit maintained the right to withdraw funding or impose other sanctions if districts/schools did not comply with the approved plans.
In practice, this is how the compliance piece works: The TU performed monthly visits to PZ schools and generated thorough reports citing concerns and offering suggestions. PZ schools were required to respond with their plans for addressing concerns as they arose as well as tracking and providing data regarding the outcomes of the interventions deployed via the plans. As an example - previous areas of concern cited by the TU were discipline, attendance, and DPAS-II observations. Last January, Dr. Lowery also expressed deep concern around the implementation of a major component of the approved Glasgow plan, Project-Based Learning, one of the key methods of curriculum delivery adopted by the school under the PZ MOU.
So, PZ schools are beholden to the DOE TU. The TU reports within the DOE. The DOE is monitored to the USDOE. The USDOE also reserved the right to engage in a deeper auditing process and can go directly to the districts/schools to ensure they are using the federal funds in compliance of the supporting MOUs and the greater PZ and RTTT plans. If the DOE TU is doing its job, this second-level involvement by feds is highly unlikely to occur.
Here's the sticky wicket:
CSD last received a compliance monitoring report from the TU at the end of the last school year. We have had the benefit of hiring the former TU director to guide our PZ schools. When it became apparent that the TU was no longer providing support/monitoring, this leader drew upon her own experience and began generating CSD internal compliance reports that mimicked the format of that which previously came for the TU. These reports are key for CSD b/c with the TU's abdication of its pledged support, there is a solid chance that the feds could engage that deeper level of compliance monitoring. CSD will be prepared.
DOE may have bailed on PZ, but the districts/schools are still on the hook for compliance reporting as required by the feds. We are also being held to achievement targets under the NCLB waiver. We must now work to meet requirements without feedback from the agency charged with ensuring we are complying.
Basically, the TU dumped us and left us holding the bag. And while I can confess that I believe that the whole of RTTT/PZ was a toxic relationship to begin with, that does not permit the TU to simply walk away. And if the TU under its latest leadership has abandoned Christina's three PZ schools, I have to wonder what is this unit doing to support districts like Red Clay who do not have the expertise of the former TU Director.
Why did the TU stop the reports? Was it because CSD published them?
I can't tell you why they stopped. I can point out the timeline. CSD votes to make the reports accessible. Lowery leaves for Maryland. The reports stop. The TU leader leaves for CSD. The new TU leader is named. The reports are never resumed. It could be b/c we published them. But, given the research I have done, I think it's far more likely that the reports stopped b/c the new TU leader is grossly unqualified to perform the job functions.
The PZ Turnaround Unit will operate as a resource that we can approach if we need them.
Can you approach them and ask them to resume the monthly reports? Call them each month if you need to. Do you even WANT the monthly reports? Were they helpful, at least in the sense of helping you meet PZ requirements?
From a federal compliance standpoint - I want these reports. From a public's right-to-know view - I really want these reports. The reports were helpful b/c they provided the insight of an agency outside the district who could provide a more objective critique of our work. These reports directly reflected the goals the TU felt we needed to achieve.
I'd really like to know what mechanism gave the TU the latitude to bail out? Did DOE request a waiver from the USDOE? How are they able to change their function to on-call from compliance monitoring? Does USDOE even know they have?
Can we ask them resume the reports? Yes. Will they, No. I will tell you what I personally feel is at the heart of these reports: They will ultimately confirm that the PZ model was failing. RTTT allowed us to use student growth on DCAS, and not mastery of curriculum, as one mechanism to achieve AYP. This was buttressed when Delaware received the NCLB waiver, and the achievement bar to claim AYP was dropped.
This is the scenario in play - AYP has been and will continue to be declared at PZ schools, thus portraying PZ as a success. But, the data, the numbers that actually show proficiency will reveal that any gains are short-lived or comparatively minute. As these schools are pressed to reach higher targets, longitudinal data will show RTTT and PZ were absolute failures. These reports would confirm what those of us in thick of it already know. Thus, stop the reporting, because we all recognize - IF IT WASN'T WRITTEN DOWN, IT NEVER HAPPENED.
My goal is this - when RTTT and PZ fail, it will not be because CSD failed. This epic failure lies squarely on the shoulders of the DOE. I will continue to work to hold CSD accountable to approved plans and MOUs b/c I am required to do that. We are bound by law/code to do this work. It's a colossal waste of time and money that could be put to much better use. But, my district and the work of the dedicated professionals in the PZ schools and in district admin will continue to support this gutless plan into which they have been forced. I am proud of my personnel who are trying every day to reach our CSD students. I only lament that I didn't have the support of my school board back in the day when we could have said NO. Only two of us had the conviction to refuse an MOU that lacked credible evidence as to its potential success.
No comments: