Second group of Renaissance Schools announced
by Benjamin Herold on Jan 24 2011 Posted in Latest news
UPDATED 6:00 pm: The District has announced two new turnaround models and a total of 18 new Renaissance Schools.
In a departure from its process during the first year of the Renaissance initiative, the District has already assigned each of the schools to one of four turnaround models, including two new variations on the District-managed Promise Academy model.
The schools:
'Traditional' Promise Academies
'Innovation' Promise Academies
Promise Neighborhood Partnership Schools
Renaissance Charter (Match) Schools
The District has released videos and a chart offering details about the new models. They have also posted a fact sheet, including a timeline, and a press release.
The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers has issued a statement.
The Notebook has compiled an Excel sheet and a PDF for the 18 schools with grade level, neighborhood, PSSA proficiency, overall SPI score, and building utilization.
Unlike "Traditional Promise Academies," which are required to replace at least 50 percent of their staffs as well as principals who have been in the school for more than two years, the three new "Innovation" Promise Academies will have no limits on the percentage of staff that can be retained, and their principals will remain in place.
While Promise Neighborhood Partnership Schools - Audenried and Vare - are described as a variation of the Promise Academy model, staff will be hired and employed by a charter management organization - Universal Companies - as part of the Promise Neighborhood initiative just launched in South Philadelphia.
The Renaissance charter schools will be the only ones out of the four models to go through a matching process where the School Advisory Council chooses a provider from a list of approved managers to convert the school to charter status.
Criteria for assigning Renaissance Schools did not strictly follow the School Performance Index (SPI), which was the basis for the assignments last year. Academic chief David Weiner said factors in addition to SPI that played a role in the selection included the schools' dropout rate, AYP status, school climate data, teacher attrition, feeder pattern, and neighborhood characteristics.
The District says it will hold informational meetings for parents and the community at the affected schools between January 31 and February 17.
District officials said they could not guarantee that teachers displaced from Renaissance Schools would have positions in the District next year. No new teachers will be hired until teachers with seniority are placed.
The Inquirer is reporting on reaction to the Promise Academy announcement at South Philadelphia High School, where things had been settling down after a turbulent year.
Comments (70)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 16:00.
Where is the money for this coming from?
Submitted by Paul Socolar on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 16:02.
The press conference is still continuing - hopefully they will answer that question. At last report, in September, the first batch of Promise Academies were estimated to cost the District $7.2 million.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 16:04.
Good luck finding positions for those Charter Schools/Innovation Promise Academies!!! No unionized teacher is going to give up their seniority and due process rights. It also is funny that this is being done yet no one has heard what type of funds will be received at the federal and state levels. How someone can say yes this is going to happen without fund knowledge is remarkable. I also feel that there will be teacher layoffs---if this happens, most new teachers will be unemployed (seniority) and those same teachers are the ones stuck in those crazy Charter Schools, etc. Then, where will the District find teachers for these schools???? According to the PFT Contract, NO PFT teacher can be forced to work in such schools. Looks like the District is getting themselves in a ringer again. Like to see how they pull out of this one!!!!
Submitted by Philly HS TEacher (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 16:09.
I'm waiting for the union to explain how seniority will work. If a teacher with 20 plus years leaves a "Renaissance/Promise" school, will s/he be able to bump someone with less years in a magnet school? If not, you will have teachers with little seniority maintaining their jobs and teachers with many years, losing jobs. This will have a major impact on high schools - half of which are site selection/magnet schools. Where is the PFT?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 17:57.
They told us last year that you will have a position somewhere, but they cannot guarantee that you will be teaching the same thing, so if you were a music teacher and there were no music positions you could fill in somewhere else and it doesn't have to be your content area, you could be a sub in a building for the year.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 16:06.
Blown away. Atl least ten promise academies to be run by the SDP. How will they get the money????? These schools must have at least 20% more expenses.
One very, very small point of credit for the SDP. With "Innovation Promise Aacemies" they seem to be acknowledging that it might not be a great idea to replace most of the staff and the principal.
Submitted by Meg (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 16:56.
Only one of the Olney Highs was at risk... this is very interesting.
Could they end up combining those schools back into one for this to work and be more cost effective??
When will the parents be told??
Submitted by HotMama (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 18:57.
Both Olneys are on the list and notices went home to parents today.
Submitted by teacher in the trenches (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:31.
YES I see that both are now on the list. That is new - that's my point. My neice attneds the "better" of the two and is now in a panic. She said the teachers were shocked and mad... a feeling we know well int he school district right now.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 17:17.
Union busting technique, in disguise!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 17:22.
I wonder if the PFT anticipated this many schools turning over like this. It's going to be a mess come hiring time for all the schools. So much for teacher morale!
Submitted by Meg (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:32.
teacher morale? What is that??
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 17:37.
Please, please, please watch the video on the SDP website! Oh my! All of your questions will be answered.
Before the Renaissance came the Crusades! I wonder how the original Crusades were paid for because lord knows the District is going to need help figuring that out.
Just sayin'.
Submitted by "New" teacher, getting older every minute. (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 17:46.
I agree with the comment "Union busting technique, in disguise," with one caveat. It's a very THIN disguise.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 18:10.
Could someone please explain to me what a "forced transfer" is? If I am not Site Selected at another school, will I run the risk of losing my teaching position altogether? Does the district relocate teachers to other schools?
Could some explain this in plain English? It would be most appreciated!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 18:21.
you are being "forced" by the district to move, not by choice, therefore seniority rules. There will be a pool of schools and a pool of teachers, those teachers with the most seniority pick their school choice first and so on until all school positions are filled. A 30 year vet gets first dibs and a first year teacher gets last pickens, and therefore might not have a choice to what school to attend at all!
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 18:31.
A "forced transfer" means your position is being eliminated at the school at which you are currently teaching. It could be for several reasons--in this case the conversion to another type of school. You are being "forced"--so you are eligible to take any vacancy in the district you are qualified for before the people who are requesting a transfer (called voluntary transfers). Forced transfers pick from all remaining vacancies after the site selection process has closed. Usually this is early in the summer. You will be notified by the district when they want you to pick a school. If I was in this position, I would do all the site selection interviews that I could. That way, you can maintain a little control over the process.
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 18:45.
Yes--I forgot to mention that the picking of vacancies goes in order of seniority.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 18:58.
So, in other words, for a 1st year teacher in the district, it is highly probable that one would be "laid-off" if no position is available? If one does come up eventually, would that teacher then be notified?
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:14.
Unfortunately, yes. Theoretically, when there are lay-offs there are call-backs before anyone new is hired. This is how my colleagues who have worked in the district for upwards of 20 years remember it. First year teachers are in a bad position. You can maintain your benefits and job with the district by interviewing at the Promise Academies--although they have more hours they are still district schools.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:02.
This plan is delusional. Making this many neighborhood schools into Promise Academies is going to be really expensive. Honestly, unionized teachers win in some ways -- dozens of PFT members are going to be able to make a lot more in salary with so many Promise Academies, if they keep the extra hour + Saturdays + Summer in place. If the District were being financially responsible, the extra time wouldn't be mandatory -- it would be open to all teachers who were needed and wanted to be there.
I also foresee some very poor relations between administration and teachers. This year, with only a few Promise Academies, a large number of the teachers in them were pretty positive about the idea -- the teachers who weren't or would would have had a difficult time accommodating it just left. Next year, especially at the high school level, it looks like a lot of teachers aren't going to have a lot of choice about working in some variation of Promise Academy if they want to stay in the District.
Finally, while I think the Promise Academy model has a lot of good elements, I don't think the District has ironed out the kinks enough to scale it up so much (especially at the high school level), especially given the lack of funds to pay for it (or, if they do have the money, why aren't all schools getting Promise Academy-type resources already?)
Submitted by Phantom Poster (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:19.
Four high schools to be charterized? First the institutional memory goes, then the institution. For all its flaws, are we really ready to see the School District of Philadelphia exist in name only?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:33.
What does it mean that not everyone is guarenteed a position next year, I thought contractually teachers could not be laid off due to the Rennaissance Model? am I incorrect, but this is what I thought I heard at the PFT ratification meeting last year.
Submitted by lovetoteach (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:39.
Does anyone know the success rate of the current Promise Academies?
Submitted by mom (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 19:58.
I love how this plan forces teachers with families to choose between the job and the family. I feel like the district wants teachers to be absentee parents to their own children.
Submitted by Anothermom (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 22:15.
That's because we aren't people. We're teachers.
Submitted by Meg (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 08:08.
That is funny. I always (until this year) felt that teachers was a better classficiation of people... does not sound that way anymore.
Submitted by TopHeavyStaff (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 20:26.
I'm curious for other perspectives on this: my assumption was that most of the schools on this list have very high teacher turnover rates and tend to hire mostly new teachers since no one wants to teach there. New teachers have a high likelihood of quitting the profession altogether, especially after a bad experience at a bad school. Turning some of these schools over to charters certainly shrinks the union, but does it shrink the number of tenured teachers by much?
Submitted by mom (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 21:04.
So, if a 6th year teacher is a forced transfer from a Renaissance school, and there is no position to pick from the board, then what happens? Is he laid off? or does he bump someone with less seniority who is in a magnet or non-renaissance school? How is this going to work???
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 21:57.
There has not been "bumping" in the School District. Once you are appointed to a particular school, you cannot be bumped by anyone outside that school. That is why everyone has two levels of seniority: "System Seniority" (the date you were hired by the SDP) and "Building Seniority" (the date you came to your particular school). If you have only ever worked at one school, they would be the same--if you have changed schools over the years, the two seniority levels may be different (one thing a forced transfer keeps is building seniority--voluntary transfers do not). But a six-year teacher at a Promise eligible school could not "bump" even a first-year teacher at another school. You have to take vacancies. If there were district-wide lay-offs, however, I believe the lowest seniority would go first.Your principal has a list of seniority that you can ask to see. I do not think anyone with a lot of seniority will lose their job. I think (although who knows) that the district will use extra teachers to reduce class size, etc... They would prevent a lot of problems with the union that way. It is very complicated and is delineated in the contract. I think anyone in this position should call the union and discuss it with one of the staffers.
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 22:17.
The transfer process is covered (both voluntary and forced) in the PFT contract on pages 68-70.
Submitted by Philly HS Teacher (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 22:18.
So, a magnet school has a teacher with one year and s/he can remain while a teacher with 30 years will have to either hope to get picked for a Promise Academy or lose their job. Just like last year, other neighborhood high schools will have to take "whoever" while magnet schools will get their site selection. It perpetuates the inequity.
Also, I don't see how the SDP can afford to place "bodies" in building with a huge deficit.
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 22:28.
I do not teach at a magnet, but yes, I suppose your scenario could happen. I doubt if anyone with that much time in will be out of a job. There will be some natural attrition through retirements, etc... Some magnet schools hire from a separate list-- "the demonstration list"--that you have to take a special test/interview to get placed on. So, there would not be the ability for any teacher to work there even if there was "bumping". This is all very distressing for teachers who work in the schools that will be converted.
Submitted by Philly HS Teacher (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 23:14.
The only "demonstration" list I'm aware of is Masterman. While other schools might operate that way (e.g. SLA), they aren't suppose to - they are only suppose be able to have site selection. "Empowerment schools" are suppose to have site selection but it is a joke - we end up with whoever is dismissed from other schools.
Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 23:15.
Allowing magnet schools to keep who they want at the expense of seniority means there is no seniority. Why have a union if they can't guarantee anything?
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 07:49.
This is the way the contract has read for years. There is not bumping between schools in order to maintain staff stability within schools. It has nothing to do with magnets vs. regular schools. The hiring and losing of positions within those schools follows contractual rules. Seniority counts district-wide, and separately within schools. Filling of vacancies will be done according to seniority.
Submitted by Philly HS TEacher (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 12:15.
This "move" by Ackerman, et al will discourage many teachers from working in neighborhood high schools. Whether "Empowerment" or "Promise," neighborhood schools are micro managed and forced to follow ridiculous dictates. The only way to avoid the micro management and disrespect / disregard of our professionalism is to go to a special admit school. Just like the current stock of Promise Academies, they will be stocked with new / inexperienced teachers. Neighborhood schools disproportionately - especially compared to site selection high schools - have the most students with an IEP and ELL (e.g. Central has less than 1% students with an IEP and Germantown has 30%. The numbers are just as stark with ELL.)
So much for the staff stability in neighborhood schools....
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 12:37.
That is true. The neighborhood high schools have their issues, but they have always had long-term dedicated staff. I think schools with multiple challenging outside issues do much better with stability. It is truly important to know your neighborhood and families. Ackerman, however, does not seem to believe this. She will be creating a two-tiered, inequitable system in which the schools that test better have the more experienced and stable faculties. I think it is ridiculous to "Renaissance" more schools when we do not have data from the current crop of Promises/Charters. We will see how all this shakes out--but meanwhile the students suffer.
Submitted by Erika Owens on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 12:42.
For some more info on a few points you raised:
ACTION United also found that neighborhood schools being disproportionally staffed by less experienced teachers in a recent study.
The Notebook reported on the concentration of ELL students in nine, large neighborhood high schools back in our edition focused on immigrant students.
Submitted by Philly HS TEacher (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 13:22.
Yes, there are new teachers in SOME neighborhood high schools but there are neighborhood high schools with a "mixed experience" staff. The older staff often have connections to the neighborhood that can't be replicated with staff upheaval.
And, yes, ELL are concentrated in a few schools. It is almost harder for an ELL (especially those who are level 3 on the ACCESS test or entered the U.S. in middle/high school) to get into the magnet schools. This would require the teachers in magnet schools to learn how to teach diverse learners...
Submitted by Anonymous teacher (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 15:03.
I work at a special admit school and we are highly micromanaged, constantly observed and criticized, and not respected as professionals. I am afraid that the "Empowerment" model (which as far as I can tell, ironically dis-empowers teachers almost completely) is being foisted off on more than just neighborhood schools. Anybody thinking they will avoid this treatment by getting onto a special admit faculty (Masterman and a very few others excepted) may want to think seriously about seeking employment outside the city.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 01/28/2011 - 20:58.
School attendance at Central is comparable to attending a private school. Central and Masterman are most certainly set apart in comparison to neighborhood/comprehensive high schools. Central has a "president" not a "principal." How elitist is this? 1% disabled/learning disabled is a disgrace. SDP has always maintained a tiered system - the haves and the have nots. What are the statistics concerning Universal? Where is the transparency that was promised? Why hold the Facilities Meetings if the decisions have been made? Waste of time and money! There was not a high attendance at the Facilities Meetings held last year. Dr. Ackerman is the puppeteer and the SRC are her puppets.
Let's abolish the SRC - they are not performing and carrying out their duties.
Philadelphia needs to wake-up and stand-up for what is right for our children! Yes, CHILDREN COME FIRST!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 21:26.
my question is...which schools are they going to close?
Submitted by Erika Owens on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 22:26.
The District said that closings are not part of the Renaissance Schools process--the schools listed will change management, but will remain open. It is likely that the District will need to close some schools to deal with the 70,000 empty seats, but the facilities master planning process is separate. There is overlap between the two processes, but school closing is not one of the Renaissance turnaround methods.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 22:41.
Just another way Philly schools are out of their minds.... spending money on things that don't matter and letting the old teachers who are out of school by 4pm every day stick around longer and longer. The money should be going to young teachers, both in salary and professional development. That's the only way Philly will come close to turning around.
Submitted by lovetoteach (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 17:00.
Your comment is offensive and uninformed. I know many "old" teachers who are amazing at what they do and have been the best professional development resource I've encountered in the district.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 20:07.
Uninformed? I am a teacher, with a Masters in my 3rd year of teaching. There are so many old teachers in it only for the paycheck.... it's a disgrace. Teachers make the difference in Education, research prooves it. So, if Philly is doing poorly, who do we mainly have to blame? The older teachers who have been around forever and have not done a thing but live off of a rule allowing them to stay around due to failing to meet set standards for years. What a joke.
Get behind the future of Education, put money into Professional Development and Further Education for my fellow young, hungry teachers. Better yet, show US you care and give us a reason to believe in the future of education.
Submitted by Ron Whitehorne on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 20:17.
No one, old or young, has a monopoly on good teaching. But the fact of the matter is that the lowest achieving schools in Philadelphia have had a disproporitonate share of new or inexperienced teachers. That is not a condemnation of those teachers but a fact that concerns many who want to see these schools improve.
We all were young teachers once and we all, assuming we stay with it, will one day will be old teachers. Let's not demonize each other and create false divisions.
Submitted by Teacher (K.R. Luebbert) (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 21:13.
Research proves that teachers are the most important factor for student achievement INSIDE SCHOOLS. The same research proves that socio-economic level and poverty are the most important OVERALL factor in student achievement. This is not an excuse or a reason to not have high expectations, it it just a fact. The best thing we could do for kids and education is reduce poverty.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/6326/its_the_poverty_stupid/
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:14.
I was wondering if you could provide references for this research you cite. The reason I ask is that the article you link to does not prove anything; it highlights a quote from Ayers but does not cite any research that proves this.
Mind you, I agree with the idea-- I ask because I have not been able to find any actual research that proves this, but I have been able to find a lot of quotes and commentary ARGUING this.
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 11:24.
I have actually been searching for this and will post it when I find it. Of course, when I originally read it several months ago, I forgot to save the link.
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:20.
Here is one study that discusses "out-of-school" factors such as poverty:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/poverty-and-potential
It is not the exact one I was searching for, I will post others as I find them.
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 12:58.
Another interesting deconstruction of tests, achievement, and socio-economic factors:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/guest-bloggers/what-intern...
Submitted by Philadelphia Citizen (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 13:34.
A further study linking poverty with low scores is available at this site: http://bit.ly/g5NEIx
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 13:36.
These are excuses guys come on. Success ultimately comes down to teachers in the classroom. Growth rate has little to nothing to do with outsde factors. Even if student A starts extremely low, as long as she grows x amount of points throughout the year that is what matters
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:10.
We are not using them as excuses, they are realities. If a student comes to school hungry, upset, tired, unsettled, etc..... he/she is in no shape to learn. Teachers and other school professionals do the best they can in all these situations, but the fact is that kids with chaotic lives have a harder time concentrating on school. A real life example: the district was testing today and a student came to school very upset because his house had been on fire last night. He was too upset to test. Does that mean his teacher did not prepare him? NO--it means real life intervened--this is what happens all too much. We do our best every day with all children, but sometimes children are not prepared to receive our best efforts for whatever reason.
Submitted by Meg (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:26.
This is a topic we argue a lot. Reality is just that. It drops in and must be taken into account. It is wrong to fail a student on a report card based on one test, because the situations that test was taken under plays a huge part in the results. Not knowing who if anyone will be home to let you in at 7 years old is huge. home fires, sick family members, job loss, moving, police activity on the block, whatever play parts in our daily lives - why do we assume our kids are above those issues?
Our kids have baggage. If we are allowed to teach to the child and their needs, we can minimize some of these issues. Being able to move to the carpet, switch to partner reading instead of the teacher reading to the class, small group projects or whatever can increase growth and decrease misbehaviors. We know this as professionals, yet the scripts we are shoving down the kids throats acknowledge none of this knowledge. We know better. We know when to move, switch gears and change things up to help the kids reconnect.
I am so tired of pink slips that I know I could have avoided. How many of us are filling them out, knowing we could have prevented them or down graded the problem sooner ?
Scripts are taking away so much - including the adaptability the kids need from us.
Submitted by K.R. Luebbert (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:51.
Meg--you are absolutely right on both your comments. Most teachers would have no problem if they were evaluated on student movement during the year when they were with that teacher. However, AYP and NCLB do not use a rational system of growth per academic year, they want all children proficient on grade level within that year. Growth is what should count, not just levels. And, reality is reality--how can we really expect a child to ignore negative factors and buckle down and learn when most adults could not do it?
Submitted by Meg (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 14:18.
When I started in the system, we tracked a year's worth of growth. Now, the numbers were pushed a bit, pretending that even if a child entered 2nd grade reading in a pre-primer level, they could attain the expected third grade level by June without any extreme efforts, but the language was right. We need to track that year's worth of growth and give each child credit for it. The beginning stages matter. The starting steps should be considered. I am so alarmed by the number of students who are growing in my room this year, but still are facing failing report cards that show no growth. This is wrong. It throws away the work the students are doing and turns them off from trying. It turns off the parents, too.
Johnny can read something and if he is growing as a reader, he should get credit for that growth.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 22:23.
. . .and so many young teachers only in it as a "Stepping Stone" for their resumes. Grow Up. You too will be a veteran "OLD" teacher someday being accused of being a waste and only it for a paycheck. There are teachers YOUNG and OLD who should not being teaching--period. I am sure that all of your "OLD" teachers in High School and college will be so thrilled to hear of your opinion of them.
Submitted by Meg (not verified) on Tue, 02/01/2011 - 08:38.
Unless I am teaching extended day in some configuration, I am out the door witht he children daily. I am however in the building with the building engineer at 6 am daily. This is for my sanity. I do not take home lesson plans, tests to grade or most anything else. I find that once I get home, these tasks do not get my best, so I stopped doing it.
Does this mean I am on your list of those that should go?
Your statements are very narrow minded. The bickering will not help any of us. Teachers need to be united.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 23:08.
I find it interesting that a District with 70,000 empty seats and a $400 million deficit is planning to invest heavily in schools that, according to the Notebook, are 50-75% full, for the most part.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 01/25/2011 - 23:17.
I really love the way the district handle this. Who thought giving the students the letters to bring home at the end of the day was a good idea? I had a student already ask me why does he need to even try on the PSSA's now! This news should really make for a peaceful end of the school year....right. I really think it would of been a better idea to inform the staff (FULLY) before making parents/students aware.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 00:09.
Between Renaissance schools and school closures that seem inevitable, there is no way there will be enough retirements to cover. There will be layoffs this year, without question.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 18:03.
You are missing the point when you say 'old' and 'new' teachers. What we need in each school is a good mix of both. Schools should not be a competition or argument about who is better. It should be a place of collaboration and discussion about how we can make it better for the students in that school community. One size does not fit all. Politicians don't get it and they have good PR people that have convinced the public that we must be competitive amongst ourselves.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 01/26/2011 - 21:17.
Please stop refering to people as "old" or "inexperienced". What really matters here is talent, motivation, and a willingness to be flexible and see students succeed. I assure you that "I" am a change of career teacher----who after teaching for 7 years, left, and rejoined the profession. I love what I do, and I resent the remarks about "old" teachers. Teaching is a calling. And, NO ONE would divest themselves an incredible amount of money on their education if they were not committed to doing this as a genuine profession. I am working on my Master's in Education and teaching full-time. Please stop bashing the older teachers. I agree with the other person's comment----these remarks are unnecessary and uncalled for. I am a certified teacher---not "Teach for America" or a "Teaching Fellow". I am talented in what I do, and open to new changes. The populus of "older" teachers still in the profession, I am certain, would agree!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 18:55.
I just noticed that the following high schools: Germantown, West Philly and Fitzsimons were all labeled persistently dangerous. They received money from the Dept. of Labor to turn those schools around. Since this did not occur, does the School District have to repay that money? Also, isn't Olney West a newly designated Dept of Labor school? What happens to the funds attributed to that school? Does the district keep the money or does the new "match" inherit those funds by default?
Submitted by Philly HS Teacher (not verified) on Thu, 01/27/2011 - 19:17.
Great question. The DOL grants are huge - increased staffing, programs, etc, etc. Fitzsimons, for example, one of the smallest high schools in the city, has 3 APs and 4 SBISs. So, what happens to the grant?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 14:09.
first of all Arlene Ackerman doesn't need to be working at the district, what has she done for us? nothing!! we are a renaissance school not because of students it's because the non-experienced teachers we have can't teach us what we need to know. Also we don't have the tools we need to learn!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 14:42.
It looks as though the entire system will soon become Charters, private and non-union schools. This is a very systematic and clandestine way to change public education without the public realizing their tax dollars will be funding schools their children may not have access too. We should be working on improving public education.
Post new comment