Opinion: A fresh start for the SRC? Part II
by Helen Gym on Nov 02 2011 Posted in Commentary
Earlier this week, I wrote about the need for a fresh start to the SRC and how frequently challenges can come up. Today’s meeting on the facilities master plan will be just that kind of challenge.
For starter's, today's FMP meeting showcases the strange approach the District has to starting difficult conversations – surprise the public.
For months the District has remained mum on a secret list of school closings.
A confidential document the Notebook published this past summer revealed the District had identified more than two dozen schools for potential closings and consolidations – even though they had previously refused to name specific schools. District and city officials chided the Notebook for publishing the document, but since then no further conversation has taken place other than to reiterate the drumbeat that “rightsizing” has to happen.
In the meantime, school communities all across the city have operated in a state of alarm for weeks.
This past weekend, I accompanied a busload of immigrant students from the South Philadelphia area to a bullying prevention summit for Asian American communities in New York City. On the bus ride, a major topic of concern among the students was the possibility of Furness High School’s closure and a potential consolidation into South Philadelphia High School.
As difficult and confusing as it is for U.S.-born English speakers to process what’s going on, imagine the confusion and lack of communication to immigrant youth and families who were kept in the dark about an issue that has deep resonance for them. One student victim of racial violence which enveloped South Philadelphia High School in 2009 transferred out of that school to attend Furness only to hear through rumors and speculation that he might be forced back to Southern.
In the past month, I have received two inquiries from Furness students asking me if they should put in a transfer because of their school’s potential closure. The deadline for students to request a transfer was last Friday.
It’s my hope that today’s meeting will show that the SRC and District have learned some lessons. What am I looking for today?
-
A process for meaningful community input
The District and SRC must recognize that they may not have all the information necessary to make final decisions on things like school closures. It's important that they hear from communities that can articulate the impact of school closings as well as identify potential hazards and solutions the District may not have considered. Too often, though, the public reaction around school closings is dismissed as generic NIMBY “pain” and “outrage” rather than meaningful input. The public needs to see a plan – beyond public testimony – where the District solicits and prioritizes community input. -
Substantive criteria
A recent study on school closings around the country showed that many of the reasons listed for closing schools – financial and academic – don’t bear out as much as school officials think. The catch-phrase “rightsizing” (judging schools by their enrollment capacity) has also entered the edu-speak lexicon. I don’t know a single educator who judges a school by its enrollment capacity. We need the District to show it is making decisions based on a mix of criteria and to make those criteria public and transparent. -
Make sure there's a win
At the end of the day, the District has to be able to look into a parent's eye and say that the educational life of their child will improve. The District must ensure that the schools students are reassigned to are better than the ones they attend. In a city of neighborhoods, they have to be conscientious about safe passage to and from school as well as in school. It’s worth repeating what I wrote about school closings last year – school communities must be provided viable options and see a gain from their school’s potential closure. It's simply unacceptable that they are seen as "losers" in what's too often been an arbitrary, political, and secretive process. -
No more surprises
This afternoon’s unveiling – whether or not schools are slated for closure – has already caused enough stress and potential consequences for students and school communities. I expect that school communities will have an opportunity to phase out graduating students, that feeder patterns and quality options will be made available to families, and that intensive communication in multiple languages will happen with staff, families and students to maximize their input and ease them through the process.
Comments (3)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 14:39.
Helen, please tell me you are signed up to speak today. They need to hear this in a way they can't ignore!
Submitted by Garth (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 16:53.
I'm concerned about the upcoming school closings meeting for a bunch of reasons, If the PSD closes a high school, can't a charter school then apply to re-open the same building but as a charter instead of a public high school? That doesn't really help our situation much, the charter will then pull kids away from a nearby public school, and then that second school will be in danger of closing/becoming a charter.
Another thing about the whole facility master plan that I find disturbing is the lack of attention to over-crowded schools. I'm a parent of a child at a very crowded school, but shouldn't those schools or the child crammed into them also get some attention? That situation seems to be off the radar completely. Couldn't the PSD consider putting a good school with tons of students with a good reputation but in a really small building into a larger building that is about to be closed? Maybe that makes too much sense, I often go to bad schools and I think this is a beautiful facility, it's too bad hardly anyone wants to go to school here.
Submitted by Gamal Sherif on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 06:18.
Garth has drawn a clear connection between the loss of students to charters and the disinvestment in traditional public education, i.e. the closing of schools. Thanks.
But charter schools can co-exist with traditional public school districts, provided that the legislation is more teacher friendly.
Charter legislation in Pennsylvania is presently anti-democratic in that it marginalizes teachers (and local unions) from the innovative charter school process: teachers who work at the school can't serve on the board of a charter school. Nor can they be members of the local bargaining unit. These two provisions exclude the very two groups that could actually enrich charter schools.
It could get worse.
According the the Education Law Center,* PA state Senate Bill 904 and House Bill 1348 are designed to change charter school legislation so that there is actually less democratic accountability: 10-year renewals rather than 5, conversion of any school to a charter, and a state-level commission to approve charter schools.
If we're gong to revise charter school legislation, we can do better:
1) Charge the PA State Commission with explicitly helping LEAs, parents, teachers and unions study, modify and/or adopt effective innovations within the charter school networks.
2) Modify the oversight of individual charters to require teacher representation. If the argument has been that teachers have had little influence over the direction of traditional public schools, then teachers should be able to effectively influence public education through charters, if necessary.
3) Allow PA charter employees to opt-in to (or cooperate with) the membership of the local union's collective-bargaining unit. This will help the employees within a charter ensure due process. As for "seniority" that is associated with unions, charters should be explicitly permitted to retain site-based hiring (a provision that already exists within traditional public schools). Charters should also be required to design their budgets that do not penalize (or discourage) experienced teacher applicants due to their higher salary expectations.
4) Allow/encourage local unions (or their partners) to open and supervise charter schools. If the argument is that the LEA and it's policy's hinder teacher effectiveness, then local unions should be able to manage charters effectively while maintaining union membership within the LEA.
5) Require that charter schools provide opportunities for teacher leadership through teacher-led professional development, peer evaluation, common planning time, and engagement-oriented (rather than compliance-oriented) administrative supervision.
6) The legislation should also be explicit about using "multiple measures of teachers' effectiveness" in determining faculty retention, teacher salaries, etc. Assessing teachers' effectiveness on high-stakes standardized tests is an incomplete and ineffective strategy. The use of multiple measures to determine teachers' effectiveness is in alignment with position statements by the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the US Department of Education's Blueprint for Reform - Reauthorizing ESEA.
*More information at Education Law Center.
Post new comment