East Side Public Education Coalition statement on proposed Achievement First charter school proposal

I'm sharing a letter that I worked on with several other members of the East Side Public Education Coalition that states our stand on the proposed Achievement First Mayoral Academies about which I and others have written extensively.

Before that, I want to point out an opinion piece by educator Dan Ross, "A Charter School Prayer for the New Year," which hits a couple of the same points (thanks, sharp-eyed Facebook friend, for sharing this link this weekend). This can't be said enough: "Charters were never supposed to be the answer--they were supposed to provide answers." And:

When Albert Shanker, the former president of the American Federation of Teachers, first proposed the idea of charter schools, he envisioned them as opportunities for small groups of teachers and parents to collaborate and develop experimental educational environments, an idea that recalls former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' notion of the states as "laboratories of democracy" in the federal system. If successful, the lessons learned from these pioneering schools could be applied writ large, affording all children the chance to benefit their innovations.

But ironically, in spite of the excellence of charters like KIPP, Uncommon Schools, and Achievement First, educators have largely learned nothing from their successes. That's not to say that charters are inherently better than traditional public schools -- studies have shown that the best charters perform as well as the best traditional public schools and that the worst charters perform just as a poorly as the worst -- but rather that in this challenging work, we cannot afford to ignore right answers, no matter where they come from.

In the face of our current educational crisis, how can we stand idly by while we have proof of concept for extended school days and school years, and fresh best practices in pedagogy, professional development, human capital strategy, teacher evaluation, and instructional leadership? Why are we leaving it to the charters to do the scaling up of these new models themselves by expanding their own fundamentally limited networks instead of implementing them en masse?

Ross' piece captures some of what I've been feeling about this as a person who enthusiastically supports many specific charter schools but hates how the idea of charters is being used as a weapon against traditional public school systems. Right on.

And now, here's our ESPEC letter, which can also be found on ESPEC's blog.

January 8, 2012
Board of Regents
Rhode Island Department of Education
255 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903

To Whom It May Concern:

The application submitted by Achievement First to the Rhode Island Department of Education to open two Mayoral Academy charter schools has provided community members from Providence and beyond with an opportunity to participate in a discussion about the programs and structures that will allow all children in public schools to receive the support and challenge they need to succeed in school and life. Both Achievement First’s proposed program and achievements and successes happening now in Providence’s public schools have informed our understanding of what is required to create and sustain such schools and the system that supports them.

We believe we must find ways to do what we know works to improve the public system. Rhode Island public school students trail the nation in measures of academic achievement and face an appalling racial and socioeconomic achievement gap. As we address these challenges, we must find the political will to face barriers to the institution of meaningful changes, which include:

• a longer school day and school year
• accessible high quality early childhood education
• providing wraparound support services
• community partnerships that allow for expanded learning opportunities and more time for learning
• high quality curriculum matched to the needs of the learner
• school-based decision-making by principal, teachers and parents on budget allocation, hiring and personnel management
• meaningful professional development which meets both national standards and local needs
• an assistant principal in every school with 400 or more students

We support strategic planning and investments that leverage these strategies for the benefit of as many children as possible.

Given the district’s dwindling finances and stagnant population, the establishment of Achievement First charter schools at the scale proposed by the charter application could have the effect of closing at least one district school and pulling resources away from Providence Schools at the time they are most needed. Given that the district has a high number of schools that struggle to support their students, including those schools identified as Persistently Low Achieving (PLA) schools for which closure is an option, we understand the urgent need for alternatives and choices. However, Providence has chosen to keep these schools open and invest in their staff members, students, and structures in order to improve student achievement. We need to focus on improvements that can be made in the existing public schools, learning from and keeping what works and changing what does not. We are concerned that if RIDE were to approve this charter application, it would divert scarce resources from our existing public schools and decrease the possibility that all children in Providence public schools would have the opportunity to attend high performing schools.

Mayor Taveras and Superintendent Lusi have stated that they wish to learn from Achievement First’s successes in other states to bring better practices to the Providence Public Schools. It is important to note that while there already are numerous “bright lights” in the Providence Schools, as acknowledged in the Education Opportunity Working Group’s November 2011 “Educate Providence” report, the Providence Public School Department (PPSD) does not have a system in place to identify, acknowledge, celebrate, and disseminate best practices already in existence. We contend that PPSD should use its resources to study and disseminate best practices already in our system before bringing in an outside organization to run our schools. Without the habits of sharing knowledge within the district, there’s no clear way for a newly introduced organization to share its practices.

Though Achievement First would present an option that could appeal to a number of PPSD families, the prospect of opening a new school will cause a level of disruption that our district can’t sustain. Choices about the schools offering educational options to the students in our district should align with the mission and vision of the district. However, the district’s vision isn’t at all clear at this time. We believe that the plans from the Mayor’s office and the Superintendent’s office need to be aligned and clarified, with appropriate and meaningful public input, before we make such potentially impactful decisions about introducing new schools into PPSD.

We are concerned about the unacknowledged cost impact that proposed Achievement First schools may pose. When Providence closed several schools last year, a leading rationale was transportation cost reduction. However, because they are not neighborhood schools, the Achievement First charter schools will increase transportation costs significantly due to the need to bring children from four different communities to the schools.

We are also concerned that the Achievement First schools may exacerbate rather than ameliorate the district’s equity issues. For example, an advantage of charter schools is that they have the potential for more flexibility than in-district public schools. Achievement First uses that flexibility to offer a significantly longer school day that allows educators to create a more effective learning environment. However, the length of the Achievement First school day stands in stark contrast to that of the Providence Public Schools’ standard school day. It seems inequitable that if this application were approved, some Providence children would have an 8.50 hour day and 190 -195 day school year, while others would have only a 6.08 hour day and 180 day school year. We want to know how the district can use its resources to pursue expanded and extended learning for all students.

We support choices and welcome innovation in our school district. We are not opposed to charter schools. However, we are not convinced that this is the right choice, and note that because the deadline for prospective charter schools to apply to RIDE is March 1, 2012, it is likely that additional charter applications, such as that of the Meeting Street School, will be submitted that offer both options to Providence students as well as potential threats to the district’s finances. We therefore suggest that the Board of Regents at the very least delay making a decision about the Achievement First application until we have a fuller picture of the charter options for the 2013 school year.

While the individual members of ESPEC hold diverse views, we agree that it is not clear that bringing these particular Achievement First charter schools to Providence at the currently proposed scale is the best decision. We therefore oppose the charter application as it currently stands. We agree with the concerns raised by other community groups about the financial costs, the failure to serve the whole student population, and the loss of public accountability inherent in the Achievement First application. We have observed that the public process to date has been divisive and unhelpful to parents who are genuinely seeking information. We believe strongly that concerned parents and community groups should pull together so that energy currently devoted toward and against Achievement First is instead directed toward identifying the assets of the schools we currently have in Providence and working systematically and swiftly toward their improvement.

As Mayor Taveras and Providence Public Schools administrators implement improvements that improve the learning experience and outcomes of all our children in all our schools, we must manage our scarce resources as wisely as possible both to encourage innovation and to preserve and invest in existing schools. We are aware of how challenging this is, and in that light want to question whether establishing Achievement First Schools in Providence via the Mayoral Academy charter school structure is the best move we can make now for long-run success.

Sincerely,

Jill Davidson
Michael Kenney
Bill Mott
Harlan Rich
Kim Rohm
Karina Wood
on behalf of the ESPEC Steering Committee

cc: Governor Lincoln Chaffee
Mayor Angel Taveras
Superintendent Susan Lusi
Julie Tremaine, Executive Editor, East Side Monthly
Linda Borg, Education Reporter, Providence Journal

Blog break due to energies elsewhere + Coalition of Essential Schools' Fall Forum happening here!

As you have likely surmised from the lighter volume of posts lately, circumstances are preventing me from posting to this blog as often as I had or would prefer.

I regret this but do think that the circumstances are good for education in Providence, Rhode Island, and beyond. I am focusing my energy for the next month the Coalition of Essential Schools' Fall Forum 2011: A Conversation Among Friends, which is happening here in Providence at The Met School's Public Street campus on November 10-12. Who will be there? Adults and young people who believe that challenging learning for all students everyone can--and must--be infused not only with high standards but also with creativity, personal expression, learning from mistakes, relevance, exploration, and genuine passion.

This year's Fall Forum is going to be amazing - we'll have Deborah Meier and Alfie Kohn in conversation about the intersections between work, play and learning, Tony Estrella from the Gamm Theater leading theater workshop based on Hamlet's soliloquies, more than 100 workshops created by educators and students for educators and students, day-long visits to schools that are truly walking the walk of creating meaningful, academically challenging teaching and learning experience, and much more. I hope that you can join us. Visit http://www.essentialschools.org/events/8 for Fall Forum information, links to registration, and everything else.

Here's a special offer for Providence Schools and Beyond readers. The Coalition of Essential Schools is making the large endeavor of Fall Forum happen with a small staff, and we're seeking volunteers who will be able to attend Fall Forum for $100, a significantly reduced rate, in exchange for 6 hours of work. Most volunteer shifts will happen during the second week of November and, of course, the conference itself. You can download the Fall Forum 2011 volunteer flier here or email fallforum@essentialschools.org to let us know you'd like to volunteer to make Fall Forum happen. Feel free to spread the word about this; we have lots of interest in volunteer spots and a limited number of them. I'd love for some to go to local folks who want to connect with educators and students from around the country who will be in Providence to share what they know works best for our schools for the long haul.

So - I may pop in and post from time to time but don't count on anything regular until the second half of November.  In the meantime. please visit the links to the right, and for Providence education news particularly, read Tom Hoffman's Tuttle SVC, the ProJo's education coverage, WRNI's education blog, ESPEC's blog, whatever WSPEC is saying and doing, and keep your eye on Aaron Regunberg's columns in GoLocalProv - definitely do not miss his piece published today on Achievement First.

Who remembers and why does it matter?

So, I took a week off there - sorry for not sharing that I would! Welcome back.

Last week, on the East Side Public Education Coalition's blog, Dr. Harlan Rich shared "Reflections on Change and 'Institutional Memory'" in response to ProJo coverage of the exodus (some by budget-cutting position elimination, some by retirement/moving on to new opportunities) of nearly all of PPSD's leadership team. Dr. Rich's thoughts on the largely untapped value of parents as key stakeholders and points of continuity/agents of change can and should be successfully expanded to include students, alumni, and community members as we face a down a new school year starting startlingly soon with a new acting superintendent, extremely strained relations between the Mayor's office and the school board, and--with all of the accompanying opportunities and challenges--without the aforementioned departed leadership team (COO Carleton Jones and acting chief academic officer Paula Shannon excepted).

Dr. Rich makes the point that PPSD has a substantial if inconsistent history of involving parents in decisions about school leadership and other planning. The district needs to stay the course on that and go much further, developing policies and a culture that systematically--across neighborhood, language, and other differences--involves and includes parents/family members, students, and neighborhood stakeholders.

WRNI features dual perspectives on PPSD school closing timeline + our commitment to neighborhood schools

WRNI's Elizabeth Harrison has (separately) interviewed Mayor Taveras and Matt Gabor and Michael Udris from the West Side Public Education Coalition. Both are worth a listen to deepen understanding about the arguments about whether, how, and when to close public schools in Providence.

Gabor and Udris' argue that the proposed school closings will leave the West Side with no middle school. The same is true for Windmill Street Elementary School; its closing leaves the Charles Street area/the northern part of Providence with no elementary option. That the West Side's Bridgham Middle School and Windmill (not to single them out - the rest of this sentence applies many or most other PPSD schools) have ample room for improvement is obvious, and they will be able to build on their respective recent successes and recently galvanized neighborhood energy to continue to do so. However, to say that there should be no elementary or middle school options at all in various neighborhoods is ludicrous, as is suggesting that mileage alone determines that a school is a "neighborhood" option.

This is particularly true given Providence's actual policies and current rhetorical focus on neighborhood schools. We need neighborhood task forces to bring local understanding to bear on what is reasonably walkable. Our children cannot cross highways, walk through dangerous streets with poorly understood potential for gang-related violence, or be forced to negotiate dangerous intersections. And winter isn't yet a distant memory; just a few weeks ago, we were all picking our way through unshoveled sidewalks, icy intersection, and poorly plowed streets.We may well want walkable, neighborhood schools but even from a infrastructure-only point of view, we're not yet ready for them.

Had Nathan Bishop have remained closed in 2007, the greater East Side would not have had a middle school option. At that time, that seems inequitable and unfair, and that spurred me into action as an involved parent. I started attending ESPEC meetings, witnessed and assisted the process of working through the politics of reopening the school, and along with other parents, eventually joined PPSD's Nathan Bishop Task Force as a parent/involved citizen to collaborate with the city to plan Bishop's reopening.

Many speakers at last night's School Board meeting acknowledged that we may well need to close schools and make significant changes but that doing so now, with such haste and so many remaining known unknowns, would be wrong. Those changes, many of them said, should be done with significant, substantial input from neighborhood residents within a more reasonable timeframe to allow us to create a more workable plan. 

Though I acknowledge the financial pressures that are compelling the school closings and reduction in teacher force that will result, I too want to find a way to do so with clearer answers and more adequate preparation. Along with many others, I am eager to seize our collective energy and assets to identify and implement community-based, locally-driven ways not only to save existing schools when reasonable to do so but also to improve teaching and learning all of our schools and the system itself.

Questions from the West, questions from the East, and the company we keep

Both the West Side Public Education Coalition (WSPEC) and the East Side Public Education Coalition (ESPEC) have posted thoughtful, necessary questions about the intertwined school closing/teacher firing/student reassignment crises: WSPEC questions here and ESPEC questions here.

Timelines to meet city budget and teacher retirement deadlines have created a sense of urgency that seems to be in conflict with the equally urgent need for transparency, not to mention an appropriate process, described as a minimum 12-month process. in this comprehensive guide to school closures due to urgent fiscal pressures put out by the Broad Foundation.

To make sense of and meaningfully participate in the current situation and in order to (re)establish a baseline of trust so that we can move forward with faith in the system and our leaders, we (students, family members, educators, and everyone else) need clearer, better answers from the Mayor, other elected officials, and the school board.

And in order to put the proposed school closures into a national context, take a few minutes to read this excellent account from the Philadelphia Public School Notebook of the Ford Foundation's recent "Examining School Transformations and Closures from the Ground Up" event and related school closings/reorganizations in the works in Philly and Newark (thanks to Tom Hoffman for pointing out the Notebook story).

While the context in Providence doesn't overlap fully with what's happening in New York and Chicago, the effect of our current lightning round of school closures has the truly unfortunate potential to producing much of the same community alienation and distrust. And while those of us who know the situation in Providence can read the Notebook's account and say, "Well, that's not us," those outside our context could and likely will easily believe that our city is selling out its public schools in ways that the Chicago and New York activists are claiming (if you need proof of this, see the recent claims that the city's move to dismiss all PPSD teachers put us firmly in Wisconsin's company).

Let me be clear: I don't think that's what's happening. There's a completely valid case to be made for "rightsizing" a district by dealing with excess school building capacity. There's a real need to deal with school buildings that have outlived their usefulness as places that provide the conditions for excellent teaching and learning. And there's a completely evident urgency that Providence must deal with its finances responsibly. No arguments there. But because the rushed process cannot include meaningful community/stakeholder participation, we have to face the reality that we're damaging our city's public schools, even though that damage may be inadvertent. Therefore, the need to get clear answers to pressing questions is critically important right now so that we can put everyone in all neighborhoods to work containing the damage and moving forward to ensure the best shot at ensuring consistently good schools for all kids in every part of Providence.