Showing posts with label RI Board of Regents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RI Board of Regents. Show all posts
Friday, February 3, 2012
Achievement First Mayoral Academies Receive Preliminary Approval
Apologies for the sporadic recent posting - amped up demands at work and home have limited my time. Happy to have a few minutes now to to note - as all locally who care already know - that yesterday, the Rhode Island Board of Regents voted to preliminarily approve Achievement First's Mayoral Charter schools application. The vote was 5-4 - more details online via various news outlets, including WRNI's Education Blog and the Providence Journal.
Monday, January 9, 2012
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.
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:
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
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.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.
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?
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
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
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
RI Regents Achievement First Mayoral Academy Hearing Tomorrow, 4:00pm
Tomorrow, the RI Board of Regents is hearing public comment on the proposal from Achievement First to start two Rhode Island Mayoral Academies charter schools in Providence as part of its monthly meeting (meeting agenda here), which is scheduled to take place from 4-6pm at the Rhode Island Department of Education, Room 501, 255 Westminster Street in Providence. Arrive a half hour early (3:30pm) to sign up for public comment.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Family and community engagement: less is more
Would you like to go to a meeting? Because, man, do we have them this week. Tonight, tomorrow night, and Thursday night are full of meetings and hearings related to the Achievement First Mayoral Academies charter school application that's been submitted to RIDE. Tonight, there's a Providence City Council education subcommittee hearing at 5:30 at City Hall (more info here). Tomorrow and Thursday night, the Rhode Island Board of Regents is holding hearings in Providence, tomorrow at 6pm at Kennedy Elementary School, Thursday at 6pm at Alvarez High School (more info, respectively aligned along some sort of spectrum here, here, and here). And that's just what's happening in Providence related to this one particular topic.
In Providence, it's also Open Schools Week for elementary schools, which means that families interested in public elementary schools are likely taking time off work or away from other responsibilities to visit schools. I'm spending evenings and lunch hours getting ready for and giving tours of MLK Elementary, where my kids go to school. This is great! But again, this week? With everything else? Too much.
Read on for schedule-related bitching and moaning, if that's your pleasure...
While I'd be way crankier if there were no hearings or publicly available information, I am sufficiently cranky with all of this happening immediately, right now, one after the other, especially since there is no actual rush as far as I am aware. As Tom Hoffman points out, the deadline for charter applications is four months away. There's ample time for various public entities to schedule hearings in ways that allow families with kids (or any of you out there who may work evenings or just otherwise have plenty going on) to plan to attend. After a strenuous bout of childcare wrangling, I think I'll be able to attend tomorrow night's Regents' hearing at Kennedy but that's it. And I am blessed with a daytime job, fairly easy kids, a car, and a spouse who supports my desire to participate.
Generally, I regard myself as a fortunate person, especially when it comes to being able to be involved with the schools in my community. Though I work full time, I have enough control over my time to be able to spend time in schools. I have been able to form meaningful relationships with other family members, staff members, students, and administrators. I feel like I am able to contribute to conversations about what's happening in education in Providence and beyond in a variety of ways - in conversations, in public forums, on this blog, in my East Side Monthly column, and in my professional life. And as a member of the dominant culture who speaks English and feels happy and at home in school settings, I am well aware of my privilege and access, and happy to use some of it to ask that we think about ways to schedule hearings and opportunities for family and community involvement that support that involvement.
When possible, I hope that the various towns involved with this proposal, along with RIDE, communicate with each other about when hearings are happening, and try to make sure they don't happen on weeks when there are other big district-wide events such as Open Schools Week. I have no expectation that all of us can attend everything, but this week's event pile-up is way beyond possible for most regular folks.
In order to have consistent, inclusive family and community involvement, we really need better planning. Too many events, while better than too few, create their own frustrations that could be avoided by better planning. Moving forward, let's look at the various demands on folks' time and try to schedule them in ways that are possible for the largest possible group of people.
Monday, June 13, 2011
No Achievement First Mayoral Academies Regents' vote this week
WRNI's Education Blog has posted the news that the RI Board of Regents won't be voting this week on the Achievement First Mayoral Academies proposal to create charter schools in Cranston to serve Providence and Cranston students. The vote was to have taken place at 11:00am on Thursday, 6/16; now the vote has been postponed (no date announced) and Thursday's Regents meeting will include a hearing on the charter proposal.
If you're able to attend, the Regents meeting will take place in room 501 at the RI Department of Education (RIDE), 255 Westminster Street, Providence. Sign up for public comments is at 10:30.
If you're able to attend, the Regents meeting will take place in room 501 at the RI Department of Education (RIDE), 255 Westminster Street, Providence. Sign up for public comments is at 10:30.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Voices from Last Night's Regents' Diploma Hearing
As I mentioned yesterday, I wasn't able to be at the Rhode Island Board of Regents hearing on the proposed changes for Rhode Island's high school graduation system. I'm gratified to post a report on the evening from Aaron Regunberg. Aaron, a junior at Brown, is a force for good in politics and education. He recently worked as an organizer on Angel Taveras' campaign and is actively supporting Hope High School students as they fight to maintain the schedules and structures that allowed them favorable conditions for learning. Here's his report:
The other big news story from last night's hearing--the first, as Aaron reported, was the powerful presence of young people, parents, and concerned citizens speaking out--was Providence Public Schools Superintendent Tom Brady's statement opposing the imposition of NECAP partial proficiency as a graduation requirement. Click here for Brady's entire testimony (in PDF form); here's a part:
P.S.: So far, there's school in Providence tomorrow. No snow day (yet). As I just said to my kids as I sent them up to bed, "Sorry, kids."
P.P.S.: And now, in news just delivered in a Facebook post from Mayor Angel Taveras, no school tomorrow. Snow day. Sleep in, kids!
What I saw at the hearing tonight was at the same time one of the most beautiful and the most frustrating spectacles I've experienced in a long time. On the one hand, it was absolutely inspiring to see so many different Rhode Islanders come together to fight for the type of education system they believed in. The PCTA auditorium was completely packed--there were students, parents, teachers, administrators, concerned citizens, black and white and brown, all protesting with one voice. That in itself should be pretty powerful evidence; one speaker said that he had never seen such a consensus, that he was there fighting next to people he had never agreed with before. And of course, it was particularly powerful to hear so many students committed enough to their education to come out on a freezing night like tonight to speak truth to power.Thanks, Aaron (and happy birthday!).
But as beautiful as the protest was, it was also immensely frustrating, because I had seen it all before. This was the third such hearing, not counting the initial mass protest in Narragansett at the beginning of the month. And none of these outpourings of anger, none of the valid and rationally articulated criticism had seemed to have any effect on any of the decision-makers. I was at the Regents' work session last Thursday, and listened as the Commissioner told the Board that nothing any of these different stakeholders had been saying was valid because it was all based on a belief that minority students are not able to achieve.
This shockingly ignorant statement allows these people to dismiss all of the arguments that students, parents, and educators are making--that tying graduation to a single test is horrifying; that even if it weren't horrifying in general, the NECAP is a horrifyingly bad test to use as it was designed specifically to not be used to test individual achievement; and that creating a tiered diploma system is inequality incarnate.
That's what everyone was saying. I just don't think the Regents particularly heard.
The other big news story from last night's hearing--the first, as Aaron reported, was the powerful presence of young people, parents, and concerned citizens speaking out--was Providence Public Schools Superintendent Tom Brady's statement opposing the imposition of NECAP partial proficiency as a graduation requirement. Click here for Brady's entire testimony (in PDF form); here's a part:
I would also like to address the proposed proficiency measures for high school graduation and the dire consequences for many Providence students who are currently in their junior year. Our current graduation policy was written to comply with RIDE’s 2008 Regulations Guidance which clearly states “that districts will evaluate the results of the state assessments in those areas in conjunction with the other components of the proficiency...” RIDE staff on more than one occasion made public comments confirming that the NECAP was only one component of this conjunctive system, and that failure to achieve partial proficiency would not result in a failure to graduate.The ProJo's story on the hearing, "Students say diploma plan is unfair," is here.
With this mid-stream change from what has been consistently communicated by RIDE, students in the class of 2012 are at-risk of not graduating and would be afforded limited opportunity to improve. While we are already implementing intensive interventions and supports to continually improve student achievement, there is not sufficient time, resources and direction from RIDE to create a comprehensive, personalized support system to ensure the type of growth students will need to graduate. Also of note, is that Rhode Island, unlike other states, can only administer its standardized assessment once per year, affording students only one “re-take.”
P.P.S.: And now, in news just delivered in a Facebook post from Mayor Angel Taveras, no school tomorrow. Snow day. Sleep in, kids!
Monday, January 24, 2011
RI Graduation Requirements: Be Aware of Effects of Proposed Changes
Many of you who are dialed in to education in Rhode Island are already closely following and participating in the statewide discussion about the proposal to create a high school graduation system that will use the NECAP (the New England Common Assessment Program, a system of standardized testing shared by Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire) as a gatekeeper starting in 2012. The Rhode Island Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education is considering this proposal now, and if you don't do anything else, please consider attending the Regents' hearing that's being held tomorrow, Tuesday, January 25, 5:00pm at Providence Career & Technical Academy, 91 Fricker Street, to hear what those that are able to be there have to say on the issue. Their voices will be many and mighty. And I will be bummed out, as it looks like circumstances are conspiring to prevent me from being there.
This change, being described as a "three-tier system," will alter graduation regulations passed in 2008--that is, graduation regulations that most current high school students, teachers, administrators, and families have held as their expectations. A significant percentage of all current 11th graders suddenly face the real prospect that they will below the third tier and therefore be denied a diploma if they cannot pass the NECAP's math and English tests with at least partial proficiency. (For an explanation of the factors that determine the three proposed diploma levels, see this ProJo article--there's a good explanation midway through.)
The central concern that many educators and others have voiced at Regents' meetings and hearings held earlier this month is that NECAP wasn't designed for this use. As the Rhode Island Department of Education explains, the NECAP is in place to provide "information to school administrators, teachers, and parents to help them make informed decisions about student instructional needs." The NECAP a significant small slice, and has real meaning, but it was not intended to be a defining measure of graduation.
There's been a huge reaction to the proposal, and I suggest you check out some of what's available to help you think through the issue. Five highlights below:
1. "Future of Rhode Island Students" vividly describes what the proposed changes will mean for many students who, as of now, are successfully on their way toward graduation:
Was that not great? "Future of Rhode Island Students" was made by Mike McCarthy, a second-year student at College Unbound. GoLocalProv ran a story on McCarthy and his motivation for making the video, which is a powerful example of what students can do, an example of the sort of exhibition of mastery that our state's current graduation policy clearly values.
2. Here's a powerful statement from last week's hearing in South Kingston from a Providence teacher identified as Mary (those in the know, please send me more info about Mary so I can properly credit her).
3. The ProJo has been covering this issue--here's the latest, and here's a breakdown of statewide NECAP scores that demonstrates the impact statewide on those students current testing below proficient.
4. Facebook is doing its part to organize those who want to express concern through the "This Is Not the Test, This Is Not the Time" group.
5. And for a useful demonstration on how it's possible to express concern about the hasty implementation of this policy while still expressing support for the overall direction of Rhode Island education under Commissioner Deborah Gist, check out this GoLocalProvidence interview with state rep/House Speaker Gordon Fox.
Please attend tomorrow night's hearing if you can, and please take some time to determine for yourself if you think this is the best move for our state.
This change, being described as a "three-tier system," will alter graduation regulations passed in 2008--that is, graduation regulations that most current high school students, teachers, administrators, and families have held as their expectations. A significant percentage of all current 11th graders suddenly face the real prospect that they will below the third tier and therefore be denied a diploma if they cannot pass the NECAP's math and English tests with at least partial proficiency. (For an explanation of the factors that determine the three proposed diploma levels, see this ProJo article--there's a good explanation midway through.)
The central concern that many educators and others have voiced at Regents' meetings and hearings held earlier this month is that NECAP wasn't designed for this use. As the Rhode Island Department of Education explains, the NECAP is in place to provide "information to school administrators, teachers, and parents to help them make informed decisions about student instructional needs." The NECAP a significant small slice, and has real meaning, but it was not intended to be a defining measure of graduation.
There's been a huge reaction to the proposal, and I suggest you check out some of what's available to help you think through the issue. Five highlights below:
1. "Future of Rhode Island Students" vividly describes what the proposed changes will mean for many students who, as of now, are successfully on their way toward graduation:
Was that not great? "Future of Rhode Island Students" was made by Mike McCarthy, a second-year student at College Unbound. GoLocalProv ran a story on McCarthy and his motivation for making the video, which is a powerful example of what students can do, an example of the sort of exhibition of mastery that our state's current graduation policy clearly values.
2. Here's a powerful statement from last week's hearing in South Kingston from a Providence teacher identified as Mary (those in the know, please send me more info about Mary so I can properly credit her).
3. The ProJo has been covering this issue--here's the latest, and here's a breakdown of statewide NECAP scores that demonstrates the impact statewide on those students current testing below proficient.
4. Facebook is doing its part to organize those who want to express concern through the "This Is Not the Test, This Is Not the Time" group.
5. And for a useful demonstration on how it's possible to express concern about the hasty implementation of this policy while still expressing support for the overall direction of Rhode Island education under Commissioner Deborah Gist, check out this GoLocalProvidence interview with state rep/House Speaker Gordon Fox.
Please attend tomorrow night's hearing if you can, and please take some time to determine for yourself if you think this is the best move for our state.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Storm in Narragansett
Yesterday, with many others, I got myself to Narragansett High School for the Rhode Island Board of Regents meeting. Unfortunately, I then had to get myself back to Providence long before the meeting ended; nearly an hour and a half in, public comments were still happening, most devoted to protesting the Regents' proposed changes in the Rhode Island high school diploma requirements and the proposal to institute a three-tiered diploma system. This new system would go into effect for this year's high school juniors and would, with its over-reliance on NECAP scores to determine diploma status, severely and inequitably penalize students of color and from low-income backgrounds, as well as English language learner and students receiving special education services. More here from ProJo's Jennifer Jordan on the public outcry against the proposed changes and the Regents' decision to move forward into public hearings, which will happen later this month.
Today's ProJo also shared a shocker that happened later during the meeting. Linda Borg reports that the Board of Regents voted to stay Commissioner Deborah Gist's ruling in favor of restoring essential common planning time to Hope High School teachers, a resource that the Providence Public Schools administration removed from the school last year and which students, with the counsel and action of attorney Miriam Weizenbaum, successfully fought. The Regents' approval of Gist's ruling was viewed by many as a foregone conclusion, as it had been endorsed by a Regents' subcommittee and was clearly in good legal standing. I don't know enough to be authoritative, but it sure seems that the Regents' reversal, based (as Borg reports) on changes that may happen in the future, is specious.
This decision is terribly unfair to Hope High School's students, who understand and have fought for what works in their school, and to all students in Providence who can benefit from the innovation and experience that's been a factor in Hope's successes. I don't fathom why the Regents are aligning against proven innovation and effectiveness, and am exceedingly grateful for the students and attorney Weizenbaum for continuing to fight for that which school staff members are legally entitled.
Check out Tom Hoffman's blog for more on both of these stories.
Today's ProJo also shared a shocker that happened later during the meeting. Linda Borg reports that the Board of Regents voted to stay Commissioner Deborah Gist's ruling in favor of restoring essential common planning time to Hope High School teachers, a resource that the Providence Public Schools administration removed from the school last year and which students, with the counsel and action of attorney Miriam Weizenbaum, successfully fought. The Regents' approval of Gist's ruling was viewed by many as a foregone conclusion, as it had been endorsed by a Regents' subcommittee and was clearly in good legal standing. I don't know enough to be authoritative, but it sure seems that the Regents' reversal, based (as Borg reports) on changes that may happen in the future, is specious.
This decision is terribly unfair to Hope High School's students, who understand and have fought for what works in their school, and to all students in Providence who can benefit from the innovation and experience that's been a factor in Hope's successes. I don't fathom why the Regents are aligning against proven innovation and effectiveness, and am exceedingly grateful for the students and attorney Weizenbaum for continuing to fight for that which school staff members are legally entitled.
Check out Tom Hoffman's blog for more on both of these stories.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Read this: "Rhode Island Risks Losing $4.3 Billion ‘Race to the Top’"
As the recent weather has demonstrated, when it rains, it pours. And same here: 2 blog posts in a day! I wanted to take just a minute, which is less than I have given the amount of work I've got, to share Angus Davis' statement on behalf of the Rhode Island Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education about Rhode Island's foolish move to cut charter funding. Read Davis' statement here.
The effect is not only to squash educational innovation here in RI, but also to put our state in serious jeopardy. We are otherwise likely to be in good standing to receive competitive Race to the Top ARRA stimulus funds. With this, as well as with Governor Carcieri's move to use the first round of educational stimulus money to plug budget holes, we're losing access to those funds, and to the advancement that will result.
Lacking the time, capacity, or expertise to get deeply into this infuriating decision, I want to inspire you to learn more. Read Davis' statement, think about it, and demand better for our young people and systems set up to educate them.
The effect is not only to squash educational innovation here in RI, but also to put our state in serious jeopardy. We are otherwise likely to be in good standing to receive competitive Race to the Top ARRA stimulus funds. With this, as well as with Governor Carcieri's move to use the first round of educational stimulus money to plug budget holes, we're losing access to those funds, and to the advancement that will result.
Lacking the time, capacity, or expertise to get deeply into this infuriating decision, I want to inspire you to learn more. Read Davis' statement, think about it, and demand better for our young people and systems set up to educate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)