NEWS
- Silly Washington Post article on charter school principal salaries
- IMPACT scores ward-by-ward in D.C.
- D.C. Defends Plan For School That Would Serve Only Minority Boys
- D.C. schools chancellor recommends overhaul of capital planning process
- D.C. Public Schools plans to offer principals multi-year contracts
- A proposal that gives charter schools a chance
- Invitation to a Dialogue: Helping Boys Succeed
Silly Washington Post article on charter school principal salaries
The Examiner
By Mark Lerner
February 25, 2015
The Washington Post's Emma Brown and Michael Allison Chandler had a ridiculous article yesterday in the Washington Post which purported to demonstrate irresponsible spending of public dollars by charter schools on the salaries of their heads of schools. The headline said it all, "D.C. charter school executive salaries vary widely." But if you took the time to actually study the list of annual compensation amount by school you would see that the amounts are amazingly uniform, hovering slightly above $100,000 per year.
Some of those leaders who earn sums much greater than this average are responsible for educating thousands of kids living in poverty. These are the students that often have failed to learn in the traditional school system arriving at classroom doorsteps years behind grade level academically. Then what does the charter school movement do often without a word of recognition? They bring them up to where they are supposed to be and beyond, graduate them from high school on time, and then send them off to a four year college or university with thousands of dollars in scholarship money in their hands. These pupils are often the first in their families to even consider going to post-secondary school.
If the Washington Post reporters really wanted to shine a light on why compensation is the way it is in our local charter school movement they could have included these statistics from a recent study from the National Alliance of Public Charter School comparing the academic years 2007 to 2008 with 2010 to 2011 demonstrating that "a child enrolled in a charter in the nation's capital gains on average an extra 72 more days of instruction in reading and 101 more days of teaching in math compared to being in a DCPS classroom," a record that is higher than that of any other state in this country. Or take a look at the DC CAS proficiency rates for disadvantaged kids in charters compared to the regular schools. For 2014 those numbers are 57.3 percent compared to 40.9 percent for DCPS in math and 49.1 percent for charters versus 38.5 percent for the traditional sector.
I frankly don't know what salary you give people that are are able to bring about these types of results with kids that are the most difficult to educate. But if you are paying instructional professionals who close for the first time in the history of public education the academic achievement gap between rich and poor, than perhaps that number comes with seven zeroes behind it.
IMPACT scores ward-by-ward in D.C.
The Washington Post
By Michael Alison Chandler
February 24, 2015
D.C. Public Schools have released a more detailed picture this month showing significant differences across the city in where the most effective teachers are working.
Last school year, half of the teachers in Ward 3, which has the highest median income in the city, were rated “highly effective,” under the teacher evaluation system known as IMPACT. In Wards 7 and 8, where poverty rates are highest, 18 percent and 19 percent respectively were rated “highly effective.”
The scores were recently released along with hundreds of pages of documents in advance of the oversight hearing before the D.C. Council Education Committee on Tuesday.
The District’s evaluation system reflects classroom observations, measures of student achievement growth, and other indicators. Since its creation, it has led to the termination of more than 400 teachers deemed “least effective” and bonuses for many more who are considered “highly effective.”
The formula, and the stakes attached to the ratings, have been controversial. Some teachers say it’s harder for those working with the most challenging students to receive the highest ratings.
D.C. Public Schools officials have worked to improve the quality of the teaching workforce in the most challenging and under-performing schools, with efforts including bonuses of up to $20,000 for highly effective teachers in high-poverty schools, compared with $2,000 in low-poverty schools, as well as differences in the pay scale.
Jason Kamras, Chief of Human Capital for D.C. Public Schools, told the D.C. Council that the school district is also looking at new incentives to offer high-performing teachers in high-performing schools to come work in lower performing schools, and planning to roll out a more comprehensive system for training and supporting teachers in those schools.
The talent pipeline for teachers in poor and struggling schools is a concern nationally. District officials – along with state education leaders across the country – are developing a plan to bring more talented teachers to schools in poor neighborhoods to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind law.
D.C. Public schools also released a school-by-school look at the distribution of effective teachers for the 2013-2014 school year. You can see it here.
D.C. Defends Plan For School That Would Serve Only Minority Boys
WAMU
By Patrick Madden
February 24, 2015
As D.C. lawmakers look to boost the academic prospects of black and Hispanic boys, some are questioning why minority female students don’t receive the same treatment.
Minority male students make up 43 percent of the District of Columbia public school system. Test scores, according to school officials, show this group of students is struggling compared to their peers.
Mayor Muriel Bowser, along with Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson, is proposing to build an all-boys high school as well as spend millions of dollars on other special programs for the group. It’s called the “Empowering Men of Color Initiative.” It will add literacy mentors, boost other programs and, critically, it’ll create an all-boys public school east of the Anacostia River.
Bowser told Council members Wednesday that the city must act now.
"None of us would be doing our job if we didn’t realize how far and how fast the boys and men of color are falling behind," Bowser said. "We have to do everything we can — within the law of course — to make sure we are targeting those very significant gaps.”
But one lawmaker is asking whether it’s fair to provide additional resources to minority boys students but not minority girls. Council member Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) has asked D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine to look into the issue.
“I think its a great thing to target the problems of minority boys, but I think it's required under the law that you have comparable programs for struggling minority girls,” Cheh said. “And the sooner we attend to that the better.”
Cheh isn’t the only one asking questions. This week the regional chapter of the ACLU sent a letter to Racine asking whether the proposed school would violate federal laws, and it questioned how effective the school would be.
"We support an investment to address the systemic racial inequities in our education system,” wrote ACLU executive director Monica Hopkins-Maxwell. “But we question whether an all-male prep school is the most effective way to address racial disparities in educational achievement."
Henderson told Council members that she has consulted with the U.S. Department of Education and believes the program is on strong legal footing.
“As far as whether or not girls are facing persistent issues, of course they are,” Henderson told Council members. “So are my English-language learners. So our my special-education students.”
Henderson said just because the city is focusing on boys “doesn’t mean we won’t continue to meet the needs of girls.”
Attorney General Racine says he is reviewing case law to minimize the city’s “legal exposure” as the District move forward with the program.
D.C. schools chancellor recommends overhaul of capital planning process
The Washington Post
By Michael Alison Chandler
February 25, 2015
D.C. Schools chancellor Kaya Henderson is calling for an overhaul of the process for mapping out school modernizations in the coming years, saying that the renovations have become overly political and prohibitively expensive.
“My very honest assessment is that the whole CIP process is jacked up,” she said, referring to the Capital Improvement Plan, a six-year capital budget and construction plan that outlines the timing for school modernizations.
The queue for renovations is included in the mayor’s budget and submitted to the D.C. Council each spring. It gets rearranged annually, with some projects moving up or back or growing in scale and price tag. It also typically gets adjusted again halfway through the year.
The city has invested more than $1 billion in school renovations in recent years, turning old buildings marked by decades of neglect into state-of-the-art facilities. But many communities are frustrated about schools that have had partial renovations or none at all.
Henderson said she "can’t bear” to go through another spring" fielding reactions to changes in the timeline for construction.
She proposed developing a task force within the next year that would come up with a way to develop the capital plan according to some “very transparent” and “logical” criteria rather than “how loudly your community screams.”
She said the criteria should include the building’s condition and school enrollment, with more crowded schools getting higher priority. She suggested that the number of “at-risk” students could also be a factor.
Adding to the pressure is the cost of construction, which Henderson said has grown 30 percent, limiting the number of projects the school district can take on in a given year.
“We have got to get some discipline around what kind of schools we are building,” she said.
“The truth of the matter is we need to figure out how we can do this, because there is no way we can keep all the promises that we have made,” she said.
Her comments came during an annual oversight hearing before the D.C. Council Education Committee Tuesday.
Projects that are scheduled to begin this fiscal year would not be affected.
D.C. Council member David Grosso (At large) said during an open house shortly after he became chairman of the education committee that he would like to bring more transparency to the capital planning process for schools. He noted that compliance with the American Disabilities Act should be a priority.
Lisa Ruda, deputy chancellor for operations for D.C. Public Schools, reported at the hearing Tuesday that all schools in the District are now compliant with the federal law, but she said 55 schools still have some part or parts of the building that are not fully accessible.
That continues to be a goal as the facilities are modernized, she said.
D.C. Public Schools plans to offer principals multi-year contracts
The Washington Post
By Michael Alison
February 24, 2015
D.C. Schools Chancellor Kaya Henderson said Tuesday that she plans to begin offering principals multi-year contracts, perhaps as soon as next school year, in response to repeated calls from school leaders and community members for more stability at the top of their schools.
The city’s public school principals have long worked under one-year contracts, but they were far more likely to keep their jobs prior to 2007, when the School Reform Act triggered a series of changes, many of which were built around the concept of holding teachers and principals more responsible for student progress. Hundreds of principals and assistant principals have lost their jobs since 2008 because of school closures and terminations, and they have not had the luxury of knowing they would be in their schools for more than one year.
“We are at a point where we can offer multi-year contracts as a matter of practice,” Henderson told the D.C. Council’s Education Committee.
She made the comments during an oversight hearing that spanned more than four hours and touched on many issues, including school discipline, truancy policies, dissatisfaction with school lunches, and funding for students who are considered “at-risk.” (Henderson said the funds, which were used for multiple purposes this year, will follow the students they were earmarked for next year.)
But the news about principal contracts was the most notable, and it spurred a positive reaction from school leaders.
Aona Jefferson, president of the Council of School Officers, which represents principals, said she was optimistic about the prospect of longer-term contracts but concerned about the plan’s fine print. It is unclear whether the longer contracts will be available to all principals, for example, or whether they will be tied to certain expectations.
“We need to minimize the revolving door of principals and assistant principals,” she said, noting that it takes time to get to know the staff, community, teachers and students. “You can’t turn a school around in one year.”
The school system created a task force this school year — including members of the principals union — to consider the longer-term contracts, said Jason Kamras, chief of human capital for D.C. Public Schools. The longer contracts could be offered in time for next school year, he said.
In 2012-2013, new evaluations, similar to those introduced for teachers in 2009, were used to sort principals for the first time into performance categories.
Half of a principal’s evaluations is tied to progress on school-wide achievement goals. The other half is based on a “leadership framework” that evaluates performance in different areas, including family engagement, instruction and operations.
In the first year, the largest group received a “developing” rating, according to school system data. In 2012-2013, 61 principals were rated “developing,” 36 were rated “effective,” and 14 were rated “highly effective.” Nine principals were rated “ineffective,” which automatically leads to termination. Other principals also can be dismissed at the end of their contract for any reason.
The 2013-2014 school year was similar, with the largest number of principals rated in the “developing” category, which was renamed “minimally effective.”
D.C. Council member David Grosso (I-At Large), chairman of the Education Committee, questioned the large number of principals who were rated on the low end of the spectrum: “Do these results give you any pause?”
Henderson said that many principals score very well on their leadership framework, but they are not considered effective unless their students are improving on academic and other goals.
“We don’t want to be a system that says the principals are doing everything but the kids are not where they need to be,” she said. “We believe we, as adults, have to take responsibility.”
Henderson agreed that it takes three years for a principal to show significant progress in a school. “If principals are terminated before then, something has happened,” she said.
A proposal that gives charter schools a chance
The Washington Post
Editorial Board
February 24, 2015
MARYLAND GOV. Larry Hogan (R) has proposed improvements to Maryland’s charter school law, currently the worst in the nation. Teachers union leaders and traditional public school officials are aghast. Lawmakers should look past their over-the-top rhetoric and bring Maryland into line with common-sense policies of other states.
The state House Ways and Means Committee is set to hold a public hearing Thursday on Mr. Hogan’s proposals to give charter schools more authority in employment and admission policies and increased public funding, including access to school construction funds. Many of the changes are standard operating procedure in other states, designed to give charters the flexibility that is vital to their ability to adapt and innovate. But, as The Post’s Ovetta Wiggins reported, opposition to the changes has been fierce and quick, including from the state’s teachers union and association of school boards.
More encouraging is that legislative leaders have said they are open to looking at ways to make it easier to open and operate charters. Maryland’s law is so restrictive that, 12 years after it allowed creation of charters, only 18,000 of Maryland’s 870,000 students attend them. A number of high-performing charter networks won’t even think about locating in the state. Most onerous are policies that tie the hands of charters in who they can hire and how they evaluate, discipline and pay staff. It makes no sense that teachers are employed by local school boards instead of charter operators or that they are subject to rules of collective bargaining agreements designed for a different system.
Some aspects of Mr. Hogan’s legislation may need refinement (the exact formula for per-pupil funding, for one) but the sky-is-falling arguments about teachers getting hired off the streets or taxpayer dollars going to waste are without merit. Charter schools will not replace traditional public schools in Maryland, and no one will ever be forced to attend a charter. But such schools could spur innovation and offer alternatives to families who need them. That may seem unimportant to families well-off enough to move to the school district of their choice, but many children don’t have that luxury. Mr. Hogan has fashioned a sensible plan to free charters from unnecessary bureaucracy while still leaving in place a strong system of oversight to ensure quality and accountability. The General Assembly should follow his lead.
Invitation to a Dialogue: Helping Boys Succeed
The New York Times
Letter to the Editor
February 23, 2015
To the Editor:
Women outperform and outnumber men in postsecondary education, in part because the K-12 system does not provide boys with the same educational experience. It is geared for girls. Our academic system must bolster the experience for girls, but not at the expense of boys.
As we encourage girls to consider STEM (science, technology, engineering and math), we must work equally hard to encourage boys to consider literature, journalism and communications. Boys are often pushed toward math and science, and receive inadequate social support. We need to recognize boys’ differences, and their social and developmental needs.
Gender inequality in postsecondary education is partly the product of a K-12 educational system that presses academic and social skills at an age when girls are typically more socially and physiologically ready than boys.
A modern educational system must do these things:
■ Decrease suspension rates for boys.
■ Use educational modes that reach boys.
■ Allow boys more physical activity.
■ Facilitate introspection and a sense of self-worth.
■ Provide more reading, writing and communication opportunities.
■ Develop single-sex schools.
■ Start boys at different ages, providing more free preschool education that prepares boys for the classroom.
When K-12 systems and our culture defer to the boys-will-be-boys notion, we facilitate and accept the willful blindness to a disturbing trend: Women outnumber men by more than 2.8 million in postsecondary education. The gender ratios have essentially flipped from the mid-1970s to today, with boys falling behind in postsecondary success. Disciplinary procedures, physiological differences and teaching practices create greater challenges for boys.
Our K-12 systems must recognize gender differences so all children develop a love of learning. Educators must advance gender equality for girls and boys.
SEAN KULLMAN
Pleasanton, Calif.
__________
FROM FOCUS
 |
Upcoming events
Click Here > |
__________