Check out page 51/62: DDOE Organizational Structure……10 People. All good folks no doubt, but at 100K/yr (low estimate) that’s $1MM/yr * 4 years of RTTT = $4MM/$119MM = 3.36% of Total grant money right off the top not making it to the classroom……now this is what is more commonly known as the “tip” of the iceberg…..often the great majority of mass lies below the water……..
Ethan Boroson is an honor student and captain of the baseball team, the kind of boy who makes teachers and other students smile on sight. Though often tired, he’s succeeding. But most high school students fare less well, and lack of sleep is one of the reasons. Mary Carskadon, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University and director of chronobiology and sleep research at Bradley Hospital, studies sleep in adolescents and has found that many of them “live in a state of jet lag continually.”
The consensus in the field — informed by a large Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey of American teens — is that adolescents need about nine hours and 15 minutes of sleep a night, but most get less. Teens are caught in a tug of war between their biology and rules and schedules put in place by adults. Biology is losing.
Adults are disinclined to sleep during the day. Teenagers, however, are hard-wired to be night owls. Their circadian rhythms are timed later than those of other age groups and will remain so into their early 20s. When adults who work a typical day shift start winding down in the evening, an adolescent’s energy and alertness are peaking. The average adolescent isn’t ready — or perhaps even able — to go to sleep until 11 p.m. or later.
Hormones play a role. Our brains produce the hormone melatonin as they prepare to sleep. Synthetic forms are sold over the counter as a sleep aid. Carskadon found that melatonin levels in adolescents don’t rise until about 10:30 p.m. Sending your teen to bed at 10 is likely to lead to tossing and turning but not much sleep until the body agrees it is time. If a child who can’t sleep until 11 p.m. needs to rise at 6 a.m. to catch a bus, that provides just seven hours of sleep — two hours less than the average adolescent needs.
Changing School Start Times Causes Alarm
If, as the science says, teens are more alert and healthier when they sleep later, why haven’t more high schools adjusted their start times? The answer to that question lies in a mix of logistics and politics. See Colleen Shaddox’s story titled “Delaying School Start Times Causes Alarm” on Miller-McCune.com.
Furthermore, melatonin secretion is still high in adolescents in the early morning hours. During these hours, teens may be in the “rapid eye movement” phase, a period characterized by a high-quality form of sleep that the mind and body need to be fully refreshed. Many parents can testify to just how difficult it is to rouse a sleeping teenager.
Typical high schools in the United States open at about 7:30 a.m. But some communities have adjusted school start times in an effort to synch high school students’ schedules to their body clocks, and the quantitative results have been largely positive, including better attendance and reduced traffic accidents. There is also anecdotal testimony from teachers and parents that better-rested teens are more cheerful and cooperative teens. The change comes with logistical challenges, though. As school districts around the country debate later start times, meetings tend to get heated.
Both our Justin and the very justifiably well-respected school finance economist Bruce Baker have weighed in from different, and equally enlightening, perspectives as to the legal problems (read: certain lawsuits) that would result from instituting systemic value-added assessment-based teacher dismissals and demotions (including de-tenuring tenured teachers). Here, I add my two cents as a former (defense) litigator of these very sorts of issues in Florida.
First, I wholeheartedly agree with both Justin and Bruce that a flood of lawsuits is certain to occur (one roughly the same size as the flood of dismissals and demotions that occur). Simply put, if you fire people, and they think their firings were unfair, then you are going to be sued. Period. In fact, I think that these lawsuits will assert not only claims under the Due Process Clause and Title VII, as Justin and Bruce explain, but also under ordinary state contract law, and possibly in some states (including Kentucky), claims under state constitutional provisions forbidding “arbitrary” governmental action. This certainty of a litigation explosion alone ought to give policy makers pause when they consider their “blame the victim” strategies for improving teaching. In fact, if I were general counsel of a school district, I would advise the administrators to run. Run fast, away from this. However, assuming that district political officials ignore their general counsels (which they sometimes do), would such suits ultimately succeed? It may be surprising, but except for the rare “unconstitutional arbitrariness” claim that might succeed in a state such as Kentucky, I’m not so optimistic for the plaintiffs. Here’s why:
As to any contract-based claims, these would likely just be throw-aways to add to the complaint. Any decently represented district will cover value-added demotion and dismissal as an explicit term of the teacher contact (dealing with the union on this brings up a whole separate issue, of course).
As to the Due Process claims, Bruce makes some very forceful and valid points regarding the validity of the value-added model of assessing teacher performance, and he is, of course, the expert on that topic. However, a claim for wrongful termination in violation of the Due Process Clause is a claim of denial of legal procedures–nothing more. The “property interest” in one’s teaching job is simply a threshold showing that has to be made before one can even begin to argue that the proper procedures were denied. Under well-settled precedent, a school district complies with the Due Process Clause as long as it offers teachers (1) sufficient notice of impending termination or demotion; and (2) an opportunity to be heard (usually in a hearing before the Board or its designate). Typically, districts also provide a right to counsel and a rudimentary appellate system. Now, the flaws that Bruce identifies would of course be relevant to such a proceeding, but if the decision were to stand after several layers of hearings in spite of such statistical evidence, then the teacher would be left with a very weak due process claim, regardless of the decision’s substantive correctness as a matter of measurement.
As to the disparate impact claim, although I agree with much of Justin’s analysis, I must disagree with the claim that school districts would have a hard time showing their policies to be neutral. The neutrality that matters in these cases is facial neutrality, and there is nothing race-based on the face of any such policies. Any race-based effects must be proven statistically. That being said, both Justin and Bruce are surely correct that substantial statistical disparities would result from the use of such measures, and these disparities would be largely based on race.
However, to survive a disparate impact claim (i.e., to win at summary judgment), the district would only have to show that the value-added measures were (1) job-related; and (2) consistent with business necessity. The first element would be a no-brainer. However flawed, a measurement of student learning gains is clearly related to the job of being a teacher. The second element would be somewhat problematic for districts if an expert witness were prepared to offer Bruce’s methodological critiques. However, even these critiques concede that some useful, effectiveness-related information can be gleaned from such measures, and in such a case, the court will only be concerned with whether the district was ever presented with a race-neutral alternative that was just as effective at accomplishing the employment-based objective, but was rejected or not considered by the district. Do such equally effective, race-neutral measures of teacher effectiveness exist (I honestly do not know)? If not, then the district would at least have a decent chance of successfully defending its use of value-added, despite its flaws.
Again, none of this means that there would be no lawsuits. Every fired or demoted employee who perceives the sanction to be unfair sues. However, a few high-profile federal circuit court decisions could douse a litigation explosion pretty quickly.
Thompson: Parents Can Refuse (Some) Standardized Testing
Kudos to Teacher Magazine’s Anthony Cody for introducing us to Shahila Changebringer, who protests “reform” by refusing permission for schools to impose standardized tests on her child. I personally would not deter a student from taking A.P., SAT, or graduation tests. Neither would I impose a cookie-cutter morality standard on all parents, grandparents, or teens old enough to make their own decisions. But if this bubble-in craze violates your conscience, it is time to object. If only the educators who believe that their district’s testing regime is educational malpractice pulled their children out of the meat-grinder, that would be a great start. If just a fifth of parents refused permission to test their children, what would that do to “reformers” value-less arithmetic models? -JT
Conversations about race need to be fearless
An interview with Glenn Singleton
Educator promotes honesty and courage to make
By Dennis Sparks
Journal of Staff Development, Fall 2002 (Vol. 23,
Copyright, National Staff Development Council, 2002. All rights reserved.
JSD: I thought about your advocacy for courageous conversations about race when I read this passage in Linda Ellinor and Glenna Gerard’s book, Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation (John Wiley & Sons, 1998):
“Our continuing existence depends on a diversity of life that surrounds and quite literally inhabits us. And still we have an innate distrust of diversity. It is fear that makes talking about diversity so difficult. Fear that I will say something that will offend you or reveal my ignorance or prejudices. Fear that you will think less of me after I speak. … We need to be and feel heard, to be willing to listen without feeling that we must change to conform to another’s way of thinking and being. Until we can create a place for such conversations to occur, I doubt we will be able to create new of ways of being together that honor us all.”
Singleton: Typically, white people fear that they will say something that will be viewed as offensive or will be misinterpreted by people of color. My experience, however, has been that when people speak from a place of personal truth and risk being uncomfortable, only then do their interracial relationships deepen. It’s important that white people move past their fear of offending and being corrected to a place where they can understand the points of view expressed by people of color. People of color need to recognize that their experiences are unique and to have patience and compassion as we try to translate them to a white audience. Absent such a conversation, we form inaccurate views about what others are thinking and/or experiencing.
Conversations by race
JSD: In preparing for this interview, I learned how much many African-Americans withhold in cross-racial conversations. Here are three examples. An editor’s note in an early 2002 issue of Black Issues in Higher Education noted that black cultural centers on college campuses provided “a place where we could enjoy each other’s company and talk honestly and openly about what was going on around campus.” By implication, the writer was saying that she didn’t feel she could talk honestly in other campus settings. In It’s the Little Things (Harvest Books, 2002), Lena Williams and Charlayne Hunter-Gault discuss in detail what blacks say to each other about whites but not to whites. In a New Yorker article from earlier this year, Henry Louis Gates Jr. says this about a manuscript purportedly written in the 1850s by Hannah Crafts, an escaped slave: “Crafts writes as an opinionated, keen insider, capturing the way black people talked to, and about, each other when white auditors were not around.”
Singleton: Race is the hardest topic to discuss in our society. In interracial company, I am far more likely to be private and somewhat guarded in sharing my racial experiences because a powerful voice outside of me says my experiences are not valid. People of color often develop a couple of different personas, play multiple roles, and wear masks because we know that our honest expressions may be viewed by white people as rude or overly emotional.
Sacrificing our selves
JSD: In interracial settings, we all give up our authentic selves.
Singleton: Absolutely. My white counterparts sacrifice their authentic selves when they have feelings they don’t express. This lack of authentic discourse is destructive to our relationships. We want to get to a place where our true thoughts can be shared and difficult questions can be asked.
Micro-aggressions take a toll
JSD: I’d like to pursue this a bit further. In It’s the Little Things, Williams writes: “(M)y actions … are the result of the cumulative effect of a lifetime of racial slights and injustices suffered because of my color.” Williams describes what psychiatrist Alvin Poussaint calls micro-aggressions, “the things you experience every day that then add up and take their toll.”
Singleton: That really resonates personally with me. Some days I’m less able to cope. People of color are like pressure cookers walking around with racial pressure building inside. For me, courageous conversation is a valve that slowly releases that pressure so that I don’t explode, which will appear inappropriate, overly aggressive, or emotional. Black Americans, and other people of color for that matter, require healing places to deal with these micro-aggressions. That’s what black cultural centers on campuses provide. That’s why informal and formal caucuses of black educators at conferences and meetings are important. Without these safe spaces, we don’t have opportunities to slowly release that pressure. It’s also important that we have opportunities to heal by talking honestly and openly about these micro-aggressions in the moment and in the multiracial settings in which they actually occur.
Speaking our truths
JSD: Williams also observed that, “Whites said they are often afraid to speak openly and freely around blacks, fearing that a misstep or a word taken out of context would place them in the awkward position of having to defend their words, actions, and race.” As you well know, honest conversations about race and many other important but potentially divisive and emotionally laden topics are rare in schools because of fears that conflict and anger will surface and irreparable harm may be done. The culture of most schools runs contrary to the norms of such conversations–speaking our truths, listening deeply to one another, and raising conflict rather than avoiding it. Is the creation of such a culture a precondition to courageous conversation about race, or does having the conversation change the culture?
Singleton: If it’s considered to be a precondition, I am afraid we’ll never get there. The prevalent norms are that we not speak our truth. It’s important in these conversations that we agree that as we have these conversations, we agree to stay engaged with each other and committed to the expression of our truth. It’s also important that we understand we will be uncomfortable.
Ultimately, we want to create safe conditions in which educators can be uncomfortable. Courageous conversations are clearly not an institutionalized practice in schools. Therefore, they are a gamble. But we are not experiencing each other fully if we do not communicate our honest and sincere perspectives and ideas. I challenge folks in the districts in which I work to have these conversations to better understand our multiple truths and to move to a deeper understanding of how we racially affect each other and how that impacts the schooling of our students.
Courageous conversation is an essential prerequisite for addressing the very significant and difficult challenges we face in closing the racial achievement gap. These conversations also help educators become more passionate learners themselves and more productive in their work. If we really want to close the achievement gap, we are going to have to engage in courageous conversations to understand the barriers to higher achievement faced by students and adults of color. Part of what I’m talking about here is understanding whiteness. People of color are constantly explaining or defending their racial perspective and experience. White educators need to examine and investigate their racial experience if we are to move ahead. When we begin this discussion, those who are white may feel called to define and perhaps defend their racial experience. White people often don’t see themselves as racial beings, so I can see why it’s uncomfortable to learn that others have been thinking about their white identity a lot longer than they have. Because people of color understand at a deep level that we cannot transcend the racial hierarchy of our society unless we have courageous conversations, it behooves all of us to make those conversations productive.
It’s important, though, to remember that this is not a conversation that is quickly over and done. We will not be finished at the end of this interview, Dennis. I hope we come back for more conversation, and that’s what we need in schools. I work at all levels of the school system, and I’ve found that when you invite adults and students to participate in this gratifying discourse, they never want to return to the old ways of engaging.
Closing the gap
JSD: You mentioned the problem of the achievement gap. Some experts say the solution is to ensure that every student has a qualified and caring teacher. Others say the solution is to provide a culturally sensitive curriculum. Still others argue that it’s mostly a problem of poverty, not race.
Singleton: Race and racial conditioning are always happening. Therefore, it always has to do with race. As racial beings, our race is always there; it’s always playing a role. Good teaching and good curriculum are keys to quality schooling. The question is who and what defines quality teaching and quality curriculum. I believe the goal of schooling is to prepare students to thrive in a multiracial, multiethnic democracy. What that means is not only understanding our own culture, but also having the ability to negotiate unfamiliar cultures. Therefore, good teaching means presenting a multicultural perspective and providing the skills for negotiating various cultures. If we accept that as the goal of American education, then we have a different view of quality teaching than the one present in our system.
JSD: In the Winter 2001 issue of American Educational Research Journal, Amanda Lewis observes that “anti-racist or critical multicultural education says that although we cannot ignore social, cultural, and home factors, much of the blame must be located in institutionalized racism in the classroom, school, and society.” Later she says, “It is essential to talk about how race operates even in settings where people say it is not important. Race matters as much in (almost) all-white settings … perhaps even more so. … (I)t is crucial that whites learn more not only about the reality of racial inequality, but also about their own role in its reproduction.”
Singleton: Absolutely. For example, students at a predominantly white suburban school who have an entirely white experience in advanced placement classes are unconsciously learning that white equates to smarter. Students are, perhaps unconsciously, developing a sense of white supremacy because the absence of people of color signals to them that people of color aren’t smart. In addition, they don’t learn how to interact with people of color and their perspectives on color, which further nourishes the seeds of racism.
The rule of respect
JSD: An unpublished study by Charles Payne and Mariame Kaba, “So Much Reform, So Little Change: Building-Level Obstacles to Urban School Reform,” reports that the quality of social relationships in high-poverty schools correlates highly with the improved academic performance of students. More specifically, the study found that “the quality of social relationships proved to be one of the best predictors” and that “social trust is the key factor associated with improving schools.” The researchers note, “In our worst schools, the basic web of social relationships is likely to be severely damaged. Such schools can be angry, discouraged places, where people trust only those in the personal clique.”
Singleton: There’s only one rule that’s necessary in schools, and that’s the rule of respect. Respect is at the heart of successful social relationships. But it’s important to understand how respect may look and feel different across racial borders. To effectively show me respect, you must understand what my experience is all about. As my teacher, I need you to understand that as I come to the school each morning I go through a number of racial tests. If you don’t understand where I’m coming from, I will feel less safe in your classroom and in my relationship with you. And so I’m going to distance myself from the tasks you as my teacher want me to perform. I see that happen every day with students and teachers. Most educators claim they respect and love the kids, but if they don’t truly understand what they’re going through and their need for healing in a society that’s so intense in its racial oppression, then they are not respecting that child. Through curriculum and instructional choices, teachers must communicate that their students’ experiences matter to them and that those experiences are valid.
JSD: Your work assumes that there are multiple, valid perspectives on situations rather than a single correct view.
Singleton: That’s precisely the difficult paradigm shift that I am seeking. What nourishes me in this work is that I see people learning how to engage with perspectives different from their own without needing to judge someone as wrong. The challenge in society and certainly in schools is creating a space in which my perspective of color can sit beside yours–and to allow those perspectives to interact. That’s hard work. It is courageous just to get in touch with your own perspective and to express it. You then have to be even more courageous to listen carefully to the viewpoint of another and allow that perspective to deeply influence your own.
In race, this courageous interaction is critical. As a white man, Dennis, you don’t walk down the street and experience it as I do. And while you can never have my experience, you can believe me when I express to you that something remarkably different is happening to me. Once you accept and affirm that different experiences exist, your own perspective and life will be changed. And that’s what I’m asking of teachers and administrators.
Teachers do not have to have the daily experiences of urban black kids in order to affirm their reality and create classroom conditions that support their needs. White teachers who understand that theirs is not a universal experience can recognize their students’ racially unique experiences and incorporate this understanding into curriculum and instruction.
Through the power of a Eurocentric education, some educators of color have lost their racial perspective or have greatly devalued the importance of these cultural connections in the classroom. So teachers of color may also say they have trouble understanding their nonwhite students. That means it’s important for educators of color to be aware of how students see us as part of a white educational machine.
Better learning as the result
JSD: Exactly how do courageous conversations about race among adults translate into better educational experiences for students?
Singleton: When adults engage in interracial discourse, they become clearer about how they and others are perceived racially. As a result, when I am talking to someone of a different race I can interact more fully and authentically. Similarly, when courageous conversation becomes the classroom norm, a student of color can say how distant he or she feels from a white text or from an activity, thus offering a teacher information that might challenge her initial perspective that the student is purposely disengaged or perhaps simply lazy. Courageous teachers go back to the classroom with greater will, skill, knowledge, and capacity to educate the students of color who struggled to relate to a strictly white classroom context. Because they do not fear conversations about race, they can transform instruction by making it both challenging and accessible for all students.
JSD: Are there particular skills or dispositions that are important in leading these conversations?
Singleton: Principals start the process by becoming more aware of their own racial identity. It begins as a personal journey. As principals become more comfortable in examining their own racial perspectives and experience, they find they are more willing to engage their teachers in this conversation, first informally and then formally. They give personal examples of how they have perpetuated a racial achievement gap and call on staff members to consider how they also might be doing so. These principals express a vision for change in which race no longer predicts student achievement. They guide staff members through discovery of their own racial experiences and how they unconsciously bring them into the classroom.
This conversation we are having, Dennis, is why I am doing this work. It is a healing conversation, one that is rich for me because it affirms me and does not insult you. This kind of conversation nurtures us as human beings and creates the possibility for us to be more productive and interdependent in our lives and in our work. It liberates us just as it liberates teachers and students in schools. Seeing this liberation occur in schools brings me joy.
Glenn Eric Singleton
Position: President and founder of Pacific Educational Group, an organization that strives to advise districts in ways to meet the needs of underserved populations of students, primarily those of color, and address systemic educational inequities.
Education: Bachelor’s degree in communications from the University of Pennsylvania and master’s degree in administration and policy analysis from the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University.
Professional history: Director of admissions at the University of Pennsylvania before founding Pacific Educational Group.
Accomplishments: Singleton has appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America, has hosted and produced educational programs for cable access television and has written numerous articles on equity, institutional racism, leadership, and staff development for national journals, magazines, and newspapers. He teaches a graduate seminar on educational equity at the University of California, Berkeley and San Jose State University to aspiring urban principals. Singleton is a nationally recognized keynote speaker and consultant to a variety of educational consortia, school reform, and support provider organizations.
To continue this conversation with Glenn Singleton, contact him at 1539 Taraval St., Suite 202, San Francisco, CA 94116, (415) 681-4575 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (415) 681-4575 end_of_the_skype_highlighting, fax (415) 681-4490, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
How to have a courageous conversation about race
Commit to four points for engaging in, sustaining, and deepening interracial dialogue about race. We will:
- Stay engaged;
- Speak our truth;
- Experience discomfort;
- Expect/accept nonclosure.
About the author
“Superman’ tells false story about Emily’s school
This was written by Caroline Grannan, a San Francisco public school parent, volunteer, advocate and blogger.
By Caroline Grannan
“Woodside is a great school.” — Emily Jones
The movie “Waiting for Superman” tells the stories of five students around the country who are desperate to escape their “failing” public schools and get into the shining charters that are portrayed as their only chance of success – or at least that’s the tale the movie tells.
One of those stories takes place in my neck of the woods, here in the San Francisco Bay Area. The one white middle-class student among the five kids in the movie is Emily Jones, who lives on the suburban San Francisco Peninsula.
The story that Waiting for Superman tells is that Emily is desperate to escape her district public high school, Woodside High, because she’s a bright student who “doesn’t test well,” and due to Woodside’s antiquated and harmful tracking policies, she’ll be tracked into lower-level classes that will doom her to mediocrity.
She grasps at (as the movie shows it) her only hope – Summit Prep Charter, which does the opposite of tracking, requiring all its students to take six AP courses during high school.
The part in the movie illustrating how the horror of tracking sent her fleeing to Summit Prep features a graphic showing students on a conveyor belt, with the select few being elevated to higher-level classes and the rest being dropped onto a march to oblivion.
Yet in the video interview, Emily chats freely with John for five minutes and mentions a number of reasons for wanting to go to Summit instead of Woodside – but never mentions or even alludes to tracking. Just after minute five, Fensterwald brings up tracking. Emily comments on tracking only after Fensterwald prompts her.
And in fact, here’s what Emily says about Woodside High: “Woodside is a great school. I really liked it and I really wanted to go there before I saw Summit.”
That’s not what Waiting for Superman portrays. If the movie misled viewers with a false story about Emily, the line “fool me twice, shame on me” applies – we can’t believe anything it shows us.
Meanwhile, parents at Woodside High have created a huge banner and posted it across the front of the school:
“Woodside High School teachers – Man, You’re Super! Thank you for teaching ALL the students in our community!”
Reclaiming the reform agenda
If public school advocates want a say in how state and federal funds are being used to shape the reform agenda, they need to speak up and act fast. Research shows that people tend to filter out information that doesn’t align with their belief systems and adopted frames on issues. Once public opinion gels, it’s very difficult to change.
Journalism’s credo is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Not surprisingly, then, the news media and the public are typically suspicious of people and entities they perceive as being powerful. As leaders of large organizations, school board members and superintendents are already at a disadvantage in comparison to activist groups.
Blaming educators, unions, and recalcitrant school boards for poor student performance may not accurately portray what research says about effective schools, but it sells. It also fits the human need to assign responsibility for any perceived failure.
A media favorite, the hero-villain frame in which the inspiring reformer is pitted against grossly incompetent and negligent educators representing the status quo, is particularly pernicious — especially when the heroes all hail from charter or independent schools.
The “nation’s failing public schools” catchphrase has been repeated so often and given so much prominence by politicians, the press, and other thought leaders that the fact that public schools have made dramatic improvements during the past 20 years largely has been ignored.
Yet research by Phi Delta Kappa (PDK)-Gallup consistently shows that the vast majority of parents are happy with their public schools, with 77 percent in 2010 giving the schools their oldest child attends either an “A” or a “B” grade.
These marks fall precipitously when the general public is asked to rate America’s schools, however. While 49 percent give their community’s public schools an “A” or “B”, only 18 percent rank the nation’s public schools as highly. Clearly, the constant media drumbeat of widespread school failure is having an effect.
The PDK-Gallup poll also shows a dramatic decline in support for local control of public schools since 1980, when 68 percent of Americans said school boards should bear the greatest responsibility for determining what is taught in schools. In 2010, this dropped to 28 percent — the same percentage favoring federal control of education. The perception that states should control public schools — a weak 15 percent in 1980 — soared to 43 percent in 2010.
“There has been a remarkable change in public attitudes that should be troubling to all school board advocates,” says Lance Melton, executive director of the Montana School Boards Association. “If you look at what has happened even from 2007 to this year, the reduced support for the role of school boards in this important area is potentially the most significant development in this year’s poll results.”
With parents and the public leery of state tests as the sole measure of student achievement, local school officials still have an opportunity to set the agenda for school reform in their communities as well as nationally. But they have to speak up, engage others in the debate, and learn more about what really drives student gains in learning.
Getting results — and telling people about it — remains the best and most ethical way to influence public opinion about their public schools.
via Failing Schools
Considering my former blog was titled “Down with Absolutes,” I’ve made a calculated effort in the past six years to not include such absolutist language in my vocabulary. Take, for example, the word “never.” I used that word many a time in my previous life. I learned to limit its use in everyday conversation. It’s like taking a multiple-choice test. If you see the word “never” in one of the answers, it’s probably a clue that even the basest process of elimination can remove that option.
Very good vid!
via Failing Schools
This weekend’s SNL skit mocks local TV newscasts that feature scary-sounding, implausible-seeming teen trends like “souping.” It’s funny enough but the truth is that it’s not just local TV newscasts that run this stuff — print and online outlets do it, too, creating a perpetual anxiety machine for parents and schools that distracts from more serious, substantial issues.
CHRISTINA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION
01.07 POLICY STATEMENT ON BOARD MEETINGS
A. PURPOSE: This policy governs the conduct of meet ings of the Christina School District
Board of Educat ion (CBOE or “ Board” ). CBOE is a body corporat e and it s meet ings w ill
focus on its f iduciary, ethical and legal responsibilit ies, including its primary obligat ion to
promote student educat ional achievement . The President of the Board shall manage each
Board meet ing, and will be the primary arbiter of Board compliance with Board policy .
B. ISSUE: All Board meet ings should have a standard format complying with all Delaware
laws and regulations.
Make –Up of the Board, Quorum and Vot ing Requirements: The Board consists of seven
members elected or appointed in accordance with Tit le 14 of the Delaware Code. A
meet ing of the Board requires a quorum of at least four members. Passage of any mot ion
at a meet ing of the Board requires at least four af f irmat ive votes, regardless of the
number of Board members present .
Designation of Executive Secretary: The Board shall designate the Superintendent to
serve as Executive Secretary.
Board Business: The Board will generally meet to conduct regular business on the second
Tuesday of each month, generally at 7:30 PM, with timely prior not ice of meet ing t ime,
location and posting of agenda in accordance with Title 29, Chapter 100 of the Delaware
Code. Changes to accommodate holidays and special events may be proposed and
approved by the Board.
Subject to the public not ice requirements Title 29, Chapter 100 of the Delaware Code,
additional meet ings may be held upon the call of the President of the Board, an affirmative
vote of a quorum of the Board or the Executive Secretary of the Board.
The Board will conduct its meetings in accordance with Delaware Code, t he Board’ s
Policy Manual and Robert ’ s Rules of Order. The conduct of Board members shall
exemplify the highest standards of civility. While in public at a meeting, each Board
Use his or her best effort s t o retain the Board’ s focus on student learning as expressed in
the Beliefs Statement .
Comply w it h Delaware Code, Robert ’ s Rules of Order, and t he Board’ s Policy Manual.
Recording of School Board Meetings: The Board intends to make an audio or audiovisual
recording of all public meetings, where act ion is to be taken. This is not a current
requirement of Delaware Code, but a desire by the Board to make available the activities
of the Board to a broader audience than those able to at tend public meetings. The Board
Meetings will not be delayed, interrupted or postponed due to problems with recording
Any audio or audiovisual recordings shall not be the official record of a public Board
meeting, but may be available for public access, though the District Website. Any audio
and/or audiovisual recordings of a Board meeting shall be retained and disposed of in
accordance with the District’s records retention schedule.
Members of the Public will be made aware that they are being recorded, and the use of
the recorded message is at the discretion of the District, without recourse.
Public Speaking at a Board Meeting: The Board’ s President may halt public Statements
that are repetitive, vulgar, profane, or not germane to a matter before the Board. Upon the
President ’ s st riking of t he gavel, any individual speaking publicly must immediat ely cease
speaking. The President shall then explain the basis of the gaveling, and the individual
shall not resume speaking unt il authorized by the President . By a majority vote, the Board
may by reverse t he President ’ s det erminat ion t hat a public Statement is repet it ive, vulgar,
profane, or not germane.
The Board shall provide a Public Comment Form at or near the ent ry of each meet ing site
before the meet ing begins. A member of the public who wishes to speak publicly shall
f irst complet e and sign t he f orm and provide it t o t he Board’ s designat ed clerk at t he
meet ing site. The form shall at a minimum provide:
That public comments are limited to three minutes per individual speaker, and 20 minutes
That repet it ive, personally insult ing, or profane comments are proscribed,
That Board members are unable to engage in debate with a speaker, but may refer the
speaker to staf f for further discussion and follow-up,
That the proceedings are being recorded for accurate documentat ion of minutes,
That upon t he President ’ s st riking of t he gavel, an individual speaking publicly must
immediately cease speaking. The President will then explain the basis of the gaveling,
and the individual shall not resume speaking unt il authorized by the President .
That by signing the form, the individual has read, understands and agrees to comply with
the terms and condit ions set forth on the form.
Board President’s Duties:
The President will call to order each Board meeting with a welcoming Statement that
provides the following information:
The purpose of the public meeting
The meaning of and rules governing “ Public Recognition”
An explanat ion that , although Board members will not engage in debate during Public
Recognit ion, the Board President may refer individual speakers to members of District
staff for discussion and further information
An explanation of the rules governing public speaking at the meeting
Announcement that the public meeting is being recorded, and that by the completion and
submission of the public comment form the member of the public is authorizing the use of
their recorded statement , without recourse.
Board Meet ing Agenda:
The Execut ive Secret ary shall prepare t he meet ing’ s Agenda. Each Agenda shall include
a provision for:
Call to order by the President
Pledge of Allegiance
Adopt (or Revise) Agenda
Approval of Minutes
Superint endent’s Report , which shall f ocus on mat t ers relat ed t o st udent achievement
and other student performance targets.
Items pulled from the Consent Agenda for separate vote
Board member reports (conferences, meet ings at tended, etc.)
Board information requests
Resolution for next meeting(s)
Items may be subsequently added to or deleted from the Agenda in accordance with Title
29, Chapter 100 of the Delaware Code. Any individual may propose items for the
Agenda in writ ing to the Execut ive Secretary at least 10 days in advance of the meeting.
A Board member seeking to add or delete an item from the Agenda at a meeting shall
of fer a resolution or motion to amend the Agenda. An affirmat ive vote of a majority of the
Board members to adopt the resolution or motion shall result in the addition of deletion of
the Agenda item as specified in the resolution or motion.
Board Meet ing Agenda Preparation:
Any Agenda preparation involving Board members shall be in compliance with Title 29,
Chapter 100 of the Delaware Code.
The Board may meet in Execut ive Session in accordance with Title 29, Chapter 100 of the
D. REVIEW AND REPORTING: The Superintendent or his/her designee will report each year
to the Board on the status of this statement .
E. HISTORY: Modif ied 9/14/2010
Title 29, Chapter 100, of the Delaware Code
Revised & Adopted on 9/14/10
The real truth! Parents are second class citizens to Eli Broad and Arne Duncan, 100% no doubter!
Welcome to the State of Delaware’s official online checkbook. This resource will provide you with financial data related
to the State’s purchase of goods and services, as well as reimbursements. As you browse the online checkbook, you will be
able to view payment information by state agency, expenditure category, or vendor.
This data will be updated on a quarterly basis and available to you all year round with the click of a button. With Delaware’s online checkbook, it’s easy!
Disclaimer: The data on this website is uploaded on a quarterly basis. As this will be an ongoing process throughout
the fiscal year, transactions are not audited and may contain corrected information, which may reverse or change the
effect of previous entries.
This data includes Executive Branch agencies, Other Elected Official agencies, Higher
Education, and School Districts.
The records displayed represent accounting system payment entries. Several of these
entries may be combined in the issuance of one payment or check to a vendor. As
such, it should be recognized that these transactions do not necessarily reflect
individually issued checks or payments to vendors.
If you have any questions concerning the data and information on this website, please
Why I’m not embarassed by the
Baltimore Teacher’s Vote
By Arne Duncan
The Oct. 18 editorial “An education setback in Charm City” suggested that I should be red-faced about the union vote against the proposed Baltimore teacher contract.
I am never embarrassed when efforts by local educators to drive change fall short. The greatest crime in education is accepting the status quo, and Baltimore Superintendent Andrés Alonso and the Baltimore Teachers Union deserve a lot of credit for crafting this bold proposal. I have every hope and expectation that teachers in Baltimore will embrace the contract after they learn more about it. I also disagree with your conclusion that the Baltimore proposal is not ambitious. Eliminating the salary schedule and tying evaluation in part to student achievement is hugely significant. These are the kind of reforms we are rewarding through Race to the Top and the kind of reforms we will showcase at our upcoming conference on labor-management relations. Furthermore, we regularly highlight the new D.C. teacher contract as a national example, and we will continue to do so at the conference.
Progressive labor agreements like the ones in D.C.; Hillsborough County, Fla.; New Haven, Conn.; and elsewhere show us how collective bargaining agreements can become vehicles for reform. While there is no single model that will work in every district, all of these models have to much to offer.
The writer is the U.S. secretary of education
reprinted from Washington Post