I once heard that the legendary Andrew Young, sometime after the assassination of Martin Luther King, said that it was “now time to integrate the money”. What this statement underscored was that the fight for civil rights was not the end, but the means to an end. As degrading and humiliating as segregation was, it was still not enough to be able to walk through the front door of a hotel or to sit at a lunch counter. We wanted also to be able to afford to spend the night and to pay for the meal. That fight – the battle for economic parity – is still only just beginning.
It is within this context that the battle of Richards and Metro to maintain their sanitation contracts with the City of New Orleans should be understood. It is why Richards and Metro mean so much to so many of us. We remember our history and that history informs our understanding of the present. African-Americans helped to build this city, largely for free as unpaid slaves and laborers. When slavery ended and the curtain closed on the period of Reconstruction, a time during which African-Americans began in earnest to participate politically and economically, we entered another hell called Jim Crow, legal segregation – the reinstallment of White supremacy in EVERY area of life, including economically. We were now free to be poor, free to be exploited economically, free to be servants and maids, free to be second class, free to be lynched if we acted as though we were entitled to fair treatment in any aspect of life. Space does not permit a full treatment of this topic here, but interested readers should explore chapter six of the book entitled Long Memory written by noted historians Mary Frances Berry and John Blassingame.
That is why over a hundred years after slavery had ended, Dr. King declared in the historic March on Washington speech that the Negro had come to cash a check, a check “which has come back marked insufficient funds”. That was 1963. Here it is 2010.Five years ago the whole world witnessed that African-Americans, in New Orleans at least, had not progressed very far from the poverty which had marked our past. Despite being a majority African-American city, African-Americans have yet to achieve any semblance of real economic power. Our rate of poverty – twice the national average. The rate of black unemployment – above the national average. New Orleans is known for its port, its tourism – yet African Americans have a miniscule presence in either of these industries as employers and owners. We clean hotels, we don’t own them; we drive cabs but we don’t own the companies; we unload ships and containers, but we don’t own them or the docks where the work is done; and for years, many years, we picked up the city’s trash, but we never owned the company that had the contract – until a few years ago. Ironically, even this opportunity came only in the midst of an unprecedented crisis where others who were able to bid didn’t even see the work as a worthwhile risk.
This is why Richards and Metro mean so much. Let me be clear. No one wants to pay more for a service than what it’s worth. But the data says that’s not the issue. Metro charges $18.15 per household and Richards charges $22.00 per household. Baton Rouge residents pay $19.00. St. Tammany residents pay between $24.00 to $30.00. Residents in cities such as Atlanta and Tampa pay over $25.00 per household. No one wants to pay a company that renders poor service. But no one says that’s the issue either. No one wants the city to do business with companies which received their contracts in a questionable manner. But that’s not the issue either. Well, what about the fact that we just can’t afford the service? That may be plausible were it not for the fact that the Mayor’s proposed 2011 budget adds an additional $8 million to the Mayor’s office and an additional $11 million to the Chief Administrative Office (CAO).
I do not believe Mayor Landrieu is racist or a white supremacist. Quite the contrary. However, given the facts and the history presented here, it is safe to say that his actions, if successful, would be a critical setback to the cause and interest of African American economic advancement in the city of New Orleans. Metro and Richards mean more to African-Americans than just the companies that pick up our trash. They represent a giant step forward, they signify new possibility for a people once denied, their presence indicates that African-Americans have arrived as a people to be serious players in the economy of New Orleans – a city whose beginnings we helped to build. To threaten them is to threaten all of our economic viability. To put them and their businesses at risk so freely and cavalierly is to treat us all with the same disrespect. That is unacceptable. And we should all remember.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Monday, September 27, 2010
AN OPEN LETTER TO SUPT. PASTOREK
Dear Supt. Pastorek:
I am writing to offer my thoughts about your recent recommendation to BESE regarding New Orleans schools transferred to the Recovery School District as a result of Act 35. First, allow me to say that I know from firsthand experience that you are a diligent and astute public servant. Therefore, I offer these observations with the utmost respect for you and your office, which has the ability to affect the lives of tens of thousands of students.
I was greatly disappointed in your proposal. This issue is too important to allow for clever gamesmanship, or changing of the rules mid-way. Your recommendation was, at best, nonresponsive to the dictates of Act 35, which significantly expanded the reach of the RSD. The spirit of the law that established the RSD is that failing schools enter, undergo rehabilitation, and leave the RSD. Clearly stated, if a school is no longer failing, it should leave the RSD. If a school remains a failure, the RSD must be held accountable in the same way that the prior governance entity was.
Under your proposal, next academic year (2011-2012) a school with a score of 75 or above would be eligible to begin the process of leaving the Recovery School District. Your proposal allows for an eligible school to self-determine whether it will transfer back to OPSB or to another entity.
However, several questions emerge:
(1) Isn’t the RSD just for failing schools? If a school has “recovered”, what is the rationale for allowing it to “choose” whether it remains in the RSD?
(2) If a school can leave the RSD with a score of 75 or over, why were schools with scores 75 or above in the RSD in the first place? As you know, schools in this category include Thurgood Marshall, Stuart Bradley, Mary Coghill, and Dr. Martin L. King elementary. This question exposes the political insanity inherent in Act 35 which instituted a double standard for the takeover of schools in Orleans parish. For every other district in November 2005, the standard for takeover was a school performance score of 60. But due to some intricate legal wording found in Act 35, the standard for takeover of Orleans schools was elevated to the state average, which was 87.2.
(3) What about the schools that have declined in their scores since being a part of the RSD? Included in this category, as you know, are schools such as Coghill, Fischer, Gentilly Terrace, Habans, Schaumburg, and Tubman.
(4) If schools choose to transfer to an entity other than the constitutionally-ordained local, elected school board, what is the source of authority for such an alternative entity? Since such an alternative entity was mentioned in your report one must ask if plans have already been discussed, with whom and where, if not in public?
Aside from these critical questions, I was struck by what was not included in your recommendation and report to BESE. While I understand the reality of time restrictions, you did ensure that the so-called successes of RSD were highlighted. Nothing, however, was mentioned about the startling changes made to the administration of the New Orleans Public Schools which, after all, was the real subject of Act 35.
A truly unbiased and comprehensive report would have mentioned that since Katrina New Orleans Public Schools has had successive unqualified (meaning good) audits. The bond rating of New Orleans Public Schools, another measure of financial performance, is the best it has been in many years. When it comes to taking care of its students, it is important to note that since Katrina the special education department has been cited for exceptional performance. OPSB schools have produced significant growth in the district performance score. Since Katrina, the OPSB has chartered and annually evaluated its 12 charter schools. Since Katrina, the OPSB has effectively partnered with the community to fund the renovation of the Mahalia Jackson School and establish the Early Childhood and Family Learning Center, a new community resource based upon a model of best practices around the country. Since Katrina, the OPSB has worked successfully with you and others towards the successful renewal of vital millages and the development of the Facilities Master Plan, which has now obtained almost $2 billion dollars towards the construction and renovation of schools citywide.
Additionally, nothing was said about the fact that much of the success that has occurred post-Katrina has been due to practices made possible by an historic, unprecedented but unfortunately diminishing revenue stream from the federal government. Since 2005, the federal government has provided $196 million in RESTART funds that have been invaluable to our educational achievements. Because of such funding, per pupil spending has almost doubled in some cases when compared to spending pre-Katrina. However, we are no longer able to depend on this source of funds. Our community must have a discussion about how to fiscally sustain our educational gains without reliance on federal funds.
Lastly, your report and recommendation offers some guidelines for “21st century governance.” I applaud these guidelines and support them. In fact, I would like to draw your attention to my proposal for the “New Orleans Unified School District.” Enshrined in this new district are principles and practices that fuel academic excellence and innovation, but also provide the infrastructure for accountability, transparency and equity. As you may know, the plan was presented and well-received during the summer governance series sponsored by the Orleans Public Education Network (OPEN). For your review, the plan may be found online at www.blacknolathinktank.blogspot.com.
In conclusion, BESE should vote on a proposal that accurately reflects the spirit and letter of the law. I pray that these comments will inspire a revision of your proposal such that public education in New Orleans may be excellent and accountable, equitable and unified, avoiding the mistakes of the past and overcoming the challenges of the present. Especially for the poor and disenfranchised, public education is the “great equalizer”, helping to ensure that all citizens of our democracy, regardless of class or race or any other factor, have the opportunity to enjoy the most fruitful life that a high-quality education can afford. We are at a critical juncture in the life of our city. May we all act wisely.
I am writing to offer my thoughts about your recent recommendation to BESE regarding New Orleans schools transferred to the Recovery School District as a result of Act 35. First, allow me to say that I know from firsthand experience that you are a diligent and astute public servant. Therefore, I offer these observations with the utmost respect for you and your office, which has the ability to affect the lives of tens of thousands of students.
I was greatly disappointed in your proposal. This issue is too important to allow for clever gamesmanship, or changing of the rules mid-way. Your recommendation was, at best, nonresponsive to the dictates of Act 35, which significantly expanded the reach of the RSD. The spirit of the law that established the RSD is that failing schools enter, undergo rehabilitation, and leave the RSD. Clearly stated, if a school is no longer failing, it should leave the RSD. If a school remains a failure, the RSD must be held accountable in the same way that the prior governance entity was.
Under your proposal, next academic year (2011-2012) a school with a score of 75 or above would be eligible to begin the process of leaving the Recovery School District. Your proposal allows for an eligible school to self-determine whether it will transfer back to OPSB or to another entity.
However, several questions emerge:
(1) Isn’t the RSD just for failing schools? If a school has “recovered”, what is the rationale for allowing it to “choose” whether it remains in the RSD?
(2) If a school can leave the RSD with a score of 75 or over, why were schools with scores 75 or above in the RSD in the first place? As you know, schools in this category include Thurgood Marshall, Stuart Bradley, Mary Coghill, and Dr. Martin L. King elementary. This question exposes the political insanity inherent in Act 35 which instituted a double standard for the takeover of schools in Orleans parish. For every other district in November 2005, the standard for takeover was a school performance score of 60. But due to some intricate legal wording found in Act 35, the standard for takeover of Orleans schools was elevated to the state average, which was 87.2.
(3) What about the schools that have declined in their scores since being a part of the RSD? Included in this category, as you know, are schools such as Coghill, Fischer, Gentilly Terrace, Habans, Schaumburg, and Tubman.
(4) If schools choose to transfer to an entity other than the constitutionally-ordained local, elected school board, what is the source of authority for such an alternative entity? Since such an alternative entity was mentioned in your report one must ask if plans have already been discussed, with whom and where, if not in public?
Aside from these critical questions, I was struck by what was not included in your recommendation and report to BESE. While I understand the reality of time restrictions, you did ensure that the so-called successes of RSD were highlighted. Nothing, however, was mentioned about the startling changes made to the administration of the New Orleans Public Schools which, after all, was the real subject of Act 35.
A truly unbiased and comprehensive report would have mentioned that since Katrina New Orleans Public Schools has had successive unqualified (meaning good) audits. The bond rating of New Orleans Public Schools, another measure of financial performance, is the best it has been in many years. When it comes to taking care of its students, it is important to note that since Katrina the special education department has been cited for exceptional performance. OPSB schools have produced significant growth in the district performance score. Since Katrina, the OPSB has chartered and annually evaluated its 12 charter schools. Since Katrina, the OPSB has effectively partnered with the community to fund the renovation of the Mahalia Jackson School and establish the Early Childhood and Family Learning Center, a new community resource based upon a model of best practices around the country. Since Katrina, the OPSB has worked successfully with you and others towards the successful renewal of vital millages and the development of the Facilities Master Plan, which has now obtained almost $2 billion dollars towards the construction and renovation of schools citywide.
Additionally, nothing was said about the fact that much of the success that has occurred post-Katrina has been due to practices made possible by an historic, unprecedented but unfortunately diminishing revenue stream from the federal government. Since 2005, the federal government has provided $196 million in RESTART funds that have been invaluable to our educational achievements. Because of such funding, per pupil spending has almost doubled in some cases when compared to spending pre-Katrina. However, we are no longer able to depend on this source of funds. Our community must have a discussion about how to fiscally sustain our educational gains without reliance on federal funds.
Lastly, your report and recommendation offers some guidelines for “21st century governance.” I applaud these guidelines and support them. In fact, I would like to draw your attention to my proposal for the “New Orleans Unified School District.” Enshrined in this new district are principles and practices that fuel academic excellence and innovation, but also provide the infrastructure for accountability, transparency and equity. As you may know, the plan was presented and well-received during the summer governance series sponsored by the Orleans Public Education Network (OPEN). For your review, the plan may be found online at www.blacknolathinktank.blogspot.com.
In conclusion, BESE should vote on a proposal that accurately reflects the spirit and letter of the law. I pray that these comments will inspire a revision of your proposal such that public education in New Orleans may be excellent and accountable, equitable and unified, avoiding the mistakes of the past and overcoming the challenges of the present. Especially for the poor and disenfranchised, public education is the “great equalizer”, helping to ensure that all citizens of our democracy, regardless of class or race or any other factor, have the opportunity to enjoy the most fruitful life that a high-quality education can afford. We are at a critical juncture in the life of our city. May we all act wisely.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
SUPPORT FOR SANDERS PLAN GROWS
The Sanders Plan for Public School Governance was made public in mid-June of this year. Since that time, a number of community organizations have expressed support for the plan. The groups include: Research on Reforms, led by Dr. Raynard Sanders and Dr. Barbara Ferguson; The Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, led by Rev. Willie Gable; and the African American Leadership Project (AALP).
Here is an excerpt from the statement released by AALP:
According to Dr. Mtangulizi Sanyika, AALP Project Manager and former Professor of African World Studies at Dillard University
Additionally, on July 29, the Sanders Plan for Governance was publicly presented at the Summer Governance Series sponsored by by the Orleans Public Education Network (OPEN).The reception was quite positive.
Here is an excerpt from the statement released by AALP:
According to Dr. Mtangulizi Sanyika, AALP Project Manager and former Professor of African World Studies at Dillard University
“the Sanders plan has numerous advantages not offered by any other proposal: 1) it unifies the RSD and the OPSB, 2) it allows for charters and non charters 3) it supports school autonomy and actively engages the community, 4) it will reduce the performance gap between the races and 5) it will efficiently deploy public resources in a transparent manner, and eliminate waste and duplication . No other proposal comes close to achieving these objectives.
Finally, AALP member and educational advocate Atty. Ernest Jones asserted that “ Dr. Sanders clearly did his home work and has produced a masterful plan that holds the promise of unifying parents, teachers, administrators and the public, while improving the quality of education for all children , especially racial/ethnic children of diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds.
The AALP highly recommends the Sanders plan to the citizens of New Orleans as an approach that gives all stakeholders the opportunity to be represented in decision making, and offers a system that can truly deliver a modern educational product to African Americans and all other students. Best practices from around the country strongly suggest that a unified and decentralized system yields superior results. Thus, if the Sanders plan were adopted into law and policy and provided with adequate resources, perhaps we all can move beyond the current state of polarization and confusion and move on with the business of educating our children to become effective citizens in a globally competitive society."
Additionally, on July 29, the Sanders Plan for Governance was publicly presented at the Summer Governance Series sponsored by by the Orleans Public Education Network (OPEN).The reception was quite positive.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Sanders Plan for Governance
The issue of governance is key to ensuring that all students who attend public school in New Orleans are treated equitably and receive an excellent education. Those who will govern serve as the stewards of a great trust, the gatekeepers of vast public resources, the keepers of the dreams that thousands of parents have for their children.
I propose a new entity be organized to bear the name of The New Orleans Unified School District. This new school district will be vastly different from the current Orleans Parish School Board in its mission, its relationship to schools, and its relationship to the community. Yet, at the same time, this new school district will have the necessary infrastructure for public accountability to ensure equity and efficiency in the deployment of resources.
Some people may not believe this can be done. I would direct them to an intriguing report published in 2002 by the Council of Great City Schools (www.cgcs.org). The Council of Great City Schools is a well-established, national coalition of 66 of the nation’s largest urban public school systems. The title of their report is Foundation for Success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Though space does not permit an extensive discussion of the report’s findings, the report highlights how a variety of urban school districts, from those serving over 200,000 students to those serving 51,000 students, made substantive, lasting change in student achievement and business operations. It can be done, it can be done here, and it can be done our way. We can have a system that is unified, that respects school autonomy, engages the community, and most of all educates all children and reduces the achievement gap between races.
With these thoughts in mind, the following five recommendations are made. The rationale for each recommendation is also provided.
Recommendation #1: Reaffirm and retain our commitment to a single governing body for a unified school district.
Rationale: Parents, students, other elected officials and interested parties need a local place of last resort for the sake of accountability. Without a well-defined single source of accountability, ensuring that all students will have access to schools that treat them with equity and excellence will not occur.
Recommendation #2: The elimination of all district-run schools (RSD or OPSB) through the enactment of key policies that mandate all schools to have a community-based governing board (charter or not), and site-based management. The newly-minted unified school district would no longer employ a superintendent, but a Chief Executive Officer, whose primary responsibilities would include facilitating the resolution of citywide educational issues, using objective data to ensure compliance with equitable practices and to monitor student achievement, and to promote innovation through cross-sharing of knowledge between all schools in areas from curriculum to accounting and facility management.
Rationale: The inspiration and excitement for the charter school movement lies principally in the quest for autonomy and the flexibility in approach in order to meet overarching goals. With the enactment of such policies, enshrined in the governance documents as core beliefs and practices, all schools, whether charter or not, would be guaranteed the type of flexibility and autonomy currently experienced.
Recommendation #3: Election of all members citywide
Rationale: All members should be elected not appointed. Appointments do not remove politics it merely changes the politics. Members of the governing body of the unified school district should be elected by the people just as members of the city council and the mayor. Additionally, all members of the board should be elected citywide or at-large. Members should be equally concerned about the whole, charters and non-charters, uptown and the east, rather than a part. District-based thinking is, and has been, myopic, self-centered, and impractical. Having all members elected citywide addresses such issues.
Recommendation #4: Expansion of the board to nine members and term limits:
Rationale: Expansion of the board from seven to nine members would allow for enough members to successfully engage in committee work in areas such as facilities, charter authorization, equity, academic innovation/quality, and strategic planning. It will also allow for potential greater diversity of membership. All board members should be limited to two consecutive terms for reasons similar to those undergirding term limits for city offices such as Mayor and City Council. New ideas, new energy and new faces are needed to rekindle constant public interest and support.
Recommendation #5: Transfer of RSD direct-run schools to the New Orleans Unified School District (to be run with community boards and site-based management); Transfer of OPSB direct-run schools to the New Orleans Unified School District (to be run with community boards and site-based management);Enactment of legislation (or transfer by BESE) making the New Orleans Unified School District the chartering entity for current RSD charter schools to enable the unification of the district to occur legally.
Rationale: As stated earlier, this recommendation would allow for maximum accountability to the public while maintaining the ground for innovation to occur continuously and for equity to be safeguarded.
Accountability. Innovation. Equity. Excellence. These would be the watchwords for the future of public school governance in New Orleans. Of course, implementation of these recommendations will require some time and perhaps could not be implemented until the 2011-2012 school year. The current OPSB has the power to implement the major policy changes recommended as well as the expansion of its number. The change from district to citywide or at-large elections would have to undergo further review by appropriate entities as required by federal law.
It is important to note that what is recommended is not a mere return to the system of old. Charters will remain as long as they are successful. However, the many issues of equity that have arisen post-Katrina would be able to be better addressed. Commonality of data on key areas of concern would be more readily available and usable to promote positive change.
Act 35, the law responsible for the state takeover of schools in Orleans Parish, includes a provision that requires the Recovery School District to recommend whether a school should remain in the RSD, close or be returned to local control. BESE, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, must act on the recommendation at least six months before the expiration of the initial five-year period of state takeover. The expiration is the end of 2010-2011 school year.
I have seen and witnessed public education in New Orleans as one of its employees, one of its leaders, and one of its end-users as a parent. The culmination of these experiences along with the consideration of the thoughts of leading researchers in the field of education has led to the series of recommendations presented herein. When making a decision that has the ability to impact generations of students and their families, it is critical that such a task be approached with the requisite objectivity regarding the current state of affairs, informed by the viewpoints and needs of the end-users, and balanced by the lessons learned from the past. May the citizens of New Orleans act wisely.
I propose a new entity be organized to bear the name of The New Orleans Unified School District. This new school district will be vastly different from the current Orleans Parish School Board in its mission, its relationship to schools, and its relationship to the community. Yet, at the same time, this new school district will have the necessary infrastructure for public accountability to ensure equity and efficiency in the deployment of resources.
Some people may not believe this can be done. I would direct them to an intriguing report published in 2002 by the Council of Great City Schools (www.cgcs.org). The Council of Great City Schools is a well-established, national coalition of 66 of the nation’s largest urban public school systems. The title of their report is Foundation for Success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. Though space does not permit an extensive discussion of the report’s findings, the report highlights how a variety of urban school districts, from those serving over 200,000 students to those serving 51,000 students, made substantive, lasting change in student achievement and business operations. It can be done, it can be done here, and it can be done our way. We can have a system that is unified, that respects school autonomy, engages the community, and most of all educates all children and reduces the achievement gap between races.
With these thoughts in mind, the following five recommendations are made. The rationale for each recommendation is also provided.
Recommendation #1: Reaffirm and retain our commitment to a single governing body for a unified school district.
Rationale: Parents, students, other elected officials and interested parties need a local place of last resort for the sake of accountability. Without a well-defined single source of accountability, ensuring that all students will have access to schools that treat them with equity and excellence will not occur.
Recommendation #2: The elimination of all district-run schools (RSD or OPSB) through the enactment of key policies that mandate all schools to have a community-based governing board (charter or not), and site-based management. The newly-minted unified school district would no longer employ a superintendent, but a Chief Executive Officer, whose primary responsibilities would include facilitating the resolution of citywide educational issues, using objective data to ensure compliance with equitable practices and to monitor student achievement, and to promote innovation through cross-sharing of knowledge between all schools in areas from curriculum to accounting and facility management.
Rationale: The inspiration and excitement for the charter school movement lies principally in the quest for autonomy and the flexibility in approach in order to meet overarching goals. With the enactment of such policies, enshrined in the governance documents as core beliefs and practices, all schools, whether charter or not, would be guaranteed the type of flexibility and autonomy currently experienced.
Recommendation #3: Election of all members citywide
Rationale: All members should be elected not appointed. Appointments do not remove politics it merely changes the politics. Members of the governing body of the unified school district should be elected by the people just as members of the city council and the mayor. Additionally, all members of the board should be elected citywide or at-large. Members should be equally concerned about the whole, charters and non-charters, uptown and the east, rather than a part. District-based thinking is, and has been, myopic, self-centered, and impractical. Having all members elected citywide addresses such issues.
Recommendation #4: Expansion of the board to nine members and term limits:
Rationale: Expansion of the board from seven to nine members would allow for enough members to successfully engage in committee work in areas such as facilities, charter authorization, equity, academic innovation/quality, and strategic planning. It will also allow for potential greater diversity of membership. All board members should be limited to two consecutive terms for reasons similar to those undergirding term limits for city offices such as Mayor and City Council. New ideas, new energy and new faces are needed to rekindle constant public interest and support.
Recommendation #5: Transfer of RSD direct-run schools to the New Orleans Unified School District (to be run with community boards and site-based management); Transfer of OPSB direct-run schools to the New Orleans Unified School District (to be run with community boards and site-based management);Enactment of legislation (or transfer by BESE) making the New Orleans Unified School District the chartering entity for current RSD charter schools to enable the unification of the district to occur legally.
Rationale: As stated earlier, this recommendation would allow for maximum accountability to the public while maintaining the ground for innovation to occur continuously and for equity to be safeguarded.
Accountability. Innovation. Equity. Excellence. These would be the watchwords for the future of public school governance in New Orleans. Of course, implementation of these recommendations will require some time and perhaps could not be implemented until the 2011-2012 school year. The current OPSB has the power to implement the major policy changes recommended as well as the expansion of its number. The change from district to citywide or at-large elections would have to undergo further review by appropriate entities as required by federal law.
It is important to note that what is recommended is not a mere return to the system of old. Charters will remain as long as they are successful. However, the many issues of equity that have arisen post-Katrina would be able to be better addressed. Commonality of data on key areas of concern would be more readily available and usable to promote positive change.
Act 35, the law responsible for the state takeover of schools in Orleans Parish, includes a provision that requires the Recovery School District to recommend whether a school should remain in the RSD, close or be returned to local control. BESE, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, must act on the recommendation at least six months before the expiration of the initial five-year period of state takeover. The expiration is the end of 2010-2011 school year.
I have seen and witnessed public education in New Orleans as one of its employees, one of its leaders, and one of its end-users as a parent. The culmination of these experiences along with the consideration of the thoughts of leading researchers in the field of education has led to the series of recommendations presented herein. When making a decision that has the ability to impact generations of students and their families, it is critical that such a task be approached with the requisite objectivity regarding the current state of affairs, informed by the viewpoints and needs of the end-users, and balanced by the lessons learned from the past. May the citizens of New Orleans act wisely.
A response to BGR/Cowen
As a former president of the Orleans Parish School Board, a current parent of a child enrolled in public school, and a long-time advocate for quality education, I read with great interest the recently released report on governance co-authored by BGR/Cowen.
In part one of this response, I will offer some observations about the report. In part two, I will offer an alternative recommendation for future public school governance in New Orleans. The observations and recommendation offered are based on extensive research on school governance and analysis of successful school districts around the country. Additionally, the author has been directly involved in the education system as a school social worker, a school board member, and an education advocate.
Part I:
Observations about the report fall into three categories:
1. The issue of innovation in education.
2. The report’s lack of objectivity
3. Virtually all of the governance models highlighted increase rather than decrease the educational bureaucracy and raise greater questions with regard to accountability to the public.
The first observation relates to the issue of innovation. The title of the BGR/Cowen report is Managing Innovation. Surely, innovation is a worthwhile and desirable end; innovation is a value. But innovation, to the extent it has occurred, has come with a price paid by our city’s students. We must also value and be concerned with other mandates.
Innovation, for example, has come at the expense of accountability. Due to the loose nature of our “system,” no one is responsible to ensure all children are successfully admitted to a school without hassle and anxiety. No one is responsible for the children who are “pushed-out” due to undesirable behaviors. A recent report entitled “Pushed Out: Harsh discipline in Louisiana schools denies the right to education” (Sullivan & Morgan, 2010) revealed that the suspension rate in RSD schools is four times the national rate. Expulsions occur in the RSD at ten times the national rate. Furthermore, no one is responsible or accountable for ensuring that the scores of children with special needs have their needs met. Numerous media reports have highlighted concerns with the way in which children with special needs are distributed throughout our city’s schools. The patterns present among several schools are highly suggestive of discriminatory practices and outright violations of federal laws.
Innovation has come at the expense of equity. A review of average expenditures per pupil for 2007-2008 reveal that RSD-run schools spent $20,770 per pupil, while OPSB charters spent $9,671 per pupil (Cowen, 2010). A review of the distribution of experienced versus less experienced teachers shows that for OPSB-run schools 62% of the teachers have over 20 years, in OPSB charters 27% of the teachers have over 20 years. In RSD-charters, only 10% of the teachers have over 20 years whereas 32% of the teachers have less than 1 year of experience (Cowen, 2010). What is important to note is that RSD leadership has consistently stated that they are attempting to educate children who are lagging educationally. Clearly, these students deserve more teachers with more experience. A recent issue brief released by the United Teachers of New Orleans (UTNO) examines this issue in great detail (www.utno.org).
Innovation has come at the expense of public money. In the 2007-2008 school year, New Orleans charters alone spent a total of $6.3 million dollars on transportation. This figure does not include the dozens of direct-run schools. Not only are students being transported across the city, but schools have also been reluctant to work together to produce more efficient bus routes that would save time and money. Also well known is the massive waste on money for security costs in RSD schools. In the 2006-2007 school year, for example, RSD spent an average of $2,100 per student.
Moreover, we now have duplicative educational entities in New Orleans. For example, the Orleans Parish School Board provides special education services. The Recovery School District must provide such services. And there is also the SUNS organization, which attempts to meet the needs of charters. Lastly, there is the issue of salaries. While everyone wants to attract and retain the best talent, the loose nature of our educational landscape makes it difficult to monitor whether salaries paid to high-level staff (principals, CEOs, and administrators) is reasonable rather than exorbitant.
The second issue relates to the lack of objectivity found throughout the report. As an “independent, research organization,” (www.bgr.org) BGR purports to undertake its mission in a nonpartisan and fair manner. Additionally, one would expect that the Cowen Institute, being affiliated with a major research institution, would also abide by minimal standards of academic non-bias. However, evidence of institutional bias is found in several places. On page 9, for example, the report states “In the case of the OPSB, there is no reason to think that consolidating authority under it…would produce different results.” Later, on page 22, the report reiterates this view saying, “Calling on such a body (OPSB) to resume the same role in a drastically changed system, would be prima facie, ill-advised.”
Aside from these obvious, unsupported statements of opinion what is surprising is that no differentiation is made between the OPSB pre-Katrina and post-Katrina. This type of “head in the sand” approach ignores the significant accomplishments of OPSB since Katrina.
Largely unreported or underreported by the Times-Picayune is the fact that since Katrina OPSB has had successive unqualified (meaning good) audits. Since Katrina, the special education department has been cited for exceptional performance. Since Katrina, the OPSB has chartered and annually evaluated its 12 charter schools. Since Katrina, the OPSB has had stability in the ranks of superintendent. Since Katrina, OPSB schools have produced significant growth in the district performance score.
Since Katrina, the OPSB has effectively partnered with the community to fund the renovation of the Mahalia Jackson School and establish the Early Childhood and Family Learning Center, a new community resource based upon a model of best practices around the country. Since Katrina, the OPSB has worked successfully with state education officials towards the successful renewal of vital millages and the development of the Facilities Master Plan, which provides over $700 million dollars towards the construction and renovation of schools citywide.
Also troubling is the report’s uncritical acceptance of the “reform success” touted by the Recovery School District and others in the media. For example, no mention is made in the report of the extensive and enlightening work of the Research on Reforms organization (researchonreforms.org). Provocative articles such as “New Orleans schools decline following state’s ‘double standard’ takeover”(Ferguson, 2010) and “Recovery school district’s myth of ‘educational turnaround’ in New Orleans” (Hatfield, 2010) offer valuable, thoughtful views regarding the current status of reform efforts. The BGR/Cowen report notes the increase in the district performance score (dps) for New Orleans post-Katrina. While it is true that the district performance score did increase 10 points between 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, it does not say that the district performance score also increased 10 points between the years of 2002to 2005.
Further, no mention whatsoever is made of the successive, troubling reports produced by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor (www.lla.state.la.us) which show numerous instances of fiscal mismanagement. Specific issues were raised with regard to the use of millions of dollars in RESTART funds, which were monies given to help restart schools after Katrina, and the disbursement of funds for relocation and retention of teachers in the RSD. Other issues noted in a management letter dated May 13, 2009 were:
Inaccurate and incomplete annual fiscal reports
Inadequate subrecipient monitoring
Untimely completion of payroll
Inadequate fiscal monitoring of federal funds
Inadequate oversight of school activity accounts
Inadequate control over payroll
Theft of computers
Failure to insure warehouse
These instances of bias through omission reflect poorly on the credibility of the entire effort undertaken by BGR/Cowen. While the report is readily critical of the OPSB’s past, it has nothing to say about the current flaws in governance of other entities, including some charter schools, and how that may inform and inspire future discussions about governance models.
The third issue revolves around the fact that virtually all of the governance models highlighted add to the bureaucracy in the educational landscape. With more bureaucracy come more questions about accountability. For example, model numbers two, three and four involve the creation of new entities to serve as either charter authorizers, facility managers/owners or both charter authorizer and facility managers. Such additions would only further complicate educational matters. It would be similar to the head chef of a major restaurant allowing someone else to control his/her access to the ingredients for all the meals while someone else has control of all the kitchen appliances including the oven, the refrigerator, and the microwave. This state of affairs would not work.
A related question is who would occupy the seats on these new entities? How would they be chosen? Who does the choosing? Would it be similar to a bill proposed in the current legislative session such as House bill 1154 (legis.state.la.us) that would create a charter commission? If passed, the commissioners-to-be would all be appointed by powerful politicians such as the speaker of the house, the president of the senate, and the president of the board of elementary and secondary education. The governor would also appoint but only from nominations submitted by well-connected groups such as the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) and the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL).
In New Orleans, we need less elitism and plutocracy and more grassroots and democracy.
In part one of this response, I will offer some observations about the report. In part two, I will offer an alternative recommendation for future public school governance in New Orleans. The observations and recommendation offered are based on extensive research on school governance and analysis of successful school districts around the country. Additionally, the author has been directly involved in the education system as a school social worker, a school board member, and an education advocate.
Part I:
Observations about the report fall into three categories:
1. The issue of innovation in education.
2. The report’s lack of objectivity
3. Virtually all of the governance models highlighted increase rather than decrease the educational bureaucracy and raise greater questions with regard to accountability to the public.
The first observation relates to the issue of innovation. The title of the BGR/Cowen report is Managing Innovation. Surely, innovation is a worthwhile and desirable end; innovation is a value. But innovation, to the extent it has occurred, has come with a price paid by our city’s students. We must also value and be concerned with other mandates.
Innovation, for example, has come at the expense of accountability. Due to the loose nature of our “system,” no one is responsible to ensure all children are successfully admitted to a school without hassle and anxiety. No one is responsible for the children who are “pushed-out” due to undesirable behaviors. A recent report entitled “Pushed Out: Harsh discipline in Louisiana schools denies the right to education” (Sullivan & Morgan, 2010) revealed that the suspension rate in RSD schools is four times the national rate. Expulsions occur in the RSD at ten times the national rate. Furthermore, no one is responsible or accountable for ensuring that the scores of children with special needs have their needs met. Numerous media reports have highlighted concerns with the way in which children with special needs are distributed throughout our city’s schools. The patterns present among several schools are highly suggestive of discriminatory practices and outright violations of federal laws.
Innovation has come at the expense of equity. A review of average expenditures per pupil for 2007-2008 reveal that RSD-run schools spent $20,770 per pupil, while OPSB charters spent $9,671 per pupil (Cowen, 2010). A review of the distribution of experienced versus less experienced teachers shows that for OPSB-run schools 62% of the teachers have over 20 years, in OPSB charters 27% of the teachers have over 20 years. In RSD-charters, only 10% of the teachers have over 20 years whereas 32% of the teachers have less than 1 year of experience (Cowen, 2010). What is important to note is that RSD leadership has consistently stated that they are attempting to educate children who are lagging educationally. Clearly, these students deserve more teachers with more experience. A recent issue brief released by the United Teachers of New Orleans (UTNO) examines this issue in great detail (www.utno.org).
Innovation has come at the expense of public money. In the 2007-2008 school year, New Orleans charters alone spent a total of $6.3 million dollars on transportation. This figure does not include the dozens of direct-run schools. Not only are students being transported across the city, but schools have also been reluctant to work together to produce more efficient bus routes that would save time and money. Also well known is the massive waste on money for security costs in RSD schools. In the 2006-2007 school year, for example, RSD spent an average of $2,100 per student.
Moreover, we now have duplicative educational entities in New Orleans. For example, the Orleans Parish School Board provides special education services. The Recovery School District must provide such services. And there is also the SUNS organization, which attempts to meet the needs of charters. Lastly, there is the issue of salaries. While everyone wants to attract and retain the best talent, the loose nature of our educational landscape makes it difficult to monitor whether salaries paid to high-level staff (principals, CEOs, and administrators) is reasonable rather than exorbitant.
The second issue relates to the lack of objectivity found throughout the report. As an “independent, research organization,” (www.bgr.org) BGR purports to undertake its mission in a nonpartisan and fair manner. Additionally, one would expect that the Cowen Institute, being affiliated with a major research institution, would also abide by minimal standards of academic non-bias. However, evidence of institutional bias is found in several places. On page 9, for example, the report states “In the case of the OPSB, there is no reason to think that consolidating authority under it…would produce different results.” Later, on page 22, the report reiterates this view saying, “Calling on such a body (OPSB) to resume the same role in a drastically changed system, would be prima facie, ill-advised.”
Aside from these obvious, unsupported statements of opinion what is surprising is that no differentiation is made between the OPSB pre-Katrina and post-Katrina. This type of “head in the sand” approach ignores the significant accomplishments of OPSB since Katrina.
Largely unreported or underreported by the Times-Picayune is the fact that since Katrina OPSB has had successive unqualified (meaning good) audits. Since Katrina, the special education department has been cited for exceptional performance. Since Katrina, the OPSB has chartered and annually evaluated its 12 charter schools. Since Katrina, the OPSB has had stability in the ranks of superintendent. Since Katrina, OPSB schools have produced significant growth in the district performance score.
Since Katrina, the OPSB has effectively partnered with the community to fund the renovation of the Mahalia Jackson School and establish the Early Childhood and Family Learning Center, a new community resource based upon a model of best practices around the country. Since Katrina, the OPSB has worked successfully with state education officials towards the successful renewal of vital millages and the development of the Facilities Master Plan, which provides over $700 million dollars towards the construction and renovation of schools citywide.
Also troubling is the report’s uncritical acceptance of the “reform success” touted by the Recovery School District and others in the media. For example, no mention is made in the report of the extensive and enlightening work of the Research on Reforms organization (researchonreforms.org). Provocative articles such as “New Orleans schools decline following state’s ‘double standard’ takeover”(Ferguson, 2010) and “Recovery school district’s myth of ‘educational turnaround’ in New Orleans” (Hatfield, 2010) offer valuable, thoughtful views regarding the current status of reform efforts. The BGR/Cowen report notes the increase in the district performance score (dps) for New Orleans post-Katrina. While it is true that the district performance score did increase 10 points between 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, it does not say that the district performance score also increased 10 points between the years of 2002to 2005.
Further, no mention whatsoever is made of the successive, troubling reports produced by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor (www.lla.state.la.us) which show numerous instances of fiscal mismanagement. Specific issues were raised with regard to the use of millions of dollars in RESTART funds, which were monies given to help restart schools after Katrina, and the disbursement of funds for relocation and retention of teachers in the RSD. Other issues noted in a management letter dated May 13, 2009 were:
Inaccurate and incomplete annual fiscal reports
Inadequate subrecipient monitoring
Untimely completion of payroll
Inadequate fiscal monitoring of federal funds
Inadequate oversight of school activity accounts
Inadequate control over payroll
Theft of computers
Failure to insure warehouse
These instances of bias through omission reflect poorly on the credibility of the entire effort undertaken by BGR/Cowen. While the report is readily critical of the OPSB’s past, it has nothing to say about the current flaws in governance of other entities, including some charter schools, and how that may inform and inspire future discussions about governance models.
The third issue revolves around the fact that virtually all of the governance models highlighted add to the bureaucracy in the educational landscape. With more bureaucracy come more questions about accountability. For example, model numbers two, three and four involve the creation of new entities to serve as either charter authorizers, facility managers/owners or both charter authorizer and facility managers. Such additions would only further complicate educational matters. It would be similar to the head chef of a major restaurant allowing someone else to control his/her access to the ingredients for all the meals while someone else has control of all the kitchen appliances including the oven, the refrigerator, and the microwave. This state of affairs would not work.
A related question is who would occupy the seats on these new entities? How would they be chosen? Who does the choosing? Would it be similar to a bill proposed in the current legislative session such as House bill 1154 (legis.state.la.us) that would create a charter commission? If passed, the commissioners-to-be would all be appointed by powerful politicians such as the speaker of the house, the president of the senate, and the president of the board of elementary and secondary education. The governor would also appoint but only from nominations submitted by well-connected groups such as the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) and the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL).
In New Orleans, we need less elitism and plutocracy and more grassroots and democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
