Summary Report - Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church

Transcription

Summary Report
When Our Eyes Are Knocked Open:
The State of Education in Philadelphia
Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church Town Hall Meeting
Philadelphia, PA ♦ May 8, 2012
Prepared by:
Next Step Associates, LLC
Restoring Public Education to Its Place of Honor
Reverend Dr. Alyn E. Waller, Senior Pastor
About Next Step Associates, LLC Next Step Associates (NSA) is a Philadelphia-based, SBA 8(a) certified, woman–owned
minority company. NSA assists the advancement efforts of public and private companies and
organizations that need support in enhancing and improving the effectiveness of the strategies
and practices that they use to fulfill their stated missions.
NSA’s guiding principles are built on its considerable capabilities for employing knowledge of
both content and process in the provision of services, customizing assistance based on specific
need and data, recommending proven strategies for effective implementation, and following up
to ensure full, consistent performance.
For more information, please visit our website at www.nextstep-associates.com. Acknowledgments The Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church commissioned this report. We express our appreciation to
Dr. Alyn E. Waller, Senior Pastor for his guidance and prayers.
A very special thank-you goes to the facilitators, recorders, and Enon ministries that served to
ensure the success of the Town Hall meeting. This report was greatly enhanced by the
contributions of the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church congregation and community. A special thank-you is also extended to CISP's Philadelphia Freedom School students for
facilitating the student breakout sessions.
We also extend a heart-felt thank you to Rev. Cherylynne Smith, Rev. Jerome Glover, Dea.
Nathaniel Carr, and Julie Carter for their work behind the scenes to ensure the success of the
Town Hall Meeting.
Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church Town Hall Meeting ♦May 8, 2012
2 Education Committee
Education Committee Members
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Jennifer Plummer Davis
Pheralyn Dove
Sandra Dungee Glenn
Brenda Robinson Hewitt
Stacy Holland
Cassandra W. Jones
Robyn J. Murphy
Danielle Seward
Ellyn Jo Waller
Chris Wiggins
3 Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary………………………………………………….….
p. 5
2. Philadelphia Context……………………………………………………
♦ Overview of the School District of Philadelphia
♦ Challenges Facing the District
♦ School District Reorganization Proposal
p. 7
3. Town Hall Meeting Background Information………………………...
♦ About the Organizers
♦ Rationale for the Meeting
♦ Goals for the Meeting
♦ Attendees
♦ Focus Areas
♦ Structure and Procedures
♦ General Tone of the Meeting
p. 12
4. Prepared Remarks………………………………………………………
♦ SRC and SDP Officials
♦ Community Members
p. 17
5. Questions and Issues Raised During the Town Hall Meeting………...
♦ Superintendent Search Process
♦ SDP Funding, Costs, and Revenues
♦ Teaching, Learning, and Student Needs
♦ SRC/SDP Plan & Accountability and District Stability
p. 23
6. Summary of Strategies……………………………………………….….
♦ Community Organizing and Political Action
♦ Parent Education, Organizing, and Involvement
♦ Communication, Transparency, and Accountability
♦ Partnerships/Collaboration
p. 26
7. Recommendations for Action…………………………………………….
p. 28
8. Next Steps………………………………………………………….…….
p. 29
9. Appendices………………………………………………………………..
♦ Meeting Agenda
♦ Questions Posed to SRC and SDP Officials
♦ Children Achieving Reform Design: Ten-Point Strategy
♦ Five Principles of Student-Weighted Funding
p. 30
4 Executive Summary
On May 8, 2012, the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church hosted a Town Hall meeting to discuss the
state of education in Philadelphia. Called in response to the proposed changes in the School
District of Philadelphia, the meeting was in keeping with Reverend Dr. Alyn E. Waller and Enon
Tabernacle’s long-standing commitment to the city’s public schools and expanding educational
opportunities for children in Philadelphia. The meeting aimed to (1) hear directly from the
School Reform Commission (SRC) and the School District of Philadelphia (SDP)
leadership about the plan to reorganize public education in Philadelphia, and (2) discuss
the information heard in a small group format and offer collective suggestions on the SDP’s
proposed reorganization plan.
Among the nearly 3,000 people who attended the meeting, there were students, parents, teachers,
community stakeholders, elected officials, SRC and SDP leaders, charter school operators, and
the President of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers representing district teachers. The
President of Commonwealth Association of School Administrators, who represented district
principals and transportation workers, participated in a phone interview and provided a written
statement. To ensure that every participant of the meeting was provided with ample opportunities
to voice their concerns and share their suggestions, the meeting was structured as an active
session. Immediately following the prepared statements by the SRC and SDP officials as well as
community representatives, the participants were invited to join small discussion groups. The
range of issues and questions raised by the meeting participants covered the following areas: the
state of Philadelphia’s public schools in September 2012; achievement networks and school
autonomy; strategies for recruitment of qualified school leaders in the context of
decentralization; support systems for new principals and teachers; disparities in school
resources; effects of school cuts implemented to date on students; superintendent search;
costs of educating students in Philadelphia; budget deficit and savings since January 2012;
sources of revenue for the SDP, costs of the implementation of the proposed reorganization
strategy, and negotiations with the unions.
During breakout sessions participants discussed a range of issues related to the School District of
Philadelphia and the School Reform Commission’s plans as well as the future of the district. The
diverse group of community members expressed their concerns about the state of education in
the SDP, posed important questions, responded to the prepared remarks of the SDP and SRC
officials during the Town Hall meeting, and offered potential solutions to the challenges facing
the district.
This report compiled and analyzed these responses and found that the superintendent search
process and SDP cuts and financial issues were by far the most salient issues for the
community participants during the breakout sessions. Participants expressed concern that
sufficient qualified candidates from Philadelphia be considered and that the new superintendent
have education credentials and not simply business credentials. They sought more information
on the search criteria, the search process, the public’s role in the process, and about how the
incoming superintendent would be held accountable. Participants were also very concerned about
the cuts to key programs and staff and how these cuts would impact the quality of schools and
education students receive in the district. Issues of teaching and learning, school closings, and
transparency were also major sources of concern for the community members participating in the
breakout sessions. Among the student-facilitated breakout sessions, the most important issues for
5 youth participants included cuts to school programs and staff and the lack of student voice in
decisions related to their education in the SDP.
Participants also identified potential strategies for addressing some of the challenges facing the
district during the event. Our analysis of the proposed strategies found the most common
recommendations among the community participants were: community organizing and
political action; parent education, involvement, and organizing; communication;
transparency and accountability; and community partnerships.
Based on the rich discussions that took place during the Town Hall meeting and specific
suggestions from the participants, we outlined the following recommendations for action:
1. Schedule a public presentation of the report by the Boston Consulting Group;
2. Explain how earlier strategic plans (i.e., Imagine 2014, Children Achieving) and
reports commissioned in years prior have been accounted for in the proposed
reorganization plan for the district;
3. Consolidate the four plans currently being circulated among the public and present
one complete integrated District Reorganization Plan;
4. Re-calculate and share the per pupil costs that are reflective of the direct per pupil
costs for instruction;
5. Schedule public meetings with superintendent candidates; and
6. Demonstrate an inclusive and thorough school district reorganization planning
process.
6 Philadelphia Context
Overview of the School District of Philadelphia
General Statistics
The School District of Philadelphia (SDP), the eighth largest school district in the nation,
currently serves 146,090 students, a 37 percent decrease in the district’s public school student
enrollment over the past 12 years. This drop in the number of students served by the 249 districtrun schools can be largely attributed to the rapid growth of charter schools in the district. There
are a total of 80 authorized charter schools that educate approximately 25 percent of students in
the district (see Fig. 1).
Source: Pew report “Philadelphia’s Changing Schools and What Parents Want from Them”
School Reform Commission
The district underwent major changes in its governance system in late 2001. In response to the
budgetary concerns and poor student performance, the state legislature passed Act 46, which
authorized a state takeover of the School District of Philadelphia under certain conditions. In
December 2001, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia negotiated an
agreement to share governance and oversight of the district between the city and the
Commonwealth. The new governing body, the School Reform Commission (SRC), is a fivemember body with three (3) members appointed by the Governor and two (2) members
appointed by the Mayor of Philadelphia. The SRC mandate is comprised of the duties and
authorities formerly possessed by the School Board of Education as well as additional powers
assigned to it by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Excerpt from the Pennsylvania School Code on the Authority and Powers of the School Reform
Commission:
The SRC shall establish and approve such schools as are required for the education of every student residing in
the School District of Philadelphia between the ages of six (6) and twenty-one (21) years who may attend
school; shall equip, furnish, operate and maintain district schools; shall adopt and enforce rules and regulations
for the management of school affairs and the conduct and deportment of employees and students; and shall levy
taxes as may be necessary, in addition to the annual state appropriation, for the exercise of aforesaid powers.
The SRC’s functions range from legislative and executive to adjudicatory. Its legislative
functions include policy-making necessary for the organization and operation of Philadelphia
schools. The SRC may adopt, amend, and repeal policies. As an executive authority, the SRC
7 appoints the Superintendent of the Philadelphia School District, who is charged with the
enforcement of the SRC policies and other relevant regulations. In the occasion when the
decisions of the Superintendent violate SRC policies, the Commission has a right to alter or
rescind such a decision. Finally, the SRC has the power to adjudicate any disputes within the
district over the matters that are within the SRC mandate.
Strategic Plans
Over the past 18 years, the School District of Philadelphia has experienced three different
superintendents and implemented three reform efforts. The last permanent Superintendent
appointed prior to the State/City agreement was David Hornbeck (1994-2001), who launched a
major school reform effort entitled “Children Achieving,” focusing on standards, accountability,
and decentralization. In 2001, prior to the appointment of the new school district administrator,
SRC adopted the Diverse Provider Model under which the district hired Education Management
Organizations (EMOs) to operate individual schools within the district. The rationale was that
these EMOs will “innovate by tailoring important decisions that directly impact student
achievement to a particular academic and social environment without suffering the consequences
of mandating those decisions across a large school district.”1In 2002, Paul Vallas, a former CEO
of Chicago Public Schools, was appointed Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Vallas implemented a
systemic instructional reform that consisted of a common core curriculum, frequent formative
student assessments, and reorganization of the school system mainly into K-8 and 9-12 schools.
In 2008, the SRC appointed Arlene Ackerman as the Philadelphia CEO/Superintendent.
Ackerman, who previously served as a superintendent in Washington, DC and San Francisco,
implemented a reform focused on the restructuring/turnaround of the low-performing schools
and began work toward the equitable funding distribution also known as a weighted student
funding (see Appendices).
1Medwick, Allan Joseph and Erica Greenberg. 2004. Philadelphia: Private Partners in Public Education. Paper
presented at the Innovations in Education Conference. Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church Town Hall Meeting ♦May 8, 2012
8 Table 1. Comparison of School Reform Plans Implemented by Former District Leaders
David Hornbeck
Paul Vallas
Title
Children Achieving
System of “managed instruction”
Timeframe
1995-2000
2002-2007
Theory of Action
Provide Philadelphia teachers and
♦ Common core curriculum in
administrators with the following in
the four subject areas;
order to make sure that all students
♦ Benchmark assessments every
reach the district’s high standards:
6 weeks to test student
♦ High academic standards;
command of the material
♦ Strong incentives to focus their
taught during a given time
efforts and resources;
period;
♦ More control over school
♦ New textbooks and materials;
resource allocations,
♦ Extended math and reading
organization, policies, and
class periods in grades K-9;
programs;
♦ Electronic instructional
♦ Adequate funding and resources;
management system providing
♦ More hands-on leadership and
data on students, lesson plans,
high-quality support;
and curriculum for teachers;
♦ Better coordination of resources
♦ Mandatory student
and programs;
participation in the afterschool and summer programs;
♦ Schools restructured to support
good teaching and encourage
♦ Expansion of the preschool
improvement of practice;
services;
♦ Rich professional development
♦ Creation of small-size high
of their own choosing;
schools;
♦ Increased public understanding
♦ Closing of ineffective middle
and support.
schools and creation of the K(see Appendices for a more detailed
8, 9-12 school system.
outline of the Ten-Point Plan)
Outcomes
Challenges in
implementation of
the reform
Overall student achievement improved
as a result of the reform. Studies
suggest that it was the Teacher
Professional Community that most
contributed to the improvement of
student achievement. The wellimplemented small learning
communities contributed most to the
creation of good learning environments
at schools2.
♦ Conflict between the district and
♦
♦
the unions over the inclusion of
student performance indicators
into teacher and principal
evaluations;
Insufficient funding for full
reform implementation;
Conflict with the state over the
school funding disparities.
Student achievement scores
substantially increased. The share of
5th and 8th grade students scoring
Proficient or Advanced on the PSSA
in math increased by 26, in reading
by 11 percentage points among the
5th graders, and 25 percentage points
among the 8th graders. The scores
and dropout rates among the high
school student showed only modest
improvements3.
♦ Insufficient funding for full
reform implementation;
♦ Lack of a strong
administrative team to
implement reform at the high
school level.
Arlene Ackerman
Imagine 2014
2008-2011
♦ Increasing achievement and
closing the opportunity and
achievement gap for all students
by
− effectively managing teaching
and learning; defining the core
curriculum and performance
outcomes for schools,
− providing effective schools
with autonomy to decide how
to spend the allocated budget
and how to best educate
students
− launching the Renaissance
School turnaround initiative for
low-performing schools;
♦ Ensuring the equitable allocation
of all district resources;
♦ Holding all adults accountable for
student outcomes;
♦ Establishment of Parent
University Initiative to train and
engage parents, families, and
communities with the schools and
decision making within the school
district.
Overall, the students showed consistent
gains on the standardized tests. The
allegations that 29 Philadelphia schools
cheated on the tests casts doubt on
overall effects of the reform efforts.
♦ Fiscal management challenges;
♦ Senior staff turnover;
♦ Insufficient funding for full
reform implementation.
2 Tighe, Erin, Aubreay Wang, and Ellen Foley. 2002. An Analysis of the Effect of Children Achieving on Student
Achievement on Philadelphia Elementary Schools. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
3 Useem, Elizabeth. 2009. “Big City Superintendent as Powerful CEO: Paul Vallas in Philadelphia.” Peabody
Journal of Education, 84: 300-317. Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church Town Hall Meeting ♦May 8, 2012
9 There are a number of similarities4 between the strategic plans discussed in Table 1 above and
proposed plans for the reorganization of the school district. Therefore, it is imperative that we
carefully consider the lessons learned from the implementation of each of these strategic plans
and understand the reasons that certain components of each plan yielded the desired outcomes,
while others failed to do so. Additionally, we must consider the impact of each of the school
reform efforts on district-wide student gains and on school-based essential services, i.e., nurses,
arts education, and music programs that remain major concerns for parents and communities.
Challenges Facing the School District
At present, the School District of Philadelphia is without an Executive Leader to serve as a voice
for the children and families of the city. A search committee convened by the School Reform
Commission has interviewed approximately ten candidates. The CEO/superintendent is the
single most important figure in a school district, especially in large urban districts like
Philadelphia. The CEO/superintendent is more than a mouthpiece for the hopes and dreams of
thousands of children. A 2006 study by the Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning
found a statistically significant relationship between district leadership and student achievement
and a positive correlation between student achievement and executive leadership tenure. Yet as
realization grows of the critical importance of finding the right person, both the stability of the
position and the supply of candidates nationwide is rapidly decreasing. According to a national
study conducted by the American Association of School Administrators in 2010, the average
district leader tenure is three and a half years. Moreover, approximately half of the 2,000
superintendents surveyed in the study reported that they did not plan to remain in the position
through the year 2015. Philadelphia’s new school leader will need to meld his or her vision for
the district within the realities of the district’s budget situation and also, at least in the early
going, within the boundaries of a proposed School Reorganization Plan.
The “true cost” of the School Reorganization Plan remains uncertain, as is the impact it will have
on the learning experiences students receive in classrooms. What is clear is the need to continue
to ensure that all children have good teachers and all teachers get the support they need to be
successful. Research is clear that outside the home, students benefit the most from high quality
instruction and that these benefits are cumulative for students who have good teachers for several
years. An important challenge, therefore, will be ensuring that good teachers and administrators
are recruited to work in the city’s schools, and that once hired, they get the coaching and
mentoring they need to remain in the system.
“The lack of well-prepared, high-performing teachers, especially in high-poverty areas, is
now recognized as the root cause of our lagging national performance and recalcitrant
achievement gaps, and the only way to reverse the decline is to strategically recruit and
prepare, develop and manage teachers and principals so that a high-performing teacher is in
every one of our classrooms”1.
4 Just take an example of Hornbeck’s decentralized cluster model: Hornbeck proposed to create 22 “clusters”
consisting of elementary, middle, and high schools based on their feeder patterns. Within each cluster, schools
formed small learning communities for planning, decision-making, and professional development. The district also
redirected the funding to the clusters for professional development and programmatic purposes.
10 Like many school systems, the School District of Philadelphia is faced with the challenge of
doing more with less in a poor economy. However, in Philadelphia the problem is exacerbated
by the fallout from inaccurate budget projections from prior fiscal years and the prospect of
stagnant or declining revenue in future years. As a consequence, the uncertainty surrounding the
district’s financial position has teachers, parents, children, and community members concerned
about layoffs, the discontinuation of treasured programs, school closures, and the equitable
distribution of resources in neighborhoods and schools. There is a continuing concern that a
narrow focus on deficit reduction will be at the expense of crucial programs and services. The
new CEO/superintendent will need to move quickly to establish a strong working relationship
with the School Reform Commission, meld his or her vision for the city’s schools within the
current reality of the fiscal situation, and broadcast a transparent and coherent message about his
or her educational priorities to stakeholders, including the school principals who will be charged
with turning that vision into reality for all children.
School District Reorganization Proposal
Earlier this year the SRC contracted the Boston Consulting Group (BCG)5to help design a
School District Reorganization Plan. The proposed plan by the BCG resembles the
recommendations (i.e., school closing, achievement networks) that the firm made in other school
districts across the country. The plan also primarily addresses the problem of fiscal deficit, while
its impact on student outcomes remains unclear. The plan advanced by the Chief Recovery
Officer and Acting Superintendent Tom Knudsen includes the following propositions:
-
-
-
Closing of 64 “persistently unsafe, low-performing”6 schools (40 schools will close in
June 2013, and six schools will close in each of the next four years).
Downsizing the central office and outsourcing the governance over public schools to
Achievement Networks7 and Charter Management Organizations. The school district, on
the other hand, will provide schools with a range of support services and monitor the
performance of the Achievement Networks.
Establish safer schools by training principals, teachers, counselors, and school staff on
school climate over the summer and by implementation of the Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports in low-safety schools and engagement of most at-risk
students.
Design of a college and career-ready curriculum based on the PA Common Core
standards and Indicators for College and Career Success.
5 The contract for $1.4 million was paid for by the William Penn Foundation, which has as its mission to “improve
quality of life in the Greater Philadelphia region through efforts that foster rich cultural expression, strengthen
children's futures, and deepen connections to nature and community.”
6 “A Blueprint for Transforming Philadelphia’s Public Schools: Safe, high-quality schools. Fiscal sustainability.” 7 Achievement Networks are groups of 25 or more schools that will be formed according to the following criteria:
each network must include schools with diverse characteristics in terms of their performance record, specialization
(i.e., vocational schools, Renaissance Charter, etc.) and autonomy levels (full autonomy, support and intervention).
Each Network will include at least one neighborhood high school, and elementary and middle schools based on the
high school feeder patterns.
11 Town Hall Meeting Background Information
About the Organizers
The Town Hall meeting was convened by the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, its Senior Pastor
Reverend Dr. Alyn E. Waller, and the Education Committee, in response to the proposed
reorganization of the School District of Philadelphia. The meeting on May 8, 2012, continued the
rich legacy of the Enon Tabernacle and Reverend Waller’s involvement with the community and
Philadelphia’s public education.
About the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church:
Founded in 1876, Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church is the oldest African-American Baptist Church in the
Germantown neighborhood and the fifty-fifth oldest African-American church in the City of Philadelphia. Today
Enon Tabernacle has the largest congregation in the City, with membership exceeding 15,000 people.
In 1998, under the leadership of Reverend Waller Enon established the Enon-Coulter Community Development
Corporation, which offers a broad range of educational and support services to children and families in the
community. Through the Community Reinvestment Ministry launched in 2004, Enon provides financial support
to the non-profits that effectively serve the greater Philadelphia community.
With its congregation comprised of the students attending district-run, charter, private, or
parochial schools and their families, Enon Tabernacle is deeply committed to expanding
educational opportunities for its young members and children in the City of Philadelphia at large.
During the past year alone, Enon served 2,516 young people through its 52 various ministries,
including Youth Sports, Drummers for Christ, Youth Orchestra and Choir, and Ordered Steps,
among others.
The history of Enon’s involvement with education is extensive. The most notable initiatives
include the following:
♦ Anchoring Bright Children Early Learning Center. Founded through the Enon-Coulter
Community Development Corporation in response to the pronounced need in the
community for quality early childhood services, the Center seeks to promote the
cognitive, physical, language, social, and emotional development of children between 2.5
and 5 years of age.
♦ Full-time Music Teacher at the Martin Luther King High School. After the music
program was eliminated in the high school due to the funding cuts experienced by the
SDP, Enon offered to sponsor the salary and benefits for a full-time music teacher. The
music program continues to thrive at the Martin Luther King High School.
♦ Reverend Waller serves as an Assistant Wrestling Coach at the Martin Luther King High
School.
♦ Renovation of the Germantown High School library. Enon has a long history of active
involvement with Germantown High School, thanks to the efforts of Reverend Leroi
Simmons and the Germantown Clergy Initiative. When the request for library renovation
was presented to Reverend Waller, he led Enon’s fundraising efforts and volunteer
recruitment initiatives to upgrade the library facilities. In addition to renovating the
library, Enon also purchased a computer lab for the high school to use.
♦ Scholarships and Academic Recognition. Enon operates a total of 62 scholarship
programs for K-12 students, college, and graduate students. Students are awarded
scholarships on the basis of their academic achievement and extracurricular involvement
12 (including involvement at the church). Enon also hosts annual Graduation Celebrations to
recognize the accomplishments of high school and University graduates.
♦ Honor Roll program. Reverend Waller instituted the Pastor’s Honor Roll, which
recognizes students who meet Enon’s established criteria on a quarterly basis.
♦ Afterschool and Saturday activities for youth. Enon operates a broad range of afterschool
and Saturday activities and academic support programs. Students are also offered tutoring
in every subject free of charge.
Rationale for the Town Hall Meeting
The Education Committee of the Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church believes it is imperative that
schools open in September 2012 prepared and equipped to educate our children. Therefore, it is
important to agree on how the district meets its fiscal goals without sacrificing the education and
development of Philadelphia’s children.
The Town Hall meeting sought to solicit valuable input from a broad range of community
stakeholder to help design a plan that will allow for the decentralization of the SDP, but in a
thoughtful fashion. Additionally, based on the outcomes of the meeting, the Education
Committee encourages the SRC and SDP to consider which parts of the three strategic plans
implemented by former Superintendents David Hornbeck, Paul Vallas, and Arlene Ackerman
should be preserved or integrated into the new proposed strategic plan.
Goals of the Meeting
Reverend Waller established a two-pronged purpose for the May 8 meeting:
♦ to hear directly from the SRC and SDP leadership about the plan to reorganize public
education in Philadelphia; and
♦ to discuss the information heard in smaller groups and offer collective suggestions on the
Reverend Waller emphasized that the proposed restructuring of the school system is a critical
issue in our community. Further, he stressed that the Town Hall meeting, unlike SRC meetings,
was designed as an “active session” where all interested community members participate in
constructive discussions around the reorganization plans, give feedback to the officials, and
make specific recommendations that will be presented to all the relevant authorities.
Attendees
Nearly 3,000 people attended the Town Hall meeting on May 8, 2012. Among them were:
♦ Parents whose children attend Philadelphia’s public and charter schools as well as parents
homeschooling their children;
♦ Community members concerned about the state of public education in Philadelphia;
♦ Elected officials;
♦ Representatives of the School District of Philadelphia and School Reform
Commissioners;
♦ President of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers;
♦ Teachers and principals;
♦ Charter school operators;
13 ♦ School administrators; and
♦ Students.
Focus areas
In addition to seeking clarification of the various components within the proposed reorganization
plan, the Town Hall meeting sought to frame the discussion about the pending changes from a
student-centered perspective, evaluating the plans’ impact on students’ learning and academic
lives in general. Therefore, the meeting focused on the following areas and questions:
♦ The state of public schools in September 2012: What will schools look like and how will
they be different from schools this year?
♦ Achievement Networks and school autonomy: How will these affect students’ academic
lives?
♦ Strategies for recruitment of qualified school leaders (principals and assistant principals)
in the context of decentralization.
♦ Support system for new principals and teachers: Who will serve as their mentors and
what will this mentorship look like, given the downsizing of the school district?
♦ Disparities in school resources: How will parity in distribution of teacher talent,
materials, and programs be guaranteed under the new reform strategy?
♦ Effects of school cuts implemented to date on students.
♦ Superintendent search: update on the progress, timeline for making an offer, the ability of
the newly appointed Superintendent to amend the proposed plan.
♦ Costs of educating students in Philadelphia: The gap between the “true cost” and the
proposed cost under the Chief Recovery Officer’s Reorganization Blueprint.
♦ Update on the budget deficit and savings since January 2012.
♦ Sources of revenue for the SDP.
♦ Costs of the implementation of the proposed reorganization strategy and plans for
outsourcing of different components of this strategy.
♦ Update on the negotiations with the unions.
Structure of the Meeting and Procedures
The Town Hall meeting began at 6:30 p.m. with a prayer, followed by an opening statement
from Reverend Waller, prepared remarks by the SRC and SDP officials, and prepared responses
from the community members. The primary objective for the presentations by officials was to
allow them to respond to the set of questions (see Appendices) about the superintendent search
process, the school reorganization plans, and the effects of the proposed changes on students’
lives.
Following the opening remarks, the meeting participants were invited to engage in the discussion
about the issues in breakout groups of 30-50 people. At the time of registration, each participant
received a breakout room assignment and a 4x6 card that participants used to write their
questions or comments about the proposed reorganization of the school district. These cards were
collected from the participants at the end of the breakout sessions; comments listed on them were
recorded along with the minutes of the small-group discussion. The feedback from community
members is presented in this report in an aggregate fashion.
14 Each breakout room was assigned a facilitator to lead the discussion and a recorder to document
the conversation. The responsibilities of the facilitators included the following:
♦ Create an atmosphere where each participant feels at ease expressing ideas and
responding to those of others.
♦ Guide the discussion according to the ground rules but remain neutral.
♦ Keep the group focused on the questions (this refers to the questions that SRC and SDP
officials responded to during their opening statements).
♦ Monitor how well the participants are communicating with each other, i.e., who has
spoken and who has not, whose points have not yet received a fair hearing.
♦ Avoid having anyone dominate the discussion; involve everyone.
♦ Remember that the discussion is not a debate but a forum to engage ideas and provide
feedback.
Following the small-group discussions, participants reconvened for the closing statements.
Reverend Waller during his closing remarks described the meeting and the outcomes of the
meeting as prophetic: “Prophetic means to critique the present ideology, to speak truth to power,
and where power doesn’t know what to do, to offer a more imaginable social future.” He also
emphasized in his statement that the school reorganization process will take years to implement;
therefore, everyone invested in the public education in Philadelphia should remain engaged in
community discussions.
General Tone of the Meeting
“We cannot have missteps when it comes to our children
because when we mess up with our children we are messing up with our future.”
~ Reverend Dr. Alyn E. Waller, Senior Pastor
(during his Opening Remarks at the Town Hall meeting on May 8, 2012)
“Lord, we need your courage because our strength is not enough.
We need to be so strong that we will dare to tell our children to reach for the stars.”
~ Reverend Dr. D.W. Tatem, District Superintendent, East District
(during her Opening Prayer at the Town Hall Meeting on May 8, 2012)
From messages communicated during the outreach campaign, prayers and opening remarks that
preceded the official statements, questions posed to the SDP and SRC officials, community
member responses, and feedback from the audience, the Town Hall meeting communicated a
strong sense of urgency about the issues at hand. Yet, the tone of the meeting remained
constructive and respectful despite the highest stakes – students’ lives – involved in school
reorganization.
Reverend Waller’s remarks clearly conveyed the expected nature of interactions among all of the
participants: “We have not invited anyone to our house to attack them. We have invited them to
listen to them.” He called upon everyone in attendance “to hear, to talk, to be respectful, to love,
to challenge, to critique, and to also stay vigilant.”
15 Mutual respect was evident during the opening statements and also during the small group
discussions where facilitators skillfully ensured that every participant adhered to the established
ground rules:
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Everyone is encouraged to participate at his/her own comfort level.
Everyone is allowed to be heard, and no one person dominates the discussion.
All views are respected and everyone's input is valuable.
Disagreements are issue-focused and not personalized.
The identities of individuals sharing during the breakout sessions will remain
confidential.
16 Prepared Remarks:
SRC and SDP Officials and Community Members
Mr. Pedro A. Ramos, Esq.
Chairman, School Reform Commission
Chairman Ramos was asked to respond to a set of questions regarding the superintendent search
process. Mr. Ramos began by sharing his experience attending public schools in Philadelphia
and expressed his concern that the “school district’s current situation has only been worse in the
early 70s.” He discussed the SRC’s goal to restore stability to the district and its mission to
provide students with a safe, high-quality education. He acknowledged that the SDP budget’s
being $700 million out of balance made stability challenging, but said it was necessary not to cut
the schools anymore in this fiscal year. He noted that the SRC proposal is “just a proposal” and
“a work in progress,” but stressed the need to “act with urgency” and “come up with a more
responsive, more direct, more accountable way to serve our schools.”
Summary of Prepared Remarks on the Superintendent Search Process:
♦ Commissioner Wendell Pritchett is leading the search team and has provided the
information shared at the Town Hall Meeting.
♦ Approximately 30 applications were received, over 80 candidates considered, and
approximately 10 candidates interviewed so far.
♦ The SRC hopes to have the public part of the process with finalists in June, make an offer
and announcement in July, and have a new superintendent in place by September. He
stressed that they will continue the search if unable to find the right person for the school
district.
♦ Although the SRC is looking for a school superintendent who will buy into the general
concepts of the SRC plan, she or he will have the opportunity to develop the
implementation plan in the years to come.
Select Participant Feedback on Mr. Ramos’ Prepared Remarks:
♦ Who is on the search committee? How will the community be included?
♦ How were only 30 applications received and over 80 candidates considered? This does not
make sense.
♦ Are we looking for an Executor of the SDP/SRC plan or a real visionary leader for the
district?
♦ The September 2012 expected start date for a new superintendent is late and unacceptable.
♦ The superintendent should be in place before any changes are made to the SDP.
Ms. Penny Nixon
Chief Academic Officer, School District of Philadelphia
Penny Nixon responded to a set of questions pertaining to the changes related to teaching and
learning that would take place within schools in the district in 2012.. Nixon made reference to
her presentation before the City Council earlier that morning about the district’s state and
reorganization plan. She stressed the need to “deliver the promise of public education to our
children and families,” as it is “critical to for improving the life chances of many of our
students.”
17 Summary of Prepared Remarks on Schools, Teaching, and Learning:
♦ The SDP is committed to sustaining the current school budget; the “programs that are in
place today will also be the programs that are in place for September 2012.” The school
budgets were shared at the City Council meeting earlier in the day.
♦ The piloting of an Achievement Network is “still in the discussion stages” and “we’re
here tonight to think about the how.”
♦ The idea of reorganization is about restructuring the central office to better support the
work of teaching, learning, and leadership. No new central office positions are being
created. Reorganization involves the district laying out its academic priorities and making
it more responsive to schools.
♦ Schools will be placed in three categories:
− Full autonomy schools: Schools that have had consistent leadership for the past
two years, have made AYP for the past two years, or made improvement on the
district’s school performance index (SPI).
− Support schools: Schools that have not made AYP in consecutive years, or where
the principal has been assigned to the position over the past two years, or where
there has been no improvement over the past two years.
− Intervention schools: Schools that have decreased in SPI or AYP.
♦ The district is committed to provide support to schools in need of improvement. What has
changed is this support will be more tailored to needs of that school and will be provided
in collaboration with the school’s principal and leadership team. Autonomy focused on
academic achievement in the past but will now also focus on the needs of the leader.
♦ The district will use a “monitoring map” to see where its programs are and what students
are being serviced in order to ensure that equity in and access to exist programs across
the city.
Select Participant Feedback on Ms. Nixon’s Prepared Remarks:
♦ How does the model of having 8 schools run by one principal work?
♦ How will you maintain school safety with resources cut?
♦ How will the plan of the “network” help to equalize resources for all schools and children
attending?
Mr. Tom Knudsen
Chief Recovery Officer & Acting Superintendent, School District of Philadelphia
Mr. Knudsen shared his prepared remarks pertaining to the district’s finances and budget.
Summary of Prepared Remarks on District Revenue and Expenses:
♦ The “Costing Out” Study determined that Philadelphia had a spending gap of $4,184 per
student. Due to the complexity of the study, we do not have an updated version of this
spending gap today. The proposed plan is based on projections of revenues that will be
18 available to the SDP from FY 12-13 to FY 16-17. When you count all revenue, including
federal grants, the average per pupil revenue and expenditures are between $14,000 $15,000.
♦ The resources in the budget are not sufficient to serve all needs as we would like, but it is
the district’s duty ”to figure out how to do the best we can with the resources we have.”
♦ “The shortfall was about $700 million last fall. It was down to about $70 million in
January, and I brought it down to around $25 million right now. We’re working on
closing that gap. And here’s how we’re going to close it: The taxpayers of Philadelphia
owe this district about $250 million. So you’re going to hear a lot from me in the next
few weeks as we reach out into the community and say please pay your bill. It’s going to
help the kids get an education next year.”
♦ “The general picture is that our revenues are effectively flat.” The school district does not
have the authority to raise its own revenues. All local revenues—except the additional
$94 million being requested from City Council—are confirmed for FY13-14. We’re
looking at cap on revenues but costs are rising.
♦ If we achieve cost savings and receive the $94 million, we will still have a $218 million
shortfall in FY12-13. “In truth, in FY 2013 we will finance a lot of that deficit.” Right
now we have general funding to make sure each school has adequate funds. However, we
plan to have our revenues match our expenses by FY 13-14.
♦ The deficit cannot get solved without “savings from closing schools and doing
operational functions more efficiently, savings from labor costs, savings from charter
costs, and new revenues.”
♦ There is no funding in the budget for consulting companies to implement parts of the
plan. All the work consulting firms have done to date has been paid for by philanthropic
donations. We expect to continue to work with Boston Consulting Group (BCG) but will
fundraise separately for their services.
Select Participant Feedback on Mr. Knudsen’s Prepared Remarks
S
♦ “We were offended by the remark that we need to pay our bills – we do pay our bills and we
don’t get the quality when we do as we are asked.”
♦ What will be done about unpaid real estate taxes? What steps will be taken to collect?
What percentage of the collected taxes will be earmarked for the schools?
♦ If fundraising pays for the BCG, then what is the motivation of the donors? If you are
fundraising for consulting groups, why not for schools?
♦ Is there a plan in place to petition the Governor for more money?
19 Community Prepared Responses
Joi Grant, 10th Grade Student, Bodine High School
Helen Gym, Co-Founder, Parents United for Public Education
Dr. Wanda Brooks, Associate Professor, Literacy Education, Temple University
Before the Town Hall Meeting, participants went into breakout rooms to discuss the issues
facing the SDP and the prepared remarks of the SRC and SDP representatives, three community
members delivered prepared remarks.
Joi Grant offered a student perspective and emphasized the need for students to have a voice in
the decisions related to their education. She raised many concerns:
♦ “How will my peers and I succeed educationally with all the cuts going on, such as
students not being able to go to summer school, no co-curricular activities during school,
no extra-curricular activities after school, and fewer teaching and administration
positions?”
♦ “Is our school district becoming a business? Where’s all the money going? Do they have
our best interests at heart?”
♦ “I don’t believe that it is fair that things are being done in the school district that students,
our parents, and our families do not know about.”
Helen Gym provided a parent and community perspective and challenged participants to
remember that many of the current solutions are similar to previous solutions that did not have
much success. Gym raised important concerns about the disconnect between the language of
parents and the language of the district administrators, the need for stability, and the money spent
on poor solutions to the district’s problems.
♦ “When we talk about achievement networks, portfolio services, management contracts;
that’s not our language. They’re not speaking to me as a parent.”
♦ “At one point Germantown High school had 9 principals in 10 years. At South Philly
High where I did work, there were 5 principals in 6 years. My seventh grade son would
have lived through 5 superintendents.”
♦ Ten years ago we paid $2.4 million to Edison Schools, Inc. to give us a study to tell us
what was wrong. Now, we bought ourselves another $1.4 million study to tell us what is
wrong with our schools. But what have these solutions brought us?
Dr. Wanda Brooks provided further perspective as a teacher educator and former middle school
teacher. She discussed the challenges facing teachers in the district as they respond to the
academic and emotional needs of the wide range of students in their classes.
20 ♦ “Sometimes we are given grand proposals, grand ideas about what we should do, and we
lose the centrality of what teachers do every day in classrooms”
♦ “How do these proposals address the nitty-gritty complex needs that the teachers have?”
Jerry Jordan, President of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT) attended the
meeting and also provided feedback on the SRC’s plan in written form. The PFT expressed their
disapproval of the plan and their concern that it is “the most serious threat to public education
that students, educators, parents, support staff, and the entire city have ever faced.”
•
“There is no evidence that the SRC’s plan to create so-called Achievement Networks,
managed by outside entities, which will cause an enormous shakeup and reorganization,
will improve student achievement or give students access to the educational opportunities
they deserve.”
•
“The chaos and disruption that will be caused with the SRC’s plan to close 40 schools in
one year and 6 schools per year until the year 2017 is cause for great concern.”
•
“Although the SRC claims that it has had ongoing discussions with the Philadelphia
Federation of Teachers, this is not the case. The Federation was informed of the plan the
day before the SRC made it public.”
Robert McGrogan, President of Teamsters Local 502, Commonwealth Association of
School Administrators, could not be present at the meeting, but responded in written form.
Noting that principals are “furious with the public announcements related to how Achievement
Networks are to operate,” and are asking questions that have yet to be answered, Mr. McGrogan
is in the process of setting up a meeting with Pedro Ramos and groups of principals to “deal with
the disconnect that exists between the declarations versus the work of the subcommittees.”
He points out that schools have already submitted budgets and school improvement plans with an
expectation of a certain level of autonomy. Those budgets, he notes, barely cover their own
current needs in human and material resources; to ask them to share what they have within a
network is unrealistic. “The district has provided schools less than they need so they are telling
us we need to rely on one another. I learned at a young age that when there isn't enough meat for
everyone, we are going to have soup for dinner.”
Mr. Grogan’s membership includes not only principals and assistant principals, but the police
lieutenants and sergeants responsible for safety. He contends one issue is that “the public doesn’t
see them, so their contribution to the learning environment isn’t always appreciated. This is the
same for some people in procurement, food services, and other critical positions. The district has
decided the classroom is the essential area-where teaching and learning take place--so any other
area of service is non-essential.” This includes transportation, too, and he contends the current
methods used to get students to and from school are less efficient and more costly than others
because 2/3 of the transportation is done by cab companies and/or has been outsourced to
contractors.
21 In his written statement, Mr. McGrogan brought to light serious questions about the way
Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for transportation are handled, and the money spent for hiring
experts and consultants to assess the situation at a time when cost-cutting measures are being
instated. “Everyone is making money telling us what we need to cut in order to save money.”
Mr. McGrogan maintains that “all of us need to remain student centered…and not lose sight of
the fact that 100 percent of the children we serve come from the lower and middle economic
classes. This war that is being waged against them is also an attack on workers. There isn’t one
public sector worker that is part of the 1 percent.”
~Word Cloud of Enon Tabernacle’s Town Hall
Meeting Breakout Session Discussions
22 Questions and Issues Raised During the Town Hall Meeting
(based on the discussions in the breakout sessions)
During breakout sessions participants discussed a range of issues related to the SDP and SRC’s
plans and the future of the district. Participants expressed their concerns about the state of
education in the SDP, posed important questions, responded to the prepared remarks of the SDP
and SRC officials during the Town Hall meeting, and offered potential solutions to the
challenges facing the district. The following lists highlight the most frequently discussed issues
from the breakout sessions.
Table 3. Ranking of Issues Discussed (by frequency)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Superintendent Search Process
SDP Funding, Costs, and Revenue
Teaching, Learning, and Student Needs
School Closings
Transparency, Communication, & Input
6.
7.
8.
9.
SRC/SDP Plan & Accountability
Stability in the SDP
Achievement Networks
Charter Schools
The top two most-discussed issues—the superintendent search process and SDP cuts and
financial issues—received the bulk of the attention during the breakout sessions. Issues of
teaching and learning, school closings, and transparency were also major sources of concern for
the community members participating in the breakout sessions.
Superintendent Search Process: Community members were most concerned about who would
be selected as the new superintendent, how the new superintendent would be selected, and how
the superintendent would be held accountable after hired. They stressed the importance of
23 engaging the community (parents, students, principals, and teachers) in the selection process,
choosing someone from Philadelphia, with experience in education and passion for children.
Main questions and comments:
♦ What are the selection criteria for the superintendent search process?
− Are you looking for a passionate educator or just a business person?
− Will the person be a visionary leader or someone willing to execute the plan?
− What are the expected salary and contract details for the new superintendent?
♦ Who is making the hiring decisions and what role will the public play in the process?
− What role do the Mayor and Governor have in the decision?
♦ Will the list of top candidates be made public?
− What percentage of candidates considered are from Philadelphia?
♦ What will the superintendent’s role be under a decentralized system, and how will the
person be held accountable?
SDP Funding, Costs, and Revenue: A common concern in both the breakout sessions for
community members and the designated breakout session for youth participants was how the
cuts to programs (arts, music, sports, after-school activities) and staff would affect the quality of
education and schools in the district. Participants raised questions about safety, physical health,
and mental/emotional health in schools as relevant staff members (security staff, nurses, special
needs teachers) are cut. Many voiced their frustration that more money is spent per inmate in
prisons than invested per student in Philadelphia and wondered how to generate more revenue
and provide equitable resources for students.
24 Main questions and comments:
♦ If the school district is operating at bare bones now, how will we meet the needs of the
children or meet goals with these cuts?
♦ How can the extracurricular programs like music, arts, sports, etc. be re-instituted?
♦ How is more revenue going to be raised? What can be done to bring more money from
the state of PA?
♦ How much does it actually cost to get students to reach established standards?
♦ How will the plan of the “network” help to equalize resources for all schools and children
attending?
Teaching, Learning, and Student Needs: Participants wanted to know how the SRC/SDP plan
would ensure quality teachers and administrators for students in the district and a curriculum that
would adequately prepare students for life success. There was much concern about how special
needs students would be supported given all of the proposed changes to the SDP.
♦ How do we ensure that our children have motivated and effective teachers? Is there a
plan to purge bad teachers?
♦ How are teachers being supported?
♦ How can we retain our effective teachers and administrators?
♦ Will teachers have the opportunity to be creative with curriculum instead of ”drill and
kill”?
♦ What is being done to help children with special needs?
SRC/SDP Plan & Accountability and District Stability: In breakout sessions for community
members and youth participants, a common theme was the need for more input in decisions
pertaining to the SDP. In order for this to be possible, the participants stressed the need for more
transparency and better communication. Participants felt that the SDP and SRC officials need to
communicate in plain language about changes in the district and the budget. They want access to
more information about all of the proposed changes and want to know that their opinion is
respected in the process.
♦ What are the schools that will be closing and the timeframe in which they will close?
♦ Where are the kids going to go when the schools close? Have you considered the
negative impact on our children?
♦ What is the plan for the empty buildings?
♦ Who holds the SRC accountable? How can commissioners be removed? How are they
selected?
♦ What is the evidence and research that supports the SRC’s plan?
♦ How were community members or teachers consulted in developing the plan?
♦ How will the schools in the Achievement Network be assembled?
♦ How is the Achievement Network supposed to work? What evidence supports this plan?
♦ What in the plan addresses stability of the system, educational experience of the children?
25 Summary of Strategies
Community Organizing and Political Action:
“When will we march for our children down to City Hall and Harrisburg?”
♦ Organizing the church (and broader) community to put pressure on the state and local
governments to allocate more funds for public education.
− One participant indicated that she was informed by a state elected official that
“there is money in Harrisburg; we simply need to demand that it be used for
public education.”
♦ Organizing an email or letter writing campaign to let elected officials know our desire
that additional funds be dedicated to public education, and then hold politicians
accountable at the polls.
− Continue to ask the State for money – disproportionate distribution of funds
♦ Holding administrators and elected officials accountable:
− “We’re taxpayers, we vote, we need to tell the SRC what we want. We need to
be united.”
Parent Education, Organizing, and Involvement:
“It takes a village to raise a child, but far too much weight is placed and left on
teachers and schools. How can we approach and engage parents to be more of
a viable contributing force in their child’s education?”
♦ Utilize parent associations and the larger community to raise money to keep arts and
music in the schools.
− A participant offered the Jenks School as an example of strong parental support.
♦ Create a PAC to advocate for school issues.
♦ Parent involvement
− There is a compelling need to change the mindset of parents and guardians to
become more involved in the education process and demand more funding for our
school district.
− There would be a strong decrease in bullying if we had a “parent volunteer” in
each classroom.
 A call should go out to anyone who can meet the criteria, especially
people needing welfare-to-work jobs.
♦ Parenting classes are truly needed because teachers cannot do it all.
26 Communication, Transparency, Accountability:
“Why is there such a system of untruths?”
♦ More forms of communication with parents (texts, tweets, emails, websites, etc.)
− Notice of meetings needs to be sent early, with meetings held at times when parents
can attend.
♦ There should be a glossary of terms available for lay people, and the language on the
website, including the progress section of each school, should be reader-friendly.
♦ Open SRC proposal for public comment and take comments seriously.
♦ Give the public a say in how the Superintendents contract and severance package are
worded.
♦ Show the public clearly how money is being spent in the SDP.
Partnerships/Collaboration:
♦ More collaboration with higher education, community artists, museums, theaters, and
hospitals is needed to help empower and support our children in schools.
♦ More faith-based, non-profit, and community partnerships are needed.
27 Recommendations for Action
1. Boston Consulting Group Public Presentation:
♦ Schedule a public presentation from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) prior to
the May 31, 2012, SCR budget adoption vote to share the work done for the
School District of Philadelphia.
♦ Release the BCG report to the general public prior to the presentation.
2. Build on the Earlier Strategic Plans and Analytical Reports Developed by the
District
♦ Explain how the lessons learned from the implementation of the reforms proposed
by the last three School District leaders were accounted for in the design of the
♦ Explain how the Convectus Report, The Grant Thornton Report, and the Facilities
Master Plan informed the reorganization plan for the District.
3. Present One Complete School District Reorganization Plan:
♦ There are four plans being presented to the public: The Chief Academic Officer’s
Reorganization Plan, The Chief Recovery Officer’s Blueprint, The Career and
Technical Education Plan, and Intermediate Unit Plan.
♦ Present one integrated plan that will be used to guide the work of the School
District of Philadelphia for the 2012-2013 school year, with a timeline for
implementation, projected costs, revenues, and accountability measures to ensure
success for all students.
4. Re-Calculate and Present Per Pupil Costs That are More Reflective of the Direct
Per Pupil Costs of Instruction
♦ Provide the average per pupil costs by the major categories of students (i.e., ES,
AS, MDLS, Elementary, Middle, High School).
♦ Take out debt service, operation costs, and any other expenses that are unrelated
to direct instruction from the per student calculation formula, and present this new
figure to the public through the District’s website and other relevant media.
5. Public Meetings with Superintendent Candidates
♦ Schedule a minimum of two sessions with the public to engage the top three
finalists for the Superintendent’s position prior to making an offer.
6. Inclusive and Thorough School District Reorganization Planning Process
♦ In order to facilitate an inclusive planning process to reorganize the District that
would result in recommendations that could be efficiently implemented and
effective for students, the School District of Philadelphia and School Reform
Commission should adopt a process to include significant advance planning on
the specific strategies and tasks needed to accomplish the vision of reorganizing
the school district.
♦ Ensure that such planning includes development of a clear communication plan
and identification of possible risk and contingency factors that might work against
the success of the reorganization.
28 Next Steps
The primary goal of this report is to allow for the voices of community members – parents,
students, and concerned citizens – to be heard by the decision makers at the levels of the
Philadelphia School District, Philadelphia City Council, and Pennsylvania legislature.
Additionally, we expect that this report will draw the national attention to the issues facing the
Philadelphia school system today. Thus, we intend to use this report widely to advocate for the
children of Philadelphia, their education and future.
Specifically, we will present this report to the following entities:
♦ Editorial Boards of the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Tribune
♦ 900AM WURD radio
♦ Philadelphia Delegation of the Pennsylvania Senate and House
♦ School Reform Commission and leadership of the School District of Philadelphia
♦ Philadelphia City Council and Pennsylvania State Leadership
♦ State Appropriation and Education Chairs, both in the House and Senate
We will also make formal comments based on the recommendations made during the Town Hall
meeting at the May meeting of the School Reform Commission and during the forthcoming SDP
City Council hearings.
29 Appendices
AGENDA
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
6:30 pm – 9:15 pm
6:15 pm
Praise and Worship
6:30 pm
Scripture – Rev. Jerome Glover – Pastor of Discipleship,
Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church
6:35 pm
Prayer – Rev. Dr. D.W. Tatem – District Superintendent, East District,
Eastern Pennsylvania Conference, United Methodist Church
6:40 pm
Welcome, Introduction of Guests – Dr. Ellyn Jo Waller,
First Lady and Member of Education Committee,
6:45 pm
Purpose and Goals – Rev. Dr. Alyn E. Waller,
Senior Pastor, Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church
7:00 pm
Pedro A. Ramos, Esquire
Chairman, School Reform Commission
7:10 pm
Penny Nixon, Chief Academic Officer
School District of Philadelphia
7:20 pm
Tom Knudsen, Chief Recovery Officer & Acting Superintendent
School District of Philadelphia
7:30 pm
Joi Grant, 10th Grade Student, Bodine High School
7:33 pm
Helen Gym, Co-Founder, Parents United for Public Education
7:36 pm
Dr. Wanda Brooks, Associate Professor, Literacy Education,
Temple University
7:40 pm
Breakout Room Directions – Danielle Seward, Brenda R. Hewitt
7:50 pm
Facilitated Discussions in Breakout Rooms
8:50 pm
Reassemble in the Sanctuary
8:55 pm
Next Steps – Rev. Dr. Alyn E. Waller
9:15 pm
Prayer and Adjourn
30 Questions Posed to the SRC and SDP Officials
Questions for SRC Chairman Pedro Ramos on Superintendent Search
♦ How many applications were received?
♦ How many candidates were interviewed?
♦ Is the SRC on track to make an offer to a candidate by May 15, 2012?
♦ Is it still the intention of the SRC to have the new superintendent in place by July 1,
2012?
♦ As the true leader of the SDP, how much flexibility will the new superintendent have to
revise, add and/or delete the strategies that have already been identified by the SRC and
SDP?
Questions for SDP Chief Recovery Officer and Acting Superintendent Tom Khudsen on the
Proposed School Reorganization Plan
♦ In 2008, the Commonwealth released a “Costing-Out Study,” quantifying the per student
cost, by district, of educating students to PA’s academic standards. Philadelphia had a
$5,000 gap per student. Have you identified the “true cost” of educating Philadelphia’s
students under your proposed plan?
♦ What is the gap between the “true cost” and the proposed spending under your plan?
♦ Sometimes the deficit appears to be a moving target. What is the actual deficit as of
Friday, May 4, 2012? How much has the SDP saved since January 1, 2012?
♦ What are the SDP’s confirmed revenue sources for FY 13-14?
♦ What are the dollars needed to implement your proposed plan? Based on confirmed
revenue, how much of your plan do you expect to implement in FY 12-13? FY 13-14?
What is the shortfall?
♦ Is “weighted student funding” still a major strategy for the SDP?
♦ What is the plan to raise the revenue needed to educate each child in a safe, clean, orderly
environment?
♦ What are the non-negotiable items in your plan that must be funded?
♦ What are the high priority strategies that must be funded?
♦ Is there funding in the FY 12-13 or 13-14 budget to hire management companies to
implement any part of your proposed plan? Is there a plan to outsource and /or privatize
any services currently being provided by SDP union workers?
♦ What involvement have you had with unions to gain their support for your proposed
plan? What involvement have you had with charter school operators to gain their support
for your proposed plans?
♦ Philadelphia is in Intermediary Unit (IU) 26. Does your plan propose a different
relationship with IU 26?
♦ Will the SDP pilot an Achievement Network? If yes, please identify the schools that will
be in the network. How were the schools selected?
Questions for SDP Chief Academic Officer on the Proposed School Reorganization Plan
♦ What will schools look like for students Pre-K-12 in September 2012?
♦ What, if anything, will be different for all or some schools in September 2012?
31 ♦ Will the SDP pilot an Achievement Network? If yes, please identify the schools that will
be in the network. How were the schools selected? Explain autonomy and how it will
make a difference in a student’s life, beginning September 2012.
♦ The SDP has lost many experienced administrators over the past several years. How are
you recruiting and training a sufficient number of principals and assistant principals to
lead and manage schools under the proposed autonomy model? With the elimination of
many central office positions, who mentors and monitors principals? Who will mentor
and monitor new teachers? Are new positions being created? Is this mentoring function
being outsourced?
♦ The SDP has a history of spending more resources on some students and schools than
others. How will you guarantee students and parents that there will be equity in the
distribution of teacher talent, materials, and programs across the district under
decentralization?
♦ How have the cuts implemented to date impacted students?
32 Children Achieving Reform Design: Ten-Point Strategy8
Summarized from School District of Philadelphia, Children Achieving: Action Design 1995–1999, February 6, 1995
(School District of Philadelphia, 1995).
1. High Expectations
♦ Develop opportunity-to-learn standards.
− Ensure schools provide an environment that is safe and conducive to learning.
− Ensure schools treat students as active learners.
− Redesign schedules, curricula, instructional strategies, and assessments to give all
students the time they need to meet the academic standards.
− Integrate academic and career preparation rather than a two-tiered system of collegebound and career-bound.
− Have adequate, diverse, high-quality staff.
− Have parental and community supports, access to needed health and social services,
and preschool availability.
− Offer appropriate school and grade-level organization with challenging content.
− Distribute resources at the school level equitably and adequately.
− Develop a flexible culture at all levels.
− Create a central Office of Equity Assurance.
2. Performance-Driven
♦ Implement a system of performance-based assessment aligned with established standards.
♦ Develop valid assessments for ESOL students.
♦ Design an accountability system that links student achievement to staff evaluations.
♦ Establish a central Office of Standards, Assessment, and Accountability.
♦ Provide incentives to students by improving access to jobs and college.
3. Local Decision Making
♦ Organize schools into small learning communities of 200 to 500 students.
♦ Establish school councils with governance over schoolwide policies and resources.
♦ Reorganize schools into feeder patterns, with 22 clusters.
♦ Cluster funding.
♦ Cluster leader.
♦ Cluster council.
♦ Teaching and learning network.
♦ Family resource network.
♦ K–12 articulation.
♦ Re-allocation of services and personnel.
♦ Restructure central office to be responsive to clusters, schools, and small learning
communities.
♦ Allocate decisions about resources to schools.
8
Wong, Kenneth K. and Gail L. Sunderman. 2000. “Implementing Districtwide Reform in Schools With
Title I Schoolwide Programs: The First 2 Years of Children Achieving in Philadelphia.” Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5(4): 355-381
33 ♦ Develop a system of client-centered services and supports, including the establishment of
three service centers: Instructional Program Support Center, Information Management
and Technology Support Service Center, and Administrative Support Center.
4. Professional Development
♦ The goal of professional development will be to enable every teacher, administrator, and
staff member to develop the knowledge, skills, and behavior required to create learning
settings that enable all students to demonstrate high levels of achievement. (p. IV–1)
♦ Provide resources in terms of time and money.
♦ Provide effective mechanisms for universal assessment of professional development
resources:
− Establish a Teaching and Learning Network.
− Establish a central Office of Professional Development.
− Establish an initiative to encourage teachers to pursue certification from the National
Board of Professional Teaching Standards.
♦ Provide specific professional development opportunities targeted to identified needs for
action:
− Training in effective teaching and child development for new kindergarten teachers.
− Training for new teachers.
− Planning support for small learning communities; training for professional
development leaders in the Teaching and Learning Network, School Councils, and
cluster leaders (training provided by the Office of Professional Development and
partner organizations).
5. Readiness for School
♦ Provide full-day kindergarten.
♦ Design a Children and Family Authority with the Departments of Health and Human
Services.
♦ Transfer programs and services to Children and Family Authority.
6. Community Services and Support
♦ Link students and families with health and social service supports.
− Each school must provide adequate nursing services.
− Each school should build on their capacity to link children with services and followup, and provide family support and parent education programs.
− Establish a Family Resource Network at the cluster level to provide linkage, support,
outreach, and access to services.
♦ Link schools with at least one community-based organization by 1999.
♦ Develop and sustain a 10,000 volunteer campaign.
− Family Resource Network with support from Office of Professional Development and
the Office of Equity Assurance will train school staff in how to use and train
volunteers.
♦ Conduct a campaign to prevent first pregnancies and insure access to health and social
services for pregnant students.
♦ Ensure a school climate that is safe and conducive to student learning.
34 7. Technology and Instructional Materials
♦ Provide all schools with resources and support to introduce technology into the
classroom, with a goal of one computer for every student (i.e., develop a districtwide
technology plan).
♦ Transform school libraries into technology resource centers.
♦ Consolidate the district’s technology infrastructure into the Information Management and
Technology Support Service Center.
♦ Review district capital and operating expenditures to support technology and develop a 5year budget.
8. Public Engagement
♦ Listen to and communicate with the community.
♦ Develop a report card to measure district performance (accountability measure).
♦ Support the Alliance for Public School Advocates.
♦ Build capacity of the whole system to be better ambassadors for high-quality education.
9. Resources
♦ Increase efficiency and effectiveness in key non-instructional areas.
♦ Investigate alternative financing opportunities.
♦ Make optimal use of existing space and plan strategically for future space requirements.
♦ Use all available resources.
♦ Augment district’s operating budget with private resources.
♦ Pursue equity and adequacy of federal, state, and city funds.
♦ Redesign teaching and learning so that who, how, where, and when are viewed as the
variables and student achievement remains the constant.
10. Comprehensive and Integrated
♦ “The Children Achieving agenda is not a “pick and choose menu.” We must approach the
challenge of education reform in a comprehensive and integrated way. If one or more
features of the whole agenda are not implemented, its power to yield high achievement
by all students will be significantly diminished.” (p. X–1)
35 Five Principles of Student Weighted Funding
(from Fund the Child, Tackling Inequity & Antiquity in School Finance
Thomas B. Fordham Institute, June 2006)
♦ Funding should follow the child on a per-student basis, to the public school that he/she
attends.
♦ Per-student funding should vary according to a child’s need and other relevant
circumstances.
♦ The funds should arrive at the school as real dollars (i.e., not teaching positions, ratios, or
staffing norms) that can be spent flexibly, with accountability gauged by results, not
inputs, programs, or activities.
♦ These principles for allocating money to schools should apply to all levels (e.g., federal
funds going to states, state funds going to districts, districts to schools).
♦ All funding systems should be simplified and made transparent.
36

Summary Report - Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church

Transcription

Similar documents

For More Information Contact - Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church

For far too long, City Hall – and its signature courtyard

SDP August (1) - The World Federation of KSIMC

Philadelphia Cream Cheese

Awana Upcoming Events - Faith Baptist Church

PDR-13-30-10:Layout 1.qxd - Philadelphia Public Record

Professionals Gather for the Philadelphia Diversity and Leadership

PDF Press Kit

luxury apartments | bala cynwyd

VBS 2015