Eyes on the SRC: January 21, 2016

SRC 11-19-15 #2

By Karel Kilimnik

Welcome to the Sixth Edition of Eyes on the SRC.

A note to our readers: this analysis is based on what the SRC has released to date. The SRC often adds new resolutions up until the day of the meeting. We will review the list periodically and let you know of any new resolutions. In addition, rules for speaking appear to be fluid at this time. From the district website:

Revisions to current practice regarding speaker order: 

The School Reform Commission will be implementing new protocols based on two general principles. First, it is important to group speakers on the same or similar topics at Action Meetings in order to give Commissioners the ability to gain the big picture on each topic. Second, the Commission would like to encourage new voices and topics at meetings.

Beginning January 21st, 2016, the School Reform Commission (SRC) will be enacting the following changes to the order in which speakers testify at SRC Action Meetings:

  • Student speakers will continue to be prioritized and normally will speak first.
  • Other speakers will be grouped by topic, based on the order in which their topics were registered.
  • Speakers who did not speak at the previous meeting, will be allowed to speak first within their topic group, and followed by those speakers who did have the opportunity to speak at the previous meeting.
  • Speakers on resolutions will no longer be prioritized, given that all speakers have an opportunity to speak before votes are taken on resolutions. These speakers will be grouped by topic and the time at which they register along with all other speakers. [Emphasis added]

 When you call to register to speak, please ask what number your topic is. Let’s hold them to their new set of rules. Fasten your seatbelt for the ride. It may be bumpy.

Next SRC meeting: Thursday January 21, 5:30 PM. To register to speak you must call 215.400.4180 by 4:30 January 20. It’s best to identify yourself as a teacher, parent, or community member as the rules stipulate that only “one member of an organization can register to speak.”

Click here for: 

Proposed Resolutions for January 21, 2016 SRC Action Meeting

 

The Unelected, Unaccountable SRC Tells the People of Philadelphia: “Just Trust Us”

imgres-1
The hallmark of the School Reform Commission , since its inception, has been its contempt for the stakeholders of the district.  For years, the SRC held public meetings on weekday afternoons,  a time when most of the public was unable to attend.  They abolished their Planning Meetings, when actual deliberation took place, and went to one meeting a month.  At the same time, much of the real decision-making shifted to private venues including the boards of the Philadelphia School Partnership, the William Penn Foundation, and the Great Schools Compact Committee. That Committee was formed for the purpose of enacting the mandates of the Gates Compact, enacted by the SRC without any public vote or discussion.
 
This year, with no announcement or explanation, the SRC stopped holding its monthly Strategic Policy and Planning Meetings.
 
The rules, such as they are, for listing speakers for each meeting, have always been nebulous and secretive.  No matter when you called, or what your topic was, there was no way to know where you would appear on the list until you arrived.  Many times our members, who called well in advance, would end up at the bottom of the list.  Questions to SRC were routinely ignored; the only answer being: we do it how we do it and you have nothing to say about it. The most egregious example of this abuse of power was APPS member Lisa Haver placed at the bottom of the list–# 65—at last month’s meeting, even though she had called weeks before to register. 
 
At the December 2015 meeting, Chairwoman Marjorie Neff announced that rules for speakers would be changed. The SRC wanted to give priority to those who had not spoken before.  The new rules,  posted on the district website, stated that speakers would be grouped by topic and that topics would be listed “in the  order in which they were registered.”  Those who had not spoken at the previous meeting would be given priority “within each topic area.” But when our members asked where there topic was on the list when they registered to speak, the SRC staff refused to divulge that information.  In other words, you’ll just have to trust us.  Even worse, some members found that their names were not on the list at all. 
 
After a series of fruitless emails, phone calls, and in-person visits with SRC staff, APPS co-founder Lisa Haver sent the following letter to Chairwoman Neff on Wednesday, January 13, 2016:

Relay Graduate School of Education: A Policy Brief

Relay GSE

This year the Philadelphia School District used training videos on classroom management from The Relay Graduate School of Education as part of its New Teacher orientation.  The principals of Blaine and Kelley Elementary School (recent turnaround schools) are enrolled in Relay’s principal training program.

Relay Graduate School of Education is a teacher/principal training program based in New York and founded by people who had little experience or training in education.  The school has opened a Philadelphia/Camden branch and has a partnership with Mastery Charter in the Philadelphia region.  Since it appears to be extending its reach inside the Philadelphia School District we felt the need to explore Relay’s history and influence.

Kate Peterson, a graduate student at Arcadia University, has looked into Relay’s founders and programs.  Her findings are posted below.   We want to thank Kate for her thorough research and for allowing us to post it.

Relay Graduate School of Education Policy Brief

by Kate Peterson
January 2, 2016

Relay Graduate School of Education is a stand-alone school based in New York City. It began as Teacher U in 2007, when Dave Levin, co-founder of KIPP Public Charter Schools, and Norman Atkins, co-founder of Uncommon Schools, decided to develop a program that would supply their charter schools and others with high-quality teachers, which they deemed as scarce. They partnered with the founder of Achievement First, Dacia Toll, to create their program. Receiving $10 million from Larry Robbins, founder of the hedge fund Glenview Capital Management and current board member of Relay, and $20 million from the non-profit The Robin Hood Foundation, the three charter school leaders partnered with Hunter College in New York to implement their program (Relay Graduate School of Education, 2015h; Barbic, 2013).

Click here to read the entire article.

APPS Member Coleman Poses tells the SRC they are using incorrect information for the Wister ‘turnaround’

Coleman Poses

This testimony was given at the December 17th SRC meeting.

Dear members of the SRC:

Last month I testified about the questionable data that the school district had presented during several meetings with the families, staff, and the neighbors of the John Wister School in Germantown.

I showed one slide, which was entitled “Why a change is needed for Wister,” which, supposedly detailed a precipitous decrease in student enrollment over 2 years from about 275 to about 170.

Coleman Slide #1

I showed another slide, based upon my own research, that showed that the student population at Wister fell from 452 to 383, but that the decrease was due to the school’s losing a sixth grade, and that four out of the six remaining grades actually increased in population.

coleman slide #2

About a week later, to my surprise, I received a phone call from Dave Zega, in Superintendent Hite’s office – informing me that my data were in fact correct. The information that I had displayed in my first exhibit were actually data about another school.   He went on to say that my slide had actually been supplanted by the correct slide in subsequent Powerpoints.

I informed Mr. Zega that I had attended several meeting in both October and November, and that the new data were never presented at these meetings. I then asked Mr. Zega if he wouldn’t mind sending the new information to the Wister principal and families. He informed me that he would need to consult his colleagues. As of today, neither the staff, nor the families to whom I have spoken, have been informed of this new information.

I do not wish to speculate upon why the school district has not disseminated the correct information to the public. I just thought that the SRC, as the final arbiter of this turnover, would be interested in knowing the truth. Thank you.