The January School Board meeting began with the presentation of an Award for Excellence in Financial Management from the Council of Great City Schools to Miami-Dade County Public Schools. It is only the third time since the award was initiated six years ago that it has been given. This award looks at the areas of management structure and organization, internal controls, capital assets management, internal and external auditing, financial and debt management, purchasing, risk management, budget, financial planning, and treasury. To win the award, a district must meet 94 compulsory practices and a minimum of 32 of 42 recommended practices. Miami-Dade County Public Schools met ALL mandatory and recommended management practices, the first major urban school district in the nation to do so. District CFO Dr. Richard Hinds and Superintendent Alberto Carvalho accepted the award.
C-30 Request School Board Approval of 19 Charter School Applications and Denial of 6 Charter School Applications
This is the item that was postponed at the December meeting amid a great amount of discussion and debate over motives.
Board member Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall expressed her concern over how charter schools are taking away students and funding from traditional public schools. "I asked the question a while back, What are they doing that we aren't doing? I was in Tallahassee when this experience was going all over the place. I never thought I would be sitting on the board and hearing that we are losing the children that we're losing. I know that we have no F schools, and that's amazing. I visit my schools almost weekly and our enrollment is just plummeting. I would like to know and I do know a little bit about the rules, but I'd like to know if as one of our speakers said he knows why they're doing so well. I would want just a word or two from our staff, if there's anything more than what we're doing that we can do to prevent the bleeding."
Dr. Helen Blanch, Assistant Superintendent of School Choice, responded: "We are trying to compete in what we do best, and we are expanding choice programs. I think in the next week, when we do our choice workshop, we're going to be able to present statistics based on the new programs that we've started just this past year, so we are rapidly expanding choice in a field that is not always a level playing field."
Dr. Bendross-Mindingall continued: "I hope that we're getting the word out to some of our influential people in communities so that some of our parents and children don't think that because it's not a 'public school' as it were, that it's better than our schools, because many of us in here are products of public schools. I'm just amazed at how--it's almost as if we're being ripped off. I don't think that sitting down at the table with charter schools, I don't think that's it. I know partly that we cannot prevent them from doing what they're doing, but we've got to have a better way of keeping our children."
UTD President Karen Aronowitz took the microphone to speak on the topic. "I was reviewing the School Board agenda item and the report that followed, and I think it would be interesting to the public to also have the location of the school, and if rent is paid, who the owner of the property is. Because what we're really having is a discussion of money and funding for public education, and consequently, since charter schools use rental money to pay rent on properties, the owners of those properties are buying their own property, they're running a school almost as a sideline, and consequently at the end they have their mortgage paid and own property. There ought to be some law that if we are going to continue to fund charter schools, that the property itself remains the property of the public school system. And that would, I believe, be the end of a great many charter schools who are less interested in educating students and more interested in using tax dollars to purchase private property. And perhaps the owners of the property where the charter schools are located can be listed as well, and the rental that will be charged by those charters."
Board member Dr. Marta Perez concurred: "That might be an interesting proposition that was just espoused. (...) And so this is the same basic item [as in December], however there are also some other schools that applied, in particular virtual schools, that have been denied, and I think it would be appropriate now to ask Helen to explain in a capsule the concept of the virtual schools and why we are seeing these and the growth in applications of charter virtual schools. And also I'd like to ask as well, because it was recently asked of me, one of the things that the school district does in order to create better schools and also to give parents more choices in light of the popularity of charter schools, has been to create magnet schools. The question was asked, why don't we have more magnet schools? I'd like to know the answer to that question as well."
Superintendent Carvalho responded first to the magnet question. He first said that magnets were not new, and that we were offering magnet programs because they were good for children and offered them extra opportunities, not in order to compete with charter schools or anyone else. He then added that applications for enrollment were up. "This tells me that the direction you the board are taking is the right approach. Innovation, living up to demands the community is putting before us, is the very best answer. And when we get it right, we are competitive. When we get it right, we do right by the community. What we will not do is for a second, regardless of whether somebody likes to hear this or not, is abdicate our absolute moral imperative of providing these services without prejudice, or preference, to all the kids. And that is why we are THE School Board of Miami-Dade, by all, for all, all the time, no questions asked. And I can tell you that if the numbers are sustained, this is a reinvention of our school system, because dreams start, parents gravitate to them, and if the program is exceptional, they're going to stay. I think the future is bright for our programs and for our schools, and the leadership that you continue to provide us in this regard is second to none."
Dr. Helen Blanch, Assistant Superintendent for School Choice, addressed the issue of virtual charter schools. "Virtual charter schools are the product of a new statute that was passed just this last year. The new statute allows for charter schools to open, K-12, that are no brick and mortar, no address, completely virtual. This past year, once the statute became law, there was one line in that statute that said that every virtual charter school application must be accompanied by an executed contract with a virtual curriculum provider. The applications that are being forwarded to you today, only one had an executed contract; that one is being forwarded to you recommended by staff for denial because it did not meet the requirements for a charter school as according to the application process and the review process by the state. The remaining four had other issues as well as the issue of not having an executed contract. So we are following statute, not only in the law as it is delineated but also following the application review process established by the Department of Education."
Indeed, this bit of legislation sponsored by Anitere Flores, was designed as a stealth weapon by the education tech industry, complete with suggestions for highly controversial anti-union bills to be filed around it to distract teachers' unions, according to an extremely comprehensive investigative article published recently in The Nation.
Dr. Perez asked for clarification concerning virtual providers. Dr. Blanch explained: "The virtual providers are those for-profit companies that provide all the curriculum and all the associated services for bringing the educational requirements per grade to the student. These for-profit companies have to be approved by the state, and there's a list of approved providers that can offer virtual school instruction to students." We can be sure that these approved for-profit "virtual providers" also paid handsomely to see that law passed.
Dr. Perez asked if they were local or from the state; Dr. Blanch replied that she was not familiar with any in-state providers, and that the one most often referenced is national.
Dr. Blanch: "I'm not familiar with any in-state. I know that the one being referenced most often is a national provider."
Board member Raquel Regalado, the member who moved to table the approval of the applications last month, spoke to the issue. "I want to speak about the virtual programs. I'm not a fan. We've talked about this many times. I'm not even a fan in our own system, and I think that's something we need to discuss. I know that a lot of our principals have been using it as a solution to a problem, but most of the complaints that I have from parents are about these virtual classes. Our most popular virtual class is Spanish 2, followed by Spanish 1, which I am personally horrified by, the third being virtual physical education, which I think is absurd, and then driver's ed. I took physical driver's ed and I had issues, so I can only imagine...The concern is that parents aren't happy with what's going on with these virtual classes in our system, so I don't know what's going to happen or what the expectations are for completely virtual programs. I think in certain areas where you have amazing students, and I said this when that bill was introduced last session, I thought there should be a requirement for GPA and accountability, that if you're going to have the autonomy of virtual education, that you should prove that you do well with autonomy. This is something that in the past you've done well and you can work in that type of situation. That isn't the case. This is not in any way the school system saying we agree with 100% virtual education. It's the law in the state of Florida. It is what it is. We're limited in what we can do about it. But I know that many parents are very concerned about the limited virtual classes that we're offering and the fact that now all of our seniors have to take a virtual class, and that's created a little bit of chaos. So I can only assume that when you look at a completely virtual school there's going to be issues. I recommend that the parents that are listening, if that's their concern, that instead of calling us they call their legislators. I hope we can find a better solution than what we currently have right now."
Board member Dr. Larry Feldman asked the Superintendent and his staff to clarify a little, subsequent to President Aronowitz's comment, how location comes up in the applications.
Dr. Blanch explained: "At the time of application, the person submitting an application does not have to identify a location, and they rarely do, and that's based on statute. They do by the time they come back to us to negotiate the contract have to have the location identified, and we do incorporate that information in the application, in the board item when we submit it at that time."
In other words, when the School Board is required by the state to approve charter school applications meeting the statute-established criteria, they are not required to disclose where they plan on locating the charter school. How's that for full disclosure?
Board member Dr. "Tee" Holloway commented that he would like to see a workshop put together on the charter school impact, so that they could discuss the issues in more detail, and Superintendent Carvalho said he already had one set up for January 25.
Board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla, ever the unwavering supporter of charter schools and all methods of privatization of public schools, pointed out the district itself is now in the charter school business. "In an ideal world, we wouldn't need, have charter schools, because our public schools would be doing so great that nobody would opt to start a charter school or enroll in a charter school, and we're hopefully moving in that direction so that one day our school system is so great that we don't need them and they can't compete with us. Unfortunately that is not the reality we're living in today and I applaud the Superintendent's efforts to be competitive; so much have we accepted that reality that we ourselves are managing charter schools now, and as you know, we have one operating in Miami Springs, where we keep a mobile office as well to meet with residents and the community, but I just want to make sure that in this discussion that we include this constant that we now have that we are now managing charter schools as well, that we include that in the workshop, and that we create the same rules for ourselves, as far as conflicts are concerned, that we create for the charter school operators out there. So that we're all on a level playing field playing by the same rules." I am sure that Mr. Diaz de la Portilla is very concerned that the for-profit companies could be missing out on some advantages.
C-70 Request that the School Board certify the 2012-2013 Class Size Compliance Plan
UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner spoke first. "As we're moving back into the question about Race to the Top and the new accountability system, it really behooves the district to exercise true fidelity with these numbers, and make sure that classes are not oversized. I realize that often it's a difficult thing to schedule but if you're going to have people's livelihoods, people's performance depends upon whether or not students are successful, and they have the wrong number of students in the classroom, I think it's really important that you pay careful attention to that issue. Another thing is, there are creative strategies that I hear about anecdotally, like having a critical thinking class that's actually teaching intensive math, and the class is oversized because it's coded as a critical thinking class rather than an intensive math class. These are just examples of ways--I understand that principals are trying to maximize the efficacy of the school--but you can't put people's careers and whatever bonuses they get from the state into jeopardy by not double-checking. Another part of this puzzle is making sure that people are in the right jobs for what they're certified to teach. So if you have somebody who's teaching social studies when he's in what they used to call a Position Control Number, and he's in a Position Control Number for science, and Race to the Top depends upon math and science as opposed to English and social studies, then it kind of sets somebody up to not get what they're entitled to. I think the district should take a good look at all the class sizes and the Position Control Numbers and make sure people are in the right places."
Board member Regalado asked Assistant Superintendent Iraida Mendez-Cartaya to present information on any bills coming up related to class size this session. Ms. Mendez-Cartaya responded: "There are three bills out in the legislative process relating to class size reduction. There is bill 512 sponsored by Sen. Bogdanoff, and House Bill 383 by Rep. Baxley. The language in those bills is basically what the board has authorized us to seek, and that is the modification of the class size reduction penalty, to eliminate the loss of the base student allocation and the redistribution of those funds to other districts that are in compliance. In addition there is House Bill 4035 which has been sponsored by Rep. Campbell, which is the bill that she filed last year that would ultimately just eliminate all class size reduction penalties. In addition to that, we are working with both House and Senate, along with our sister school districts across the state, in developing some provisal language should the substantive legislation not pass, and pursuant to the Board direction at the bi-county School Board meeting that was held in the late part of fall last year, which asked us to seek the sunsetting of any penalties for this year."
Notice that proposed legislation only limits or eliminates penalties for being out of compliance with the class size amendment; nobody is suggesting properly funding the very worthy amendment, or restoring it to its intended form to undo the damage done during session last year, when so many important academic courses were removed from class size protection.
C-80 Grant Authorization for Teach for America
Rebecca Fishman, Executive Director of Teach for America, spoke first. "I am so proud of the partnership that we have grown together with Miami-Dade County Public Schools, and I am not surprised that together we won this Race to the Top competition that will allow us to increase our partnership. Superintendent and your team, you are all clearly determined to provide an excellent education to every child in Miami-Dade County regardless of background, and we are right there with you to make sure that poverty has no bearing on the level of success that students attain. Our level of focus at Teach for America is funneling talent and resources and passion and leadership to schools in low-income communities across the country; we've been doing that for twenty years, and as partners with districts who are determined to narrow the achievement gap. And we've been partners here since 2003. As our partnership has grown, we've started working closely with you all to make transformational changes at schools that have traditionally been in the lowest 5% across the state, and my goodness, we are so proud to be a part of the transformation. I've seen Northwestern grow from a D to a B, I've seen the transformation happen at Edison and Booker T. and Jose de Diego and Allapattah, and we are excited to expand so that we can finally say yes to partnering to schools for which we did not have enough members previously. In a system with more than 22,000 teachers and we have less than 250 members, we were hopeful that our results and our trainings and our energy and our high expectations are impacting transformation in this great city. And we are ready to sustain that growth even as the standards get harder, as the cut scores for passing tests get higher, as our schools and communities face mounting pressures and needs. That's why we're here, that's why we're proud to be your partner, that's why we're ready to take it to the next level, setting goals for reading proficiency and college readiness, and focusing on sustaining the progress that we've been a part of, even as the bar of progress gets higher and higher."
There are a few things so obvious they scarcely need to be pointed out...first, she herself pointed out that Teach for America corps members represent only 250 out of over 22,000 teachers. If indeed educational "miracles" have been made in recent years, it seems unlikely that a great deal of that credit would go to the 250 inexperienced TFA teachers in the system (no offense to them; all teachers need time and experience to grow and develop and reach their peak effectiveness, including myself, who came in through Miami Teaching Fellows, a similar program, six years ago). In fact, peer-reviewed studies consistenly show that under-cerfitied novice teachers, including TFA, produce significantly lower learning gains than traditionally certified novice teachers, and far lower than experienced teachers.
Furthermore, many of us are skeptical of this ever-shifting grading system, where FCAT scores can go down and less than 10% of students taking AP exams pass those exams, yet the grade jumps from rock-bottom to an A almost overnight...Teachers are working extremely hard, and many students are also working very hard. But I have spoken to many teachers in those schools, and I have yet to meet one who believes that there has been any "miraculous transformation." What I hear reported again and again is principals gaming the system...throwing level 1 students into AP classes, managing to transfer "problem" students out to other schools, suspending students likely to drag down scores around the time of FCAT testing, etc. As education historian Diane Ravitch has pointed out time and again, when you make the stakes high, people will cheat and game the system any way they can to save themselves.
Dr. Dorothy Bendross-Mindingall proceeded to ask Ms. Fishman, "In your trainings for teachers for America, what do you think you do in your curriculum or curricula that you seem to be so specifically designed for the special children in the schools that you mentioned?"
Ms. Fishman responded: "We're recruiting specifically for people who want to focus in the communities where we teach, and then our training is specifically focused on how in an environment where students have fallen behind, how to catch them up quickly, and so management strategies, literacy strategies, learning to invest parents and communities in high achieving goals at a rapid pace is what we focus on in our training. Before they show up for our training we send them five textbooks of Masters level course material specifically on that, and for the entire two years they are committed to teaching we continue to give them professional development focused on getting results in the environment where we are."
Dr. Bendross-Mendingall then asked Ms. Fishman how TFA recruited its corps members.
Ms. Fishman replied, "We have a massive network of people across the country who spend the whole year focused on sifting through talent at every college campus and business across the country; we had 50,000 people apply last year, from which we selected 150 people from Miami-Dade County; it was extremely rigorous. What we look for is people who have outstanding leadership experience, unbelievably unwavering high expectations for every child, who are highly motivating, who are highly organized, who are highly influential when they speak, who are well-planned and who like to use data. We then put them through a rigorous process where we choose the best of the best of them and make sure we look for people who are not just passionate and talented but want to be passionate and talented in the environment where we are, which is a complex environment with lots of challenges."
Dr. Bendross-Mindingall persisted: "So when you bring your teachers into the schools, and we already have teachers there, do you think as a board, as a staff, that we could take your prototype and do a little something more or different with the teachers that we already have?"
Ms. Fishman responded, "I love that idea, and actually we've been playing around a lot with that in the past year and a half or so. What we've seen is that there are incredible partnerships that happen between our teachers and the other teachers at the school, there are things that we bring, there's things that other teachers bring, and we find that when we collaborate and we bring the trainings that we have and as well create opportunities to learn from other teachers at the school that there's something that happens that's really unique and special. So this past summer we had a Teachers' Academy that we here at Teach for America did in collaboration with the Education Transformation Office, where we took some of the hallmark trainings that Teach for America does across the country and we actually gave them to all 900 teachers within the ETO, and we've been doing some collaboration at individual school sites, such as Northwestern, where we have a large cohort of teachers, where instead of just providing our training to our teachers, we open them up to everybody, and what we've seen through that is not only are we able to share and provide our own resources but we've relearned and refined our own best practices from other people who are not from within our program, which has been awesome; but if you have other ideas, we love that energy."
Dr. Bendross-Mindingall came back around to the idea of TFA seeking to supplant teachers already in the schools. "I do have other ideas, but I will speak with our staff and see what we can bring together, but I'm just very very very interested as to how our teachers, the teachers who are there when you come to the schools, and having been a principal, I know good teaching when I see it, I'm just very very concerned that--not that I don't want you in the schools, I think it's wonderful that we have you to be there, but it's almost like a rescue effort, and I think we have great teachers who are in the schools, so that's why I pose the question, what can we do with our teachers who are there, and sometimes they're not there for long; they move to other schools, and I'm wondering what is it that you do in terms of your curriculum, your training, your best practices, that we could share with ours and yours to see what can be done."
Though she never came out and directly said it, I sensed as I watched that Dr. Bendross-Mindingall was concerned with a concerted effort on the part of TFA to replace teachers already in the system at some of these schools. She has good reason to be concerned. Many of us who have been in the system several years, but are not yet veterans, are wondering exactly how it is that TFA and the district intend to expand their contract and increase the number of TFA corps members throughout the county even as the Superintendent warns us at every School Board meeting that, based on budget projections, we should anticipate teacher layoffs for the coming year.
When peer-reviewed studies clearly indicate that experienced teachers are more effective than novice, undercertified teachers, including TFA, what could possibly be the justification for laying off teachers with experience to replace them with teachers who, for the most part, will leave within three years? And although these same studies show that traditionally certified novice teachers produce better results than undercertified novice teachers, including TFA, students graduating from education schools at local colleges are unable to get jobs in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, even as TFA expands.
Many of us "existing teachers" would like some explanation and justification on this from our district administration; and if they cannot provide us any compelling evidence to support these moves, then we would like to ask that they reverse course.
H-11: Request Approval of Resolution 12-015 Supporting Florida Governor Rick Scott's State of Florida Budget Which Proposes the Allocation of $1 Billion to Public School Spending
Board member Carlos Curbelo brought this item, which predictably turned out to be rather controversial. "I think many of us were surprised when we heard that the executive office's budget proposal would include a billion dollars more in education, in comparison to last year, and I think it's important that all of us who have a stake in public education show that we want that billion dollars, and let our representatives and senators know that even though we didn't appreciate the $1.3 billion cut last year, this would certainly be a welcome change in the trend we've seen for the last four or five years in a row now where we've been cut down, so I hope all of you can join me in sending a strong message to Tallahassee that a billion dollar increase would be welcome change."
Dr. Martin Karp asked for information regarding what the actual number would look like for Miami-Dade.
Assistant Superintendent Iraida Mendez-Cartaya provided more details. "The proposed increase in the governor's budget would cover the decline in property values; he provided funding for increasing in school recognition, and he increased the reading categorical that's in the appropriations bill. He also funds an estimated 31,000 new students in the state as well as covering the proposed increase in the Florida Retirement Service which would be a cost increase to the school boards and any public employer. The governor's budget, although it is not a panacea, it is not run to the bank and be able to spend, the School Board would still be facing some difficult decisions. Currently, as the revenue estimates stands, the school district could face a shortfall of anywhere of up to $250 million; the governor's budget mitigates that to a certain extent, so we could still potentially be looking at reductions of approximately $100 million. No doubt we anticipate based on what we're hearing from Tallahassee that the governor's budget will probably be the high water mark in the legislative process."
Board member Regalado urged caution in endorsing the budget. "Honestly, I wasn't surprised at the governor's recommendation; when you're polling at 26% doing a 180 makes perfect sense; but that being said, politics aside, my concern is that the billion dollars is supposed to come from an increase in lottery funding. The million dollar question is where is this coming from. So any increase in lottery funding is going to be largely from our community. The governor is discussing automated lottery machines that would be placed in different areas, another thing that's being discussed is being able to purchase lottery tickets through the Internet, which before was not allowed but now based on a finding by the federal government that it's not a violation of federal law, it's very doable in the state of Florida. So that's where the discussion is right now. The gambling thing is always a conversation here. There needs to be a serious reform of the way lottery funds are used. They are not used to benefit the entire community, they only benefit certain people, and my concern with this recommendation is that it's not clear as to the allocation if we were talking about per student, if we weren't having discussions about increasing the corporate scholarship, if we weren't having discussions about more PECO money to charter schools, if we were having a serious discussion about the funding paradigm and ensuring that every student receives a proper part of this billion dollars. My concern is that it's going to be thrown in the lottery slush fund, that we're going to miss a large part of it, especially when we talk about the program of student success. The problem is that right now, we're riding high. We have 33 A schools, we have no F schools, we're doing great, and because we're doing great, we're OK with this farce of our legislators showing up with a large check for A schools, and not talking about the other schools. But we know that FCAT 2.0 kicks in next year, we're going to take it now in April, we know that that elevates the standards significantly, we know that the Board of Education is talking about making it harder for us to maintain our grades, let alone achieve an A, so I think it's the perfect storm with Student Success and this money and I think that we in Miami-Dade County are going to miss out on a large part of this. I continue, and I maintain, that this is a governor who does not represent the entire state of Florida, he represents north and central Florida, and that's where the aim is. I don't think that this is a budget that is beneficial to Miami-Dade County. I take serious issue that we're being pitted against our public hospitals, that this is turning into an education vs. Medicaid discussion; I specifically take issue with that as the parent of a special needs child...There's a series of concerns here as to the way that this is being proffered, and I think that it's premature to take a stand on this right now. I don't think we know enough about the allocation, and it's interesting because whenever I talk about taking a stand on legislation, I get the pushback, well, Raquel, we don't know what's going to happen at committee, we don't know how this is going to end up, and I'm actually working with legislation that's written, so amending it is a little more complicated. This is a very amorphous plan, I read it over several times and I still can't tell you exactly where this stuff is coming from. The reason we know about some of it is because of what the governor has been saying, but I think it's premature, I think that everybody knows that we want more funding for education, and I don't want this district to be used as a PR machine for the governor when at the end of the day, we may end up getting the short end of the stick."
Curbelo argued that he was not suggesting an endorsement of the entire budget, just the idea of allocating more dollars toward education. "This item does not discuss any of the other topics that my colleague brought up, and I happen to agree with her on some of the issues, and I think we can have resolutions on those issues. This is very limited. This is addressing the fact that despite the fact we have probably a $2 billion budget deficit projected in Tallahassee, a billion dollar increase to public education is being proposed...I don't want anyone to think I'm asking you to approve of the entire budget the governor's proposing. I ask you to focus on the proposed billion dollar increase to public education."
Not surprisingly, Renier Diaz de la Portilla supported the item. "I believe that the governor's budget has been out there for a while and it's pretty straight forward. I agree with board member Curbelo: it's a very simple, straightforward item. It's perhaps not a simple budget but it has been out there. (...) You can talk about lottery dollars, you can talk about this and that, but the base student allocation is increased in the governor's budget. It's concrete, it's a budget that's good for education. Politics is what it is. So we need to have an intellectually honest debate. Is this budget going to hurt other parts and other sectors of the state of Florida? No doubt about it. Is it good for education? It is. So let's see the big picture and let's be honest about it, and let's praise it and praise him when he deserves it. It can't be darned if you don't and darned if you do."
Regalado argued: "If we're going to be intellectually honest, I think it's important that we let people know that even though we were out with our pitchforks, we as a Board did not take a stand against last year's budget. We did not have a board item against that budget. Which is why I find it interesting that we have a board item today for a budget, which doesn't have the type of allocation that we all agree with. (...) I think we all agree that we need more money for education, but we have to be very careful with the allocation. With his budget, I wish him the best, I think he's been listening to residents in the state of Florida, that's the first thing he said, I was up there in Tallahassee when he presented the budget, and he said it more than 20 times, that this was what the residents of the state of Florida want, an investment in education, we all agree. Now, how is that investment going to pan out? The Senate has already said they don't want to deal with this budget until much later. The House wants to deal with it sooner. This is going to drag on for a while. I just think it's premature."
Dr. Perez took a nuanced position. "In politics, everything is local, and without impuning the governor's motives (...) I would like to also send a message of support in the sense that we're glad that there's going to be more money put into education. However, I agree with Ms. Regalado's concerns, because there are concerns. It's not just about saying, we're going to put this money in education and then how is that going to be channeled? I think that is a concern of mine. I think if we could--I think we have the time to take a look at sending a message of support to the governor, but sending also a message that these are things that are important to us. I would suggest that the maker withdraw the item perhaps and bring it back with specifics that are important as Ms. Regalado mentioned, and I don't see that there is an urgency to pass this item today."
Curbelo reiterated his intention with the item: "This item does not support the governor's budget. It supports the $1 billion increase to education, which the Superintendent at his public town hall meetings has explained how this would benefit our district and how it would avoid a potentially catastrophic scenario where we would have to lay off teachers and cancel many many programs that are important to us. I hope that everyone would consider this item for what it is. It is not a political statement. It is a statement of support for a $1 billion increase to public education. When you analyze that objectively, the circumstances that we have a $2 billion projected deficit in the state budget, I'd say that this would be welcome and I hope that you all can support me in supporting it."
Regalado countered: "I understand what you're saying. My point is, if we're going to send a message, because in the past we have not sent a message, in the past we were faced with egregious budgets and we didn't take an official position. If we're going to take an official position, then let's take an official position, and specifically say how we would like the allocation. If we're going to send a message, let's send a clear message."
Curbelo held his ground: "I would gladly consider at our next meeting an item on our opinion of what the allocations should be. I would ask my colleagues to consider this item at this meeting, because I'm proffering it that way."
Regalado and Perez voted against the resolution but it passed.
In the course of the H items, the Board members spent a considerable length of time debating whether or not the Board should take an official position on legislative items.
H-31: Resolution to Oppose HB 1191 "The Parent Empowerment Act"
Board member Raquel Regalado brought forward this good cause item to oppose Rep. Michael Bileca's bill, HB 1191, and its companion bill in the Senate, SB 1718, the "Parent Empowerment Act".
Assistant Superintendent Iraida Mendez-Cartaya explained the bills as following: "In essence, it would allow a parent to sign and date a petition, and if 51% of the parents of an elementary, middle or high school, and even through the feeder pattern, chooses a specific turnaround model as defined in state statute, then the local school district must implement that turnaround model that has been determined by the parents at that school. Further, there are several parent groups throughout the state that have taken an official position of opposition to this bill, the Florida PTA, 50th No More, various parent groups have come out in opposition to this legislation. This legislation has been implemented in other states, more specifically in California; it has invited lawsuits. California is entertaining basically repealing that piece of legislation because of the lawsuits, because of the predatory incidents where parents have been lobbied on behalf of other entities that provide educational services in order to have a petition to turn around the school with a specific turnaround model."
Regalado then iterated her reasons for bringing forth the item: "At first blush it looks like a great idea, especially when we talk about choice and parent involvement. What it does is usurps power from the school board to begin with, and what has occurred in California that has led to so much litigation is that companies were hired to have these petitions made and to turn these schools over, and what occurred was that in the more affluent areas it was done faster and then later in other areas, and there was a very devastating impact on the different school districts in California. Once it got moving it was almost impossible for them to stop it. That's why at committee we discussed taking a position on this."
Mendez-Cartaya said that she had an appointment scheduled with Rep. Bileca in Tallahassee tomorrow to discuss possible ramifications of the bill and some of its language.
Board member Carlos Curbelo backed Ms. Regalado: "This bill has a beautiful name and I think at first glance anyone would be inclined to support it, but I really do believe it's irresponsible, that it exposes our schools to many political campaigns where someone can just find a way to gather a majority of parents' signatures and then do with that school whatever they want. I'm all for parent empowerment, but this is dangerous, this is radical, this exposes our schools, our teachers, to political campaigns. I don't think this is a good example of accountability. I'm in favor of accountability and making sure we improve our underperforming schools, but not of exposing our schools to political forces and creating that kind of unstable environment that can be very damaging to students and to teachers."
It should be no surprise that board member Renier Diaz de la Portilla was an avid supporter of the bill; watching these meetings, one often wonders why he is on the School Board instead of on the governing board of a for-profit charter school, since it is clearly where his heart lies. "One of the key principles to my service up here on the School Board and my legislative service prior to that, especially when it comes to education, is parental empowerment. I believe it's important to empower parents. Yes, the bill has that title, but I think that substantively the bill does do that as well. The bill is a little more complex than the ones we debated earlier today, it's an 11-page bill. This is a bill that can still be massaged, it's a bill that its sponsor has already committed to me that he will work to amend to work out some of these issues, because he does want our support and he does worry that we will oppose his bill and that will damage its chances of passing. I'm going to err on the side of his good intentions for parental empowerment. There is nothing particularly offensive in this bill to me as I read it...I know Board Member Regalado mentioned litigation and California and so forth, but sometimes when you do the right thing, you get sued, and that's part of life when you make public policy. Whenever you push the envelope, whenever you have choice, whenever you empower people and empower parents, there are going to be some interest groups that won't like it and there will be some folks that sue in court, and that's fine, I'm not afraid of that. I think we should try to do the right thing to empower parents, and if this bill will accomplish that, we should support it. First of all, I don't understand why the School Board feels it knows better than what parents want. Why do we feel that we can make better decisions sitting up here or in some cases in Tallahassee than people on the ground, people who have children in our public schools, parents and communities that are closer to their environment and are more aware of what's happening to them? If a group of parents in a failing school, in a school that's under intervention, want to get together and 51% of them vote to change the academic environment of that school, what's so bad about that? Why are we against that? Is it going to create chaos? Is it going to wreak havoc? I don't think so. If we have a school, say in the case of Central, that we can turn around, we're going to have that community's support, something like this would never happen. This would never happen at a Central because that community supported our turnaround efforts. You would never get 51% of the parents at a Central to support abandoning that school or closing that school or moving those children out of that community, because the parents were behind that school. This bill does not say that. This bill says that if it is a school that is under intervention, that parents have a right to circulate such a petition. It doesn't mandate it, it just gives them that right. So I see no harm in supporting this as it is now. I'm pretty sure it's going to be amended to be something we can live with and work with. I say that we give this bill a chance, that we work with him, that we bring this back next month and if he hasn't amended it to our liking that then we oppose it. We still have time; session ends in March, we come back in February; then we can go all out and oppose the bill. But I think there are some good things in here and I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so I will not be supporting opposition to this bill as it stands today."
Regalado countered: "This is a very concerning bill. I think that it goes against everything that we're doing at Miami-Dade County Public Schools. (...) The problem with this bill is that it feeds on the lack of information. It feeds on the desperation of a community that wants a change without a clear explanation of what that change is. Again, I brought it to this Board because at committee we were all adamantly against it, we were not contacted by Bileca, it's very concerning at the pace that it is moving in Tallahassee and I think we should just call the question."
Regalado has a very valid point. Diaz de la Portilla's position presumes that for-profit entities wishing to take over public school property and turn a profit off it will have no interest in moving in and working to manipulate parents in these communities, and also that admittedly well-intentioned people are never manipulated by advertising, bribery, etc. Just as the best among us can be manipulated into buying products we do not need or even really desire (until we see the commercial), well-meaning parents can be (and have been, in California and elsewhere) manipulated into buying a charter school in place of the existing public school, without really understanding what it means for their children.
Board vice-chair Dr. Larry Feldman acknowledged the opposition of prominent parent groups. "I think that for me, if I was to move on this, the one sentence in here says that the PTA and other parent groups have indicated their opposition to this legislation. They must know something that I haven't read in this yet, but if PTA of Florida says that they do not want this to pass, for whatever their reasons are, I'm wondering, are there any other organizations, consortiums, etc., that are in opposition?"
Assistant Superintendent Mendez-Cartaya elaborated: "Not only has Florida PTA taken a position in opposition, but other parent groups throughout the state, there's Fund Education Now which is based I believe in Orange County, there is 50th No More, there is Marion United for Public Education, Save Duval Schools which have taken positions in opposition to it. The Florida School Board Association has not at this point to the best of my knowledge taken a position; they will be meeting next week in Tallahssee as will the Greater Florida Consortium of School Boards."
Diaz de la Portilla persisted in touting the bill. "A lot of these organizations that were mentioned have traditionally in the past opposed school choice programs, have opposed concepts like charter schools, and once these concepts evolved, once we had controlled choice in our public schools and the programs we had, they have supported charter schools and school choice. When something's new, when something's different, when something tremendously powers people to make their own choices, there's going to be a little bit of resistance; I understand that. If you're in favor of school choice, this is the kind of legislation you should be supporting. If you're in favor of parent empowerment, this is the kind of legislation you should be supporting. This bill has a provision in it that allows parents in one of these schools under intervention to access the evaluation of the teachers of their children, the rating of each instructional personnel of his or her child, upon the request of the parent. So how can anybody be against letting parents access the personnel records of the teacher of their children in a low-performing school? What's so bad about that? I think that's a basic public records issue that should be available. I can't believe this isn't available already to the parents. These parents make good decisions. This is a natural evolution of that process. This still allows the school district to be part of the turnaround of that school, but gives parents--I don't think it's up to the bureaucrats here and downtown to be in that position, I think the parents should be a partner in that process of turning around a school. And if I get calls from 60 or 70% of the parents in a school telling me they want to close that school down and want their children to move to another school, I'm going to listen to them, because they may know a little more about what's going on in their children's school than I know. I think that's what this bill does. I think it needs to be amended, but if you're for choice, if you're for parental empowerment, I don't know how you can be against this."
We would like Diaz de la Portilla to chew for a moment on what he is saying. Now that 50% of our evaluations will come from standardized test results--often in subjects we do not even teach--are those evaluations going to give parents a fair, accurate snapshot of the quality of the teacher in front of the classroom? Does this not hold the potential to create undeserved panic? There is also currently language in the bill that would require that parents be informed of certified virtual teachers their child could be assigned to if they are unhappy with the teacher...another big push for virtual schools and virtual charters.
Board member Dr. Bendross-Mindingall showed solidarity with teachers and public schools against this attack. "When I looked at this bill, it brought back some time that some of us choose to forget. We must inform and involve parents in the process of educating their children. I heard presenters talk about the number of participants in their PTA. More than one per child. 1500 some odd children, 1800 some odd parents. If we look at this bill and what I believe the intent is, many schools that our parents don't participate in, many of our parents don't go to PTSA meetings, our parents need to know that we're going to labor to educate all of our children, and many of our parents have decided that we do know what is good for their children, and we must find a way to share that. Many of the schools that were brought to our attention today are in a certain district. Our parents have got to understand. I don't know if our parents even know anything about this bill. We've got to do a better job of making sure all of our parents are involved. I am not going to support this because I feel in my heart that some parents will misconstrue this, and many of the parents who live in certain ZIP code areas will not have the opportunity to do what they need to do because of other reasons. This harkens back to a time that some of us choose to forget. We don't need many of our schools taken over--I believe in choice, but I choose to say to all of us that we must not forget that many times in certain areas, certain areas, our children will not get the benefit that other children will get. No, I'm not going to look at this as an opportunity, this bill is not good for our children, I think we should look closely at this item and understand that we labor here to educate all children, and some of us here do know what's best for children, and we will do our very best to inform all parents of how they can be better involved in educating our children."
Board member Dr. Martin Karp moved to table the motion until the Florida School Board Consortium discussed the issue, given that they had not had time to prepare their response to it. The item was tabled until February; look for it in next month's blog.
A-1 Superintendent's Announcements
Gisela Feild, Administrative Director of Assessment, Research and Data Analysis, spoke to clarify what was discussed at the December board meeting in terms of changes to school grades for this year and beyond.
- Civics and American History will be calculated in the scool grade for 100 points in middle and high schools.
- The new model requires ELL and ESE students' performance on the FCAT to be included in computation of proficiency points. "Some of these children are not on grade level and are taking assessments at other levels, so to assume that these students can perform on grade level in a year is, in our opinion, not appropriate." This change will negatively impact the grades of those schools with large ELL and ESE populations and specialized ESE programs. "Although we agree that all children should be included in the accountability formula, we have said that we think they should only be included in the proficiency measure if they have met the proficiency target."
- The graduation rate calculation will change, so that only students receiving standard diplomas will be considered graduates, and ESE students receiving special diplomas, or students withdrawing to Adult Education to finish their diplomas, will be considered dropouts. Again, this will negatively impact those high schools with large ESE populations and specialized ESE programs. "We anticipate a 7 to 8 point drop in our graduation rate as well as the state because these children will not be considered to be on-time graduates."
- The proposal for how this new graduation rate will be included in the school grade is a 200 point component. 100 points will come from the new federal graduation rate (not including special diplomas or those students finishing through Adult Ed) and 100 points from what the state calls a modified 5-Year Federal Graduation Rate, which would provide credit for students who graduate in 5 years, and would include both standard and special diplomas. "We definitely support this recommendation; we would prefer to stay with the governor's rate, but this is not an option because of No Child Left Behind, so this is a mitigating option for us."
- There would be a minimum proficiency trigger, which would require schools to meet a minimum percent of students proficient in reading in order to receive a C or better. "That means if the school receives the 525 points necessary to be an A, but did not meet the proficiency target of, say, 30% [cut scores have not been set yet] of their students in reading, that school will drop to a D. They will be considered not to pass. We wholeheartedly oppose this proposal; there is already a trigger in the school grading system that drops a school a grade from a C to a D if they do not meet the lowest 25%, so we don't understand why we have to have an additional trigger that will further reduce the school grade just because certain elements have not been met."
- There is also a new middle school acceleration component. It would require using algebra end-of-course results and would expect all 8th grade students scoring FCAT level 3-5 to be enrolled in algebra, and would impose an additional 100 points to the middle school component and will include a proficiency for all children enrolled in algebra. "The problem is that to do the computer percentage, it wants to divide that number of children who pass by all 8th graders who scored at FCAT level 3 or above. So in a school where you may have 50% of the children that are proficient, and maybe 40% of them are level 3, which we know means they are on grade level but maybe not above grade level, the expectation would be that those children in 8th grade would be enrolled in algebra. We do not believe this is the right thing to do; we do not believe that all children who are at FCAT level 3 in 7th grade are ready to be enrolled in algebra. We oppose this component; we support it using a bonus-point component but not for the 100 points."
- There would also be a change in the computation of the high school acceleration component. "In the prior calculation, the denominator was any child who participated in any college-level course. The child was counted once, and the numerator was the number of accelerated courses that child had passed, whether it was IB, AP or dual enrollment. The state wants to change this to the number of courses the child is enrolled in as a denominator. The problem with this is that we recognize that not every AP course is at the same difficulty level; it's a lot harder to get a passing score on an AP Biology or Chemistry test than it is in a World History test. This will discourage schools from offering courses where numbers of passing scores are not as high, and will also discourage kids from enrolling in multiple courses, and it will really provide a lot less course options for students if this change occurs. We oppose this change; we do not want to discourage our students from participating in higher level courses, whether they succeed or not."
- There would still be a school grading trigger, where if 75% of schools are graded an A or a B in a current year, the minimum required points for grades of A, B, C, and D would be increased.
Ms. Feild reiterated that the state's changes in accountability will most likely result in a decline in school grades for next year.
Superintendent Carvalho elaborated: "I think it's fair to say that we have unequivocally supported higher standards all along the way and greater accountability for the performance of our students. Therefore we have supported differentiated accountability. We have supported Race to the Top. We have supported the transition to FCAT 2.0 and the transition to Common Core Standards. But we are expressing, #1, the need in holding the Department of Education responsible for engaging the community across the state to explain this progression of the standards, so that when the new set of scores are released less than a year from now, that people will not equate--It would be a shame for individuals to understand the correction as somehow a decline in student proficiency or a lack of teacher effectiveness. These are the same teachers and the same leaders who provided these remarkable results this year. We are going to continue our information campaign to make sure that parents and business leaders understand that this is a game changer, we are asking for more information to be provided from the DOE as we're asking for reconsideration of some elements as explained by Ms. Gisela Feild."
Dr. Perez asked for clarification on the new civics and U.S. History components. Ms. Feild explained: "We'll have a baseline test next year in civics, and they'll set a cut score for what the FCAT achievement level is for civics, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, so that students who score a 3 or higher will be considered proficient. Be aware that right now the civics test is written up so that students will not be able to exit middle school if they don't score proficient in civics also, so that will be an additional component, not for the school grade, but that will affect retention and promotion in middle schools."
Dr. Perez then inquired about graduation rate: "And then, also, on the slide with the National Governors' Association graduation rate--the reason that I think we're being required to go to the Federal is because there is an interest to standardize all the states? So that in the United States as a whole we will have a better picture of what our graduation rate is compared to other states. We're not going to be disadvantaged with other states, because they're going to be measured the same way, right?"
Superintendent Carvalho addressed her concerns: "As far as strictly the graduation rate, not; however, because Florida is moving so aggressively in ramping up the standards, yes. Recently in Washington, D.C., with Duncan our commissioner, we lead the nation in terms of the most rigorous curriculum and exam out of all 50 states. So when you simply compare apples to apples of the graduation standard, yes, no one is disadvantaged compared to anyone else. However, leading and meeting all the graduation requirements varies greatly from state to state. There is no way of comparing Florida's Sunshine State Standards or Florida's FCAT 2.0 to Texas or New York or California or Mississippi. And we know this to be true because some of the states I mentioned, when No Child Left Behind passed, they actually forced a lowering of their standards so that schools not be qualified in need of improvement. So we know for a fact that there is no comparability. So this is why the only measure is not graduation rates, is not even the comparison of accountability exams between states, it's NAEP, because it's the same exact exam, the same questions, analyzed across the nation...SAT scores are also reliable, but SAT focuses obviously just on--NAEP spans a number of grade levels. SAT is not a mandatory exam, it's a voluntary exam, and it is limited usually just to your junior or senior year."
Ms. Feild added, "It doesn't mean that less children will graduate in Miami-Dade, in fact we may have more graduating, but when you eliminate certain computations from the rate, our students may increase, we may see more graduates, but when we publicize a federal rate it may look like we're graduating less students when we're not."
Ms. Regalado pointed out that parents can give input on this issue. "The FDOE is taking parent comments regarding this. I recommended at committee if staff could give us a form e-mail to send out to our parents so that they're aware of what Miami-Dade would like to see the FDOE do. I think it's important; it's a very short window; I think the window for comments closes in February. I know it's one more thing for our parents to do, but it's something that with very little effort our parents and teachers can log on and put in their input. It's just a matter of empowering them."
Ms. Feild assured her that their presentation would be posted on the Dadeschools website with a form for giving feedback to the DOE.
UTD President Karen Aronowitz took the microphone on this issue. "This is a system under siege. I find it interesting that when the Superintendent talked about the new requirements, they're not put in place, in my estimation, for the best interest of our children. And I believe you are correct, Dr. Feldman, in that children who earn a special diploma because they have given their all are not going to be regarded as graduates by the system, and that is a hurtful and deplorable situation to happen to anyone who earns their degree. You are going to hear, as the Superintendent pointed out, that the very same people we are applauding today will be demonized next year for failing to meet new standards that were raised not in the interest of providing an education to every child within his or her capacity but by trying to label and punish. I think it is terrible. It is terrible for children and it is terrible for the adults who work with those children. We're a system that has been under siege for so long and so used to being attacked, that I find it interesting that when we are unable to pay negotiated wages for the teachers, the principals, the police officers who were just sworn in, that we are being held to a different standard and being told we will be paid on pay-for-performance, when they've just changed the ability to earn any pay for pay-for-performance, which is in fact not even funded at this point, because they are not paying us the pay that we should be receiving at this moment. I want to say my gratitude to the Board for continuing to address issues of collective bargaining in a thoughtful manner in spite of this lack of funding for our public schools. I thank you for your efforts to make sure that we are not calling upon the employees of this system to actually sustain it through the loss of wages and benefits, because we too are working for what our families need and for what we ourselves need in order to do the work we are asked to do."
UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner then spoke: "This whole presentation is like you take people and you get them to the apex and then you set them up to come crashing down the side of the mountain. And that's what the state's actually done. They've created a whole new system, other ways besides just an FCAT test, a single unilateral test, to give schools an opportunity to demonstrate other measurable ways of growth. And now what are they going to do? Just when the schools start to become successful, they don't even get a couple of years to blend in and make it sustainable. Immediately, as soon as these schools become successful, they basically say, you know what, we don't care successful you are, we're just going to keep raising that bar higher and higher, so that you can never ever sustain that success. And I think it's such a shame that this is the legislature we have in place today."
Public Hearing
UTD Vice-President Artie Leichner addressed the health care issue. "One of the biggest issues that we're facing right now is health care. Incredibly insane rise in the cost of health care. We've been working with the district very hard to come up with solutions. Mostly I want to direct all of the working men and women who are participants in the health care plan for Miami-Dade County Public Schools to look at the website, www.utd.org, and please read the plans. Read the information. There are going to be very, very significant changes. With the district, we are planning to give you a major amount of education on how you can utilize the plan, maximize the plan and make it the best it can possibly be given the fact that we have a $65 million hole."
