Christina School Board Is Making Me Dizzy

Filed in Delaware by on May 1, 2011

The Christina school district made a high profile move to pull out of the Race To The Top. After the governor pulled the $11M the district would have received for the program, the school board reversed its decision. You can read all about it at DelawareOnline.

Don’t ask me to explain the whole convoluted story but this quote had me guffawing in my hotel room:

“This whole thing was due to a lack of communication,” board member Eric M. Anderson said after the vote.

Yeah, I guess Christina thought they’d get the money no matter what actions they took?

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (44)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. heragain says:

    My sense was they didn’t want to pull out… they wanted a better process for participating.

    I’m not sure this was a great place for strong-arm tactics.

  2. cassandra_m says:

    The thing is that I can’t quite figure out *what* they were strong-arming. As I noted in my own post, I haven’t followed this closely, but I thought that the decision on what to do with an underperforming school was supposed to be a collaborative one. And that the plan that comes out of that decision was supposed to be a collaborative one. It just looks to me that people are surprised to finally have to live with the decision to change.

  3. John Young says:

    UI, the problem is the first line of your post: “The Christina school district made a high profile move to pull out of the Race To The Top.”

    100% false.

    That is the Governors talking point and was and is simply not true.

    If your readers want more background Kilroy’s Delaware, Transparent Christina and Children and Educators First have been posting furiously for almost 2 weeks now.

    Thanks for putting the topic into a DL thread!

  4. John Young says:

    Pandora,

    Just some perspective: the 11MM is a four year TTL and represents less than 1% of our annual budget per year. This is not game changing money no matter how its viewed.

  5. John Young says:

    heragain,

    Right on.

  6. PBaumbach says:

    like most, I have had limited insight into this–i didi not attend either relevant school board meetings.
    i admit that it appears to me that lowery and markell appeared to be more combatitive than collaborative.

    what i understood is that at the april 19th meeting the school board noted that the plan that had been agreed upon had some notable deviations in its execution. there appeared to me to be no rush or lack of understanding of the importance–the school board took HOURS of public meetings to explore this, to listen to administrators, teachers, parents, etc.

    it appeared to me that all parties could have done better at working together. issuing missives from dover and DC rather than coming to christina to meet and talk is what has been s]described as ‘strong arm’ tactics. i can see that.

    i applaud john young for sharing his perspective on his transparent christina website–obviously, this is one person’s viewpoint, but certainly a well-placed person’s viewpoint.

    the board seemed at the april 19th decision to have no problem in reforming stubbs and glasgow, but wanted to be certain that a fair process was not only designed, but executed. that seems fair to me.

    process should matter. i would have liked the efforts from the state and national education departments to have been more collaborative, and less antagonistic.

    Of course, john young could likely have also been less antagonistic in his statements.

    but let me close with how i opened–i am a monday morning quarterback here. i respect those in the trenches–the board members–for working with this difficult situation. i also appreciate the governor and education secretary’s similar goal of improving education for all of our state’s students.

    let’s see if we can learn from this experience, to better design lines of communication, two-way, between our elected school boards, and the state education secretary appointee.

  7. kilroy says:

    The Christina Superintendent deviated from the plan without approval of the board. The board was just protecting the rights of the employees.

    As far as Race to The Top ask Jack Markell about the 8.2 million dollars going to Wireless Generation subsidiarity of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation for Data Coaches that help teacher read and analyzed student test data. Ask Markell about his relationship with CEO of K12.Inc former Goldman Sachs man and fellow alumni of Chicago Booth School of Business and both worked for McKinsy and Company.

    Race to The Top is not a federal mandate and is noting but a four year federal grants with stings. Once the money is gone all defaults back on local taxpayers.

  8. kilroy says:

    PBaumbach
    “the board seemed at the april 19th decision to have no problem in reforming stubbs and glasgow, but wanted to be certain that a fair process was not only designed, but executed. that seems fair to me”

    Right on! The teachers were asked to sign on to the PZ Plan aka the agreement and the super move forward deviating from the agreement. The board needs to take corrective action against the super. Last December they voted not to extend her contract and must vote the same this December to which terminates the super as of June 30 2012. Some city community leaders are working an agenda to protect the super and certainly will yell discrimination. This recent crisis could be nothing more than to undermine the board. The super works for the board not DEDOE.

  9. “Yeah, I guess Christina thought they’d get the money no matter what actions they took?”

    I don’t have time to say what I really think about this uninformed statement this morning but a big old WWWWWWWWWWWWWWTTTFFFFFFFFFF?? will do. Stick to chemistry, UI. Or have a couple of kids and put them through school before you get to high on your horse over things you have no clue over or any evident interest in taking a close look at.

    I see a few people on the thread know what they are talking about. Thanks Paul and Kilroy.

  10. Nancy is right. I’m stupid to believe that CSD reversed a decision they just made in a special meeting. Obviously this was a super-duper reverse brilliant move by CSD. thanks for clearing that up.

  11. anon says:

    UI – Nancy is right. CSD never voted to “pull out of RTTT” as your first sentence says. That is the Markell/DDOE narrative that has been implanted into the press, but it has little connection with what actually happened.

    CSS initially voted not to transfer some of their teachers to other schools. If you want to understand why they did that, you will have to read the two weeks of furious blogging Nancy is helpfully pointing you to.

    On Saturday CSD was pressured to vote to reverse their decision not to transfer the teachers. There was never a vote to pull out of RTTT, therefore no reversal of that vote.

  12. 99% of the population knows nothing about CSD. Of the remaining 1%, 90% see this as CSD tried to take on the governor and the governor won. CSD did reverse a decision they just made, there is no getting around that.

  13. pandora says:

    This is what keeps tripping me up. (And I have been reading the other blogs on this issue.)

    Is this scenario correct:

    1. Christina wrote the plan
    2. Christina implemented the plan
    3. Christina un-implemented the plan

    Is the problem between the Super and the Board?

    Nancy, where do your children go to school? Do they attend Christina schools?

  14. anon says:

    Of the remaining 1%, 90% see this as CSD tried to take on the governor and the governor won.

    Yes. As John Young blogged: “I am at a point where I realize that those that control the money are going to get their way in the press. ”

    WDEL has been especially guilty of taking dictation from the Administration, with factually incorrect reporting like: “At a recent school board meeting, the board voted to reject a previously agreed upon decision to reform two of the state’s lowest performing schools…”

    It is difficult to argue that the narrative from the press and the Markell administration accounts is reality based. It is painful to see it repeated here.

  15. anon says:

    Is this scenario correct:

    1. Christina wrote the plan
    2. Christina implemented the plan
    3. Christina un-implemented the plan

    No. #3 is the Governor’s preferred but factually incorrect narrative. CSD never voted to un-implement the plan. The Governor pulled funding committed to the plan, but the reform plan itself remained in place at all times.

    The plan called for interviewing and identifying teachers who weren’t willing or able to fully support the plan, and transfer them to other schools. After this was done, CSD was not happy with the results and found legitimate issues with the process. So they voted to keep all the teachers, and sought further talks with DDOE to resolve the issue within the plan. That is the point where Markell pulled the funding. There was never a vote to “un-implement the plan.”

    There was a vote to “recommit” to the plan, but that was sort of like renewing your marriage vows when you are already married.

    Honest people can disagree about who are the villains, but not about the facts.

  16. Geezer says:

    “CSD never voted to un-implement the plan.”

    I think the administration’s position is that by voting to keep the teachers in place, CSD failed to implement the plan. If you want to split hairs to find a difference there, go right ahead, but don’t be surprised when most people opt for the simpler, just-as-true interpretation.

  17. pandora says:

    I’m still confused.

  18. anon says:

    I think the administration’s position is that by voting to keep the teachers in place, CSD failed to implement the plan.

    That’s what I just said. The administration’s position is an extreme and hyperbolic interpretation of the plan, which is literally a “Partnership” and not a series of ultimatums that must be met. The plan itself provides for adjustments based on lessons learned.

    The Markell Administration took advantage of a district that was not prepared to wage a sophisticated media battle.

    The media narrative may take root in the general population, but I think the CSD parent who were paying attention will have a radically different opinion.

  19. cassandra m says:

    Me too. Since it looks as though the “process” was one agreed to in the transformation plan. So it is still looking to me like the process did not produce the results that some wanted, hence the Board’s tantrum. Here is the Glasgow Transformation Plan.

    This Plan calls for each teacher to identify an academy they wanted to teach in and be interviewed to see if they’d stay. There is nothing about just interviewing the people who didn’t support the plan here.

  20. cassandra m says:

    It is more like the Board voted to override the results of the process implemented by the school administrators. The people at the school were delivering on what they were supposed to do in the Plan — it was the school board that decided to impose their own results. That doesn’t count as *Partnership* anyway you want to cut it.

  21. Kilroy says:

    The plan is going forward and it’s best now to let DSEA step-up and fight when the district supers pull a switch. Bottom-line is the teachers supported the plan with their rank and file vote. Gotta give them credit for that. But is it fair for the super to come back and blindside them and the board?

    UI you’re ok and the events with school reform make many dizzy. But Imam tell you RTTT is an unsustainable four-years grant. The Data Coaches and Teacher Coaches are coming in to train the trainers. Meaning when the money is gone they’re their own.

    The is a movement to create a nationalized standardize test to tie into the national common core standards. DSTP super-sized ?

    And guess what, Jason’s favorite family Bush is cashing in on reform. Jeb and Neil Bush and others connected to Wall Street.

  22. Cass, the Board acted in good faith and you don’t know shit about what you are talking about. The MOU and the plan both provided for a spelled out must do process for selection and it wasn’t followed. You can spin it all you want and be nasty about your supposed idea of the “tantrum” just aim it at the appropriate source: Lillian Lowery, Jack Markell, Rodel, Baker, Coons, The Chamber and the Urban League.

  23. Geezer says:

    “The Markell Administration took advantage of a district that was not prepared to wage a sophisticated media battle.”

    Took advantage of it how? What does the administration gain by making this fuss?

  24. cassandra m says:

    Well of course Nancy Willing has lots of huffing and puffing and No Information. Or maybe there is nothing for you to cut and paste on this, huh?

    But I note that none of the questions that I asked have an answer.

    Stop trolling over here, Nancy.

  25. anon says:

    I’m still struggling to wrap my head around what seems to be the core of the teachers’ complaints – that a single 20-minute interview decided their “fate.”

    First: Isn’t that how real life works? If you bomb the interview, you don’t get the job?

    Second: Isn’t that how tests work? If a student doesn’t answer the questions correctly, doesn’t the teacher flunk him?

    Third: Isn’t it true that they wouldn’t have lost their jobs? That, in fact, they were guaranteed jobs, just at different schools?

    So what’s all the whining about?

  26. Venus says:

    Since when is a school board supposed to be looking out for their teachers a priority? That’s their union and HR’s job. They were to look after the students, and move along those teachers not a good fit for what the model demanded. If the teacher was that good, 20 minutes wouldn’t have tripped him/her up. It’s tough in the real world. And some of us don’t have that luxury of another job, with the same employer, and the same pay. You want fries with that?

  27. A true love of language leads to some strange places , as roads go everywhere there is to go…..there is noplace that you can’t get to from here .If we have all learned the playground level of language and moved on to the rest of it…of course not quite everyone came away from said playground having learned quite the same things . NO PROBLEM .
    Well excuse ME ! I did not ask you if you had a problem and I probably never would . So WHY , when I tell the ” Waitperson ” that my steak should be rare ,my martini free of fruit,chocolate,ether, or amyl nitrate and served in a glass that isn’t chipped…why am I certain that the response I garner will be : no problem .It is , of course, a silly but kind of fun thing . In the course of our lives we are witness to so very many changes , in us , all around us ,some seriously tragic and some just a joke , a joke told eternally to listeners who will draw back as if threatened , looking
    perplexed and feebly protesting that they ” don’t get it ” .
    Well that’s fine . I am quite sure there are many things that factor into that equation . And there are masses of people who stand shoulder to shoulder with you as you bravely take a stand against common sense , literacy , and intelligence quite other than
    that which is no problem .
    And should anyone care to see a clear picture of this marvelous ( NOT a WILMINGTON WORD ) complicated , often beautiful State , and this Intense and complicated city , just pick up the day’s NEWS Journal and immerse yourself in the luke-warm ( interesting , that…Luke Warm ? ) currents which comprise the unique Journalese
    of Wilmington .IS EVERYONE REALLY HAVING A GOOD ONE ? GOOD WHAT ?Orgasm, marriage,new job ,found treasure , long-lost darling , misplaced will ? Well , this particular set of circumstances on which the educational system seems poised and pondering…very dramatic indeed . And such LANGUAGE . I wonder if there any other News Journal readers out there who wonder as often as I do if English is perhaps not their first language . My favorite single gem
    glittering on this tree of perhaps NOT QUITE language was this ” You don’t want to stay at your school .TRANSFER is available to you . You will be guaranteed a position in your [ certification ].
    You want to stay at your school .Before March 31 you will be interviewed . IF you are chosen , you will sign a letter of commitment by March 31 .If you are NOT chosen , you will be able to become part of the transfer process “. ” AND DON’T LET THE SCREEN-DOOR HIT YOU….all of the teachers who were both at the meeting but were not at the meeting declining to be or not to be and then moved to another venue where they changed into clothing which was in their ” school colors ” . And commenced to rethink the whole sordid mess . That” part of the transfer process….Well look who is here ! It’s Senator McCarthy ! What’s that Senator McCarthy ! You want me to sign a simple statement of commitment disclosing all of my private beliefs and opinions ? Or get to be part of the transfer process ? Well , one doesnt wish to appear intelligent OR well-informed …DO ONE ?
    the next step , or stumble , in this alarming AND amusing affair should probably be to back and take a count of POSITIONS ,AUTHORITIES,OFFICIALS , da da da….and actual positions like Delaware Black Heritage Educational Theater Group is a keeper for sure . It is informative by the very nature of it’s name . From such a springboard one can probably get a much better view of all of these endless concentric titles,positions,and ambiguities .

  28. pandora says:

    Venus and anon, thank you, thank you, thank you!

    Someday I hope the children become the focus of these debates. If that ever happens we might see results.

  29. John Young says:

    It is a sad day when fighting for teachers and fighting for students are two different things.

  30. Venus says:

    Oh grow up. The union signed the MOU in their behalf. Let them grieve it. Their union dues should cover their representation, and they should have called it in if they felt so shafted. You took up the wrong fight. Remember, you signed with RTTT. And one more thing, if Richard Caplin (above) is one of those teachers, please give him one of those NYC rubber room jobs. I don’t want him, probably teaching English, to any of my children. No need to confuse them any more. Thank you.

  31. “Since when is a school board supposed to be looking out for their teachers a priority? That’s their union and HR’s job. They were to look after the students, and move along those teachers not a good fit for what the model demanded. If the teacher was that good, 20 minutes wouldn’t have tripped him/her up. It’s tough in the real world. And some of us don’t have that luxury of another job, with the same employer, and the same pay. You want fries with that?”

    Who says the school board WASN’T LOOKING AFTER THE CHILDREN?????????????

    You comment is based on total bullcrap.

    I can’t give a full scope of all of the teachers rejected after the subjective rubric of the interview but I will tell you that at least one was a high quality certified math teacher with excellent evaluations and *GASP* a record of significantly improving student performance.

    Another was an autoshop teacher who was so well loved by his students that an entire family (all black, by the way) got up to the mic to ask why he was being let go from GHS seeing as how his ability to single-handedly turn their child from failing and disinterested truant to an active, engaged and happy junior at the school.

    And yet another was a coach whose current and former students rallied in support of how much he inspired and motivated them – a facebook page drew hundreds of members within a few weeks of posting all in support of this teacher.

    There just wasn’t any evidence that A SINGLE ONE OF THESE TEACHERS WERE NOT GOOD TEACHERS NOR WERE JUSTIFYABLY DISMISSED. But the taint remains. Just look at yourselves here. All wrongfully assuming that this is anti-kid or, as John said, some kind of false choice between the teacher or the children.

    Fall into the spin, much? There are HIGH DEM HACK HATERS all too often here.

    John Young and Lillian Lowery are both scheduled for WDEL on air today, btw.

  32. Venus, this whole kerfluffle would have been avoided if the CEA had bothered to show up and stand up during the meeting.

    When the Board wanted some clarity of why the MOU was not followed and could the MOU signers (CEA and Superintendent Lyles) possible meet the following day to put their heads together and resolve the discrepancy, guess what. No CEA was in the room. Crickets. Gee thanks.

    CEA later issued a statement in support of the teachers but little else.

    There is just no way that all of this bull crap is a result of a decision to not reject a small number of teachers when most of the money for RTTT is being sent to Chamber of Commerce pals and Wall Street consultants in support of high stakes testing that is a GOPer plan and isn’t solving the real needs of low-achieving kids in the classrooms. They needed the money to be spent in the form of specialized professionals helping them not where the State of Delaware decided to spend the money – keeping the bulk of it in the Dover office in administrative bloat and most of the rest in data coaches helping the teachers learn how to read the mew testing data continuum.

  33. Venus says:

    Bingo your first sentence. Table any movement in Sentence #2. Not a surprise in sentence #3, and your closing is well-targeted. However, it was naive 17months ago to think when the MOU was signed, that anything unlike this was going to happen. Just desserts.

  34. pandora says:

    Okay… let’s try again.

    1. Who wrote the assessment plan? Specifically, the part that assessed, and removed, teachers.

    2. Was there an outcry of unfairness prior to the teacher interviews? Which leads to the next question…

    3. Was the assessment plan reviewed by the parties involved?

    4. Who wrote the interview questions?

    5. Who decided which teachers would have to move to another school?

    Answers would be greatly appreciated.

  35. anon says:

    Pandora, those questions have been asked and answered on the blogs that were tracking this as it unfolded. It would be courteous to read them first.

    The primary documents are available, but they are lengthy and dry and require much motivation to read.

    The primary documents are:
    1. The CSD MOU,
    2. The Glasgow PZ plan, and
    3. The audio of the CSD board meeting.

    Everything else is commentary. It’s OK to express an opinion, but the facts are found in the primary documents.

  36. cassandra m says:

    Translation: We can’t be bothered to answer reasonable questions when we’ve got a good head of steam going here in ranting at The Man.

    I took a look at one of these *primary* documents and pointed out where one of these anons was wrong on who was to be interviewed. Really, from here it does look like teachers and others are pretty stunned that they are actually going to have to live with the MOUs and Transformation Plans they bought into.

    People with extraordinary credentials and expertise don’t get every job that they go out for. Part of the goal of interviewing is to select for people who are not just qualified, but who will fit into your team and who will fit into your culture (existing or in process of transforming).

  37. anon says:

    To understand the media war, compare the out of state headlines:

    “Del. Freezes School District’s Reform Money” (AP)

    vs. in-state headlines:

    “Christina School District reverses reform plan” (NewsJournal)
    “DOE: Surprised Christina wants out of Race to Top” (WDEL)

  38. pandora says:

    Well, anon, if that were true – that everything has been asked and answered and everything else is commentary – then why are you commenting on this thread?

    Here’s the deal. I have read – or tried to read! 😉 – Kilroy. I have read John Young’s blog. With both of those I find A LOT of “commentary” and a general “Network” feel. So, yeah, it’s okay to have an opinion.

    I don’t live in Christina. My children don’t attend schools in Christina. I don’t have a dog in this race, but since everyone is trying to convince me of something I don’t think my questions are unreasonable. Are they really that difficult to answer?

  39. Venus says:

    cassandra gets it and nails it. the wild card here, was the ace the state holds in freezing the money, when you freeze the process. the biggest foul here was the media exacerbating the event to a doomsday level, when only clarification was needed. however, the pouty interview schtick was a quixotic moment, uh a bit late, when you already sold your souls to the devil in 2009.

  40. Read this blog pandora, really – also a CSD Board member:

    http://www.elizabethscheinberg.blogspot.com/

  41. anon says:

    Markell Pulls Delaware Out Of Race To The Top!!

    Well, actually he didn’t. When Markell was unwilling to meet his Federal RTTT committments, he quietly went to Arne Duncan and got an amendment, and told us about it after it was done.

    So as Markell demonstrates, RTTT is not in fact an ultimatum; it is a process among partners.

    See how nicely it can all turn out when you are working in good faith with civil partners?

  42. pandora says:

    I read the blog, Nancy. From what I read am I wrong in assuming that the real problem exists between CSD board and the CSD super? Did the super overstep the bounds?

    BTW, I’d still like an answer to my questions.

    1. Who wrote the assessment plan? Specifically, the part that assessed, and removed, teachers.

    2. Was there an outcry of unfairness prior to the teacher interviews? Which leads to the next question…

    3. Was the assessment plan reviewed by the parties involved?

    4. Who wrote the interview questions?

    5. Who decided which teachers would have to move to another school?

  43. Geezer says:

    So now your complaint is about the media coverage rather than the governor’s office? C’mon, give it a rest. The only constant here is the insistence that someone other than the board is at fault. It won’t wash, for an obvious reason: John Young has been railing against RTTT for years, and just by coincidence the school district of which he’s board president screws up the process for getting RTTT funds.

    Most of us don’t give a rat’s ass what happens, but stop treating us like fools. Whoever fucked this up, it wasn’t the governor’s office. The problem, as someone noted, is between the CSD administration and board. If someone was looking for publicity out of all this, isn’t it Mr. Young? Isn’t he the one who gave a 15-minute rant and posted it on YouTube?

  44. Venus says:

    Spot on Geezer. Young voted FOR RTTT, but hides behind the ol’ they had a gun to our head excuse. Bloviating now kinda is weenie mode. I believe scheinberg (sp?) was the only one to vote against RTTT when it would have mattered. The train(wreck) has left the station, and Young has nerve to distance himself from that decision. Foul.