Of the two redesign plans for our two Level 4 schools only one was accepted Harrington and they get a grant for 1.1 million dollars while Cobbett's plan was rejected. They get a consolation prize of 367,000 and a free trip back to the drawing board.
At the LC meeting Doc Latham was bewildered ad perplexed that one could be approved and not the other since they were almost identical plans. Duh, they are two DIFFERENT schools.
I was at this meeting and didn't understand the full impact of what I was hearing. Upon further investigation though, I have a better understanding of how epically we failed even though we are walking away with a total of 1.5 million dollars - we could have had more. Springfield walked away with $11,184,710.00 to be divided between eight schools. What could Lynn have done with $11,184,710.00?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the DOE's press release (www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=6046), "A total of 82 schools were eligible to apply in the second round, 27 of which submitted complete applications." Were all five of our schools qualifies to apply? Me thinks so. So why didn't they? And if they did - why didn't they get approved? The press release includes some hints.
"Following a comprehensive review process that included face-to-face interviews with district and school officials and an assessment of their capacity to do the work necessary to improve student achievement..." Was this why Lynn didn't receive funding for all five of it's Level 4 schools? Did the DOE conduct these interviews and determine that the school officials and their "almost identical" (Doc Latham) plans did not have the capacity to do the work necessary to improve student achievement?
All of the Level 4 schools had one of four redesign models to choose from. Harrington chose the Transformation model, which requires increased learning time and new evaluation systems for principals and teachers. Maybe our other four Level 4 schools would have received money if they had opted for another redesign model, all of which are more difficult for the school department to walk away saving face.
They could have chosen: the Turnaround model, which requires that at least 50 percent of the staff be new to the school; the Restart model, in which an educational management or charter organization will assume primary responsibility for turning around the school; and School closure.
While I do not want to see anymore layoffs, nor do I want any more of our schools to close, I do think that the Restart model has some merit, especially if our own KIPP is the charter organization to take the helm. According to 2009 AYP numbers (http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ayp2009.aspx?mode=school) KIPP has the third highest AYP grade in English and the highest AYP grade in Math and is touting an increase in Proficient/Advanced English MCAS scores from a pre-KIPP 29% to a post-KIPP 83% and an increase in Proficient/Advanced Math MCAS scores from a pre-KIPP 14% to a post-KIPP 74% - well the numbers speak for themselves (http://www.kipplynn.org/schoolresults.html). I think it is also important to note that the children of KIPP are of the same socioeconomic and cultural background as the rest of Lynn.
We only had two 'worst' schools last year, so only Harrington and Connery were REQUIRED to submit a turnaround plan (see Maria Carrasco - Lynn School committee on Facebook page for link to plans) - Springfield was 'worse' than Lynn so had to do 8 plans. The $1.1 million is for Harrington School to do what the plan prescribes. Grant money has conditions - it is not gravy money per se. You want the schools to be upgraded work to getting more businesses in Lynn like GE that pays $1 million in property taxes a year that Lynn spends as it wishes. Wal-Mart is paying $150k a year - we need more businesses not more bad schools.
ReplyDeleteSo under Doc Latham we lost three more schools to Level 4 status? Hmm. That's telling.
ReplyDeleteWhat I think we need more then more businesses is more taxes from existing businesses. 150k is nothing for Wal*Mart to be paying. How about instituting business taxes to the non-owner occupied three family apartment buildings?
Good Idea!
ReplyDelete