QUOLKE’S CORNER #58
“REPURPOSE” SCHOOLS/LOWEST 5% DESIGNATED BY ODE
Two months after the District’s Transformation Plan was announced to the public, the Board of Education approved the plan by an 8-1 vote on Tuesday, March 9. The unwillingness of the District and the Board to answer many questions and concerns prior to the vote, has once again led to numerous rumors and questions arising throughout the district. This is the first of two Quolke’s Corners that will attempt to answer some of the most frequently asked questions and frames some of the unresolved issues.
WILL STAFFS AT REPURPOSE SCHOOLS HAVE TO RE-APPLY FOR THEIR POSITIONS?
This is an area where the CTU and CMSD disagree on the interpretation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The district has finally begun to discuss their idea and believes that they can have staffs re-apply at “Repurpose” Schools under Article 12 (pg. 61) of the CBA. This Article states: “When new programs/projects are initiated in an existing school, the staff in that building shall have the opportunity to apply and be considered for positions. Following initial selection of program/project staff only vacant position shall be posted.” Under the Transformation Plan, if the district intends to add a new program to each school designated as a “Repurpose” School, this Article could apply. Additionally, Article 12 deals with the process when a new program or school is created: “In the event the District creates a new program or school, the selection committee will consist of a representative from Human Resources, the CTU President or his/her designee, a parent representative, a certificated/licensed teacher, and a community representative.” However, this is complicated in the fact that if the District was creating new schools, the Board of Education and the district management should have been transparent in presenting to each of these communities at the March 9th meeting, that they were in fact, closing each “Repurposed” school and opening them as new schools.
We have been very clear with the district in what contract provision applies. In every discussion we have heard, the district is clear that schools are being “repurposed” and new programs are being added because of chronically poor academic performance and the need to improve academic achievement. Appendix G, Schools Requiring Intervention (pp.216-220) states: “School intervention in the district is intended to help ensure that the district goal of improving student achievement is attained. For a variety of reasons school may fail to demonstrate acceptable levels of performance.” This intervention is provided through the Academic Intervention Team, and is used in our 10 TurnAround Schools and could eventually lead to the process of Reconstitution…a process that all staff could be vacated from the school.
While we have disagreements over the contract provisions guiding this Transformation Plan, it is further complicated by Federal Requirements for schools receiving Title I Funding and what must be incorporated. The Department of Education required every state to identify their schools whose academic achievement is in the lowest 5% in the state or whose high school graduation rate is below 60%. In Cleveland 16 of our schools made that list and are known by the state as Tier One schools.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE SCHOOLS IDENTIFIED IN THE LOWEST PERFORMING 5% BY THE ODE?
School Improvement Grants (SIG) is the term for how Title I dollars are distributed to all states via a federal government formula. Every state was required to identify their lowest performing schools. In Ohio that list was released in February and the Plain Dealer ran an article identifying those schools (a link to that article is at the end of this Q Corner). The complete list of all schools in Ohio that were identified is on the Ohio Department of Education website. Districts receiving these Title 1 funds must BY LAW, at each of the identified schools, utilize one of the following models:
1. TURNAROUND MODEL – Replace principal and rehire no more than 50% of the current staff.
2. RESTART MODEL – Convert a school or close a school and reopen under a charter school operator, a charter management organization or educational management organization.
3. SCHOOL CLOSURE MODEL – Close the school
4. TRANSFORMATION MODEL – Implement each of the following strategies:
a. Replace the principal and work to increase teacher and school leader effectiveness
b. Institute comprehensive instructional reforms
c. Increase learning time and create community schools
d. Provide operational flexibility and sustained support
Our current TurnAround model is an example of what the government calls the Transformation Model. The Federal Government has further restriction on the use of the Transformation Model. In a District that has more than 8 schools identified the Transformation Model can only be used in 50% of the schools. Since Cleveland has 16 identified schools in the 5%, under this scenario only 8 schools could be Transformation while the other 8 must utilize one of the other 3 models. Technically, since 3 of the schools are closing, the 5 remaining schools will need to utilize one of the remaining models. We believe what model is used at each school and what will need to occur is covered under “Schools Requiring Intervention” and must be negotiated. It should be noted, these are SIG dollars, not Race to the Top. Race to the Top dollars can support many of these schools, but SIG was not part of the RTTT Memorandum of Understanding that was agreed to. We should learn whether or not Ohio’s application was approved by early April.
In Union,
David
Link to the Plain Dealer article regarding lowest 5% of schools identified by ODE: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/02/16_cleveland_schools_rated_amo.html