BOE Meeting 10/10

It was wonderful to see the community come out for last night's BOE meeting. There were more than Lakeside parents in the audience supporting those brave enough to speak their opinions. I hope more people can make it to next week's meeting (Wed, Oct 17 @ 7) where the community will have the chance to comment on the two Roosevelt Boundary variations. My opinion of the Roosevelt plan is that the volunteer potion is excellent. I will reserve comment on the rest because I have not had time to really examine the maps yet. I am concerned that the removal of the Sawyer Creek area will create more tension toward the Town of Algoma because now it really is all about them, so to speak. I am also concerned about Roosevelt. While it looks like they will get to keep their school, they will now be bussed for 4-12 where many students currently walk.

Below is the copy of comments I made at last night's meeting. I have not seen the replay but have gotten much feedback already, both positive and constructive. I did read fast (years on the debate team) to fit a lot into five minutes. I apologize for the view of my shirt. Straight on it was not that revealing, but the cameras are mounted in the ceiling and I tend to lean into the microphone, so more showed than I wanted. [blush]

There are three points I would like to address tonight. The first is the use of Ruby Payne. I agree with Payne that there needs to be awareness by teachers and administrators of the affects poverty can have on academics. I also agree that teachers need to meet students on the students’ levels. I do not believe that we should expect our teachers to teach our children how to be middle class. That leaves the impression that we are punishing the victims of poverty. Payne stereotypes by stating that poor mothers turn to prostitution to get money and poor fathers are absentee, alcoholic, abusers. An upper class person should learn to cook gourmet and hire a decorator. Middle class people should know how to set a table properly and use a credit card. She absolves herself of responsibility for these statements by stating that there are exceptions. Research from the last 30 plus years, shows that Payne’s theory is actually the exception. Her bestseller, written in a week and published without benefit of peer review by experts, offers no solutions except that teachers need to teach poor kids how to be middle class because that is the predominant group most teachers belong to. Should we also teach our black, Hmong, and Hispanic children to be white because that is the dominant racial group most teachers are a part of? If we take the words “poverty” and “poor” out of Payne’s books and replace them with “black” and “Hispanic,” we would call her a racist.

Payne also writes articles in support of NCLB, which is a nightmare for educators. Of course she supports NCLB that is what keeps her in the upper class picking out decorators at the expense of desperate, cash strapped school districts.

A comment was made at the retreat that UWO uses Payne’s book. UWO uses Payne’s books as a “what not to do in education.” I contacted Marguerite Parks, the Chair of the Educational Foundation at UWO. She stated that she was just completing yet another article in opposition to Ruby Payne.

Schools that use Payne do not rely solely on her work. Some are regretting putting their eggs in her basket. Others, according to the US Dept of Ed, use Payne as an awareness tool. Those schools each use about a dozen programs to help raise achievement.

I encourage you to look at further vetted scholarship and research when deciding how to improve achievement. A book I would recommend is by Dr. Jawanza Kunjufu called An African Centered Response to Ruby Payne’s Poverty Theory. I would also recommend you read Paul Gorski’s work on poverty. Use Payne if you must, but do not rely on her alone for the sake of our children and our future.

The second point I would like to address is the boundary issue. I am offering an additional idea that does not include an attendance area and may actually improve educational opportunities and save the district money. Move East High into North as a school within a school like we did with Sunset and Tipler. We would save $40,000 per year for the lease and any other expenses that come with renting the Eagle’s Club. That money could offset the internal construction already planned at North. We would be able to offer East students more opportunities without making them give up their autonomy or the benefits they have gained in their current school structure. The SES of East would not affect North because East would still exist as a separate school like EAA and ALPS Charters. However, East can contribute to enrollment in classes creating more opportunities for all of the students. We would also be creating a least restrictive environment for East students that is inclusive. Because East is a Charter school and transportation is provided by the students’ families. Enrollment at East is 80 students. Combine that with Becker’s idea of asking for volunteers and marketing the great opportunities at North and we could end up with a waiting list for North. There is no need for redrawing lines or grand fathering. Teachers would be near their colleagues for collaboration. And if we find that we must change which buildings we are planning on keeping, this could still be done and is have an immediate impact.

My final point is that I am resigning from the CRT. I can no longer be part of a process that is more about politics and personalities than about our children and facilities. This is supposed to be a long-range-facilities plan. When was the last time anyone actually discussed the facilities? I have stuck with this for a year hoping for the best. I am to the point that I fear for our children’s futures. I fear for our district’s teachers and the facilities they work in if we continue down this road. I see no concrete, measurable goals in this process. I see our community turning against itself more than ever over this plan. I hear BOE members spout poverty as only one factor when, in fact, it is the ONLY factor. This process was supposed to look at the facilities plan and available research and draw a conclusion. Instead there is a conclusion and you are searching desperately for anything to support it no matter how flimsy or how dangerous to the achievement of our children. I feel that as long as I have these fears that our children have stopped being THE factor, I can no longer be part of this process. I will still stay involved and continue to be informed, but I will not have my name attached to this mess. For those who would applaud my service and mourn my resignation, I thank you for understanding the courage it took to make this difficult decision to give up on something I had placed so much hope in. Good Luck and thank you.