Wednesday, January 19, 2011

SFGate: Struggling SF schools ousting half their teachers

This from SFGate:

Three San Francisco schools have begun the unsavory task of replacing half their teachers to fulfill a bargain that got them $5 million each in federal grants aimed at boosting test scores.

Bryant Elementary, Carver Elementary and Everett Middle are among 10 San Francisco schools that landed on the state's list of the 188 lowest-performing schools and are now required to take drastic steps to turn themselves around.

All told, the three schools must replace 26 teachers. Those teachers will get first choice to occupy vacancies left by retiring teachers at other schools. Those who transfer will remain at their current jobs through this school year.

A fourth school, John Muir Elementary, was also required to swap out half its staff, which it accomplished through attrition before this school year began.

Seven other San Francisco schools on the list are also making drastic changes, following one of four reform options under the federal program that allows schools to choose to convert to a charter, close entirely, replace their principal and overhaul instruction methods, or replace half the staff.

27 comments:

  1. "It's probably the least desirable option of all the options," said Deputy Superintendent Richard Carranza. "It wouldn't have been our first choice at all."

    If it's the least desirable, Mr. Carranza, why didn't you decide to convert some schools to charters, one of the four turnaround options?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The unions don't want charters. This is a union town. They control SFUSD.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems like swapping out half the students would have a greater impact.

    ReplyDelete
  4. How about cutting half the central office and hiring more teachers? Get rid of the expensive Superintendent Zone bureaucracy and use the money for children instead of adults. Then move onto such departments as the Knowledge Management.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why didn't they try using all four options and get some variation in the turnaround models?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the union had its way they would replace the principal and overhaul instruction. How does that jibe with the idea that unions call the shots?

    If poor teacher quality is the problem why should the teachers be allowed to get jobs at another school.

    The only option that has any chance of working is the charter, not because it is a panacea, but because it is more agile and less bogged down by legalities.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Reading this blog is like being stuck at a dinner party with a bombastic asshole that doesn't shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is this a guessing game? what are u talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You must be new. I can explain. There's a flamer with an over-the-top blood vengeance for someone named Don, a frequenter blogger. On every thread she bashes him with insults, usually troll or some such thing. It's been on-going for some time and driven half the people away at least. Too bad.

    ReplyDelete
  10. " over-the-top blood vengeance "

    Bombastic, combined with ridiculous exaggeration.

    Many people are sick of him, not just one person.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I won't be back. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm not sick of him. I'm sick of you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Don--I agree with you about half the time, but I support you 100%. She's a wack job. Down with the flamer. Long live the troll.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is getting weirder by the minute.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I support the flamer on this one. She can insult me all she wants in a free society as long as she doesn't cross the line and accuse me of crimes and so forth, which she has done in the past. If this steady stream of insults is how she gets her kicks, well she can go ahead and humor me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Don--I read your post on the middle school thread about the use of the grant money to open pathways. I don't know, is that is an allowable use of the money? If it is, it would jumpstart the effort to provide equity for the feeder system.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Don has a lot of facts, a lot of which are half-true. Nothing wrong with sharing those.

    Don has even more opinions. Some are sound and some are not. Nothing wrong with sharing those.

    The problem is that he has a formula reply to EVERY SINGLE THREAD - "It is the district's fault!", no matter what the thread is. It is repeated 1000 times until the thread is all about him.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Agreed. If we had a thread about menopause , he'd be the first one posting all his opinions about that. Shut up already.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Whose fault is the middle school feeder pathway problem? The parents? The students? It's the district's fault. They made the policy.

    Don pointed out that Richard Carranza is spinning the teacher cuts. It was a valid point. He is spinning it.

    Your objections are invalid and pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  20. menopause can lead to irrationality irritability

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's inconceivable that the owners of these opinions could possibly be of that age.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I do not understand why these schools are legally allowed to have 70%+ socioeconomic challenged students. It is the School Board and SFUSDs fault these schools have failed. I blame them, and partly, the teachers and the admins in each school.
    Over the years, the administrators in each school become hard, numb, and callous to a child's academic need. They are pushed through a school although not proficient in subjects, , behavior problems lead to being expelled because of resource issues and lack of options, and the lack of desire to change prevents it.

    If admins and teachers do not change, neither will the student body. But they still need to lower the % of disadvantaged kids in each of these schools significantly, even if it means a smaller student body.

    I cannot imagine a transformation model working without changing the % of student body and removing the poorest underperforming teachers( those who's kids are not proficient, at the very least) . Every school will need specialists and every child will likely need intervention at these schools. They went for too long as under performers.

    ( forgive me, I'm mobile)

    ReplyDelete
  23. I do not understand why these schools are legally allowed to have 70%+ socioeconomic challenged students. It is the School Board and SFUSDs fault these schools have failed. I blame them, and partly, the teachers and the admins in each school.
    Over the years, the administrators in each school become hard, numb, and callous to a child's academic need. They are pushed through a school although not proficient in subjects, , behavior problems lead to being expelled because of resource issues and lack of options, and the lack of desire to change prevents it.

    If admins and teachers do not change, neither will the student body. But they still need to lower the % of disadvantaged kids in each of these schools significantly, even if it means a smaller student body.

    I cannot imagine a transformation model working without changing the % of student body and removing the poorest underperforming teachers( those who's kids are not proficient, at the very least) . Every school will need specialists and every child will likely need intervention at these schools. They went for too long as under performers.

    ( forgive me, I'm mobile)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Each student is allocated 3,565 per year for three years. I guess this brings these kids up to some other CA spending standards. But 3.3 million to the district in oversight is just sad.

    Some of you hate on Don, but I hear him when he talks cutting administrative spending.

    On the SIG award :
    Check here and search Golden Fleece Awards :
    http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/voiceofsandiego.org/content/tncms/assets/editorial/5/3f/9ea/53f9ea84-b7b4-11df-9a1d-001cc4c03286-revisions/4c81870464bc2.pdf.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  25. I used to work for the district. Layer upon layer of bureaucracy and people doing nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "I do not understand why these schools are legally allowed to have 70%+ socioeconomic challenged students. "

    Because poor people exist, there are a lot of poor people in the city, and the white upper-middle-class f**k off to the private schools. So 56% of the city's intake is low-SES (get free or reduced price lunches). Given that, it's pretty hard for some schools not to be over 75% low-SES.

    A choice mechanism can only go so far 'cos while you can induce poorer families to go a school where most of the kids aren't poor, it is pretty feckin' hard to make an upper middle class family want to go to school with a large percentage of low SES kids.

    The new sorta-kinda Neighborhood assignment will perform worse than the old system, 'cos the poorer parts of the City are in mostly in the SE.

    The diversity element in the previous lottery was regularly complained about here for favoring the great unwashed. You'll see similar complaints about CTIP1 come March.

    Clearer now?

    You could get better diversity with forced assignment, but back in those days when SFUSD had that, it was so hated it drove a lot of the middle class out into the suburbs. On the SFUSD board, Jane Kim was leaning towards something more aggressive for improving diversity, but as then you'd be getting into forced assignment, there was no other support for it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "I used to work for the district. Layer upon layer of bureaucracy and people doing nothing."

    Interestingly enough, the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for American Progress estimated the return on investment for

    SFUSD had one of the best return-on-investment of City districts in the state.

    Stats here, you'll have to download a spreadsheet to get to the actual data:

    http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/educational_productivity/methodology.html

    ReplyDelete