CCSD Sets Up Experienced Teachers to Take the Fall

Nice to see my friend Cyndi on the front page of the P & C, rather than the usual poseurs who claim to be making a difference. She really is. I may need to change my category to "sung" heroes. [See Seasoned teachers wanted in struggling schools.]

Would you believe that CCSD officials have never tried before to point more experienced teachers towards working in its failing schools? What can I say? They admit it themselves.

The reporter is a bit confused about the difference between an experienced teacher and an NBCT--but I'll let that one pass. At least we finally have the statistic that CCSD has been hiding (where its NBCTs are working): "Only 36 of the county's 293 National Board Certified teachers [. . .] work in schools rated unsatisfactory on the state report card."

Now, why would that be? Hmm. Maybe because the incentive money that comes with NBCT certification doesn't require any such commitment from those teachers? I've pointed out previously that a stipulation to work for a certain period in an under-performing school would spread some of that state money to the schools that really need those teachers. I guess the state legislature doesn't want to upset the education apple cart.

In the "Ripley's Believe It or Not" category, we have Superintendent McGinley, who now wields the power to place teachers that was taken away from the constituent boards, pleading that experienced teachers volunteer out of the goodness of their hearts--no other reward, mind you--to go from the relatively tolerable environments they are now in and dive into the great unknown.

Except it's not the great unknown. What's known is that these schools have great difficulty in keeping faculty year after year. You don't need to teach in one of these schools to know why. Just look at some of the comments on the above-referenced article in the P & C's online edition. For example,

As a Nationally Board Certified teacher who has taught in a "failing" school for the last 7 years, I can tell you why good teachers do not stay in these schools. The paperwork required of these teachers is punitive, many of the administrators are not effective, the students are disrespectful and disruptive, and the teachers can drive down the street a few miles and work in a school where they don't have to deal with any of these things--for the same pay.

All of that being said, a good teacher in one of these schools CAN make a difference. My students consistently score well on tests--and they love to learn--despite where they come from. Not everyone can teach in these schools, but if you have the "gift" and can do it--those kids need you!

If you haven't taught in one of these schools, how do you know "you have the 'gift'"? Does being a highly effective teacher in another environment guarantee it? What happens if you don't? Even the head of the New Teacher Project (yes, let's not forget them--the ones who got paid so much by CCSD for failing to recruit the number of new teachers they promised) said he hadn't previously heard of "such an organized emotional appeal." It comes with a recruiting video but not much else.

Some comments did make sense. Even Daly (of the NTP) pointed out that "the district should make those schools worth wanting, . . . . Schools need to have strong team cultures and good academic instruction so that high-performing teachers will want to go there and stay."

And Kent Riddle, chairman of the Charleston Teacher Alliance, "said the district should focus on the bigger issue of why low-performing schools lack quality teachers. School officials should ask teachers why they leave such schools and evaluate whether those issues are ones they can address."

Ask the teachers? What a novel idea! Certainly McGinley doesn't have any firm ideas in mind other than emotional calls to the altar. Her theorizing about financial incentives and guaranteed jobs held in the school left behind is simply pie in the sky by and by.

Next we know, experienced teachers in the district will be blamed for not heeding the call.

NOTE: For a taste of what goes on in Sacramento, California, see Why couldn't they find the teachers they needed? post of March 1, 2008

Post & Courier & the Toya Green Mystery

How did Toya Hampton-Green become the CCSD board member elected from District 20? Notice I didn't say "representing," since Green claims she was not elected to do that.

Running for the school board in 2006, Toya Hampton-Green refused the Charleston City Paper's quiz for candidates, stating, "There's too much at stake in this election to play a guessing game."



The "guessing"would have been regarding the size of CCSD's budget, per-pupil spending, the district's absolute rating on the 2005 state report card, the number of schools in the district, the number rated excellent by the state, and the number rated unsatisfactory by the state. According to reporter Greg Hambrick, Green also described herself as a "businesswoman" (in the business of law, apparently) and "soccer mom."



In this article, Green called the Charleston Plan for Excellence "good"; would refuse to sell the district's office; opposed tuition tax credits; was silent on the role of constituent boards and how to improve schools in low-income areas (even though running as a resident of District 20); and claimed to support charter schools. In a League of Women Voters' profile of the same time, Green stated that her three goals for CCSD were to "increase fiscal accountability and promote more equity among the schools, particularly Downtown"; "achieve better student performance by sound policies set by the Board which better support teachers' mission"; and "build consensus on the Board." Hmm.



In a separate article, the City Paper stated that Green was a "C" candidate but "the fact that she's raised more money than any of the other candidates, including the collected A-Team, is an indication of her support in the community [italics mine]. Like other candidates for District 20, Hampton Green's showed a passion for focusing on improving low-performing schools." It also reported that "the nonprofit Blue Ribbon Committee [a "thinly veiled" arm of the local Democratic party run by the same Katherine Cofer who headed Teach Charleston, a contractor with CCSD]" and "the Business Advocating Change political action committee [BACPAC--an arm of the Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce]" endorsed both Meyers and Green.

The guessing on our part would be, where did Toya Hampton become familiar with American public education? Where did she go to high school? According to an interview in 2004, she stated that she had to "opt for US citizenship" at the age of 18 because of her dual-citizenship with Germany. Most Americans would assume that meant that, because she was born in Heidelberg of American parents, she gained that duality. Actually, in order to have German citizenship, she needed to have one parent who was a German citizen.

In the same League of Women Voters' profile, Green reported that "as part of her father's career in the Army," she had grown up in Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Frankfurt, Mainz, and Wiesbaden, Germany; Tacoma, Washington, and Burke, Virginia. Green has also stated that she is the "daughter of a public schoolteacher."

Consulting my own expert on this matter--that would be my own lawyer-daughter of Green's generation, who has lived several years in Germany and, in fact, gave birth to a child there who does NOT have German citizenship--I confirmed that Green is either confused, overstating her German connections, or both. If she ever had dual citizenship, one of her parents must have been a German citizen. Also, the only reason for giving up German citizenship at 18 would be the compulsory obligation to serve in the German military--that is not required of females. Maybe she had a brother or friend who had to do this.

Green's Charleston connection began when she "took off two years between undergraduate school and law school to work as a team leader and public relations specialist for AmeriCorps, the national service organization," according to the LWV. That's also when she met lawyer Dwayne Green, the son of West Indian immigrants, who grew up in Charleston and plans to become its first black mayor.

Certainly, her in-laws wouldn't have touted the local public school system to her! When they moved from Brooklyn where her husband was born to West Oak Forest [small world department: same street I lived on decades earlier], Dwayne first enrolled at St. Andrew's Elementary, then transferred to Blessed Sacrament for two years, then entered and graduated from Porter-Gaud. His not-rich parents wanted him to get a good education and kept searching for the best.

According to the P & C, "Public school at its best is an authentic reflection of the American way of life, says Toya Hampton Green, a Charleston County School Board member and self-described idealist." Unfortunately, that is also true at its worst. Green has her child safely in Buist Academy, after the child's selection by CCSD's notorious lottery while Green ran for the board. Is Buist "an authentic reflection"? She is quoted as saying that, "seeking a seat on the board was never part of [her] plan," when "motherhood prompted her" to see that "trying to get elected to the board [was] a way of holding herself accountable."

Where did all that campaign money come from? How did she get appointed to so many prominent positions without connections to the community? Why is the Post and Courier so eager to give her a good press? Exactly what has she done on the CCSD board so far besides second Gregg Meyers on every issue?

And has she removed politics as an issue on the CCSD Board, which she originally claimed she was running to do?

I Told You So: $15,250 Per Hire

By my calculations eight months ago, even if all parameters had fallen into place with Teach Charleston, each hire would have cost about $5500.

See:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007: Non-Profit Does Not Mean Non-Profitable
Thursday, July 12, 2007: P & C Discovers the Broad Foundation!
Thursday, August 09, 2007: CCSD: You Mean We Can Do It Ourselves?

Now today's P & C: "District to scrap teacher recruiter: Company hired to find teachers will get $305,000." by Diette Courrege.

"The New Teacher Project was supposed to recruit at least 90 teachers for eight of Charleston County's hardest-to-staff schools, but the nonprofit only found 20 teachers for the district by the first day of school. The school board responded on Monday night by unanimously agreeing to end the district's two-year contract now, one year early."

"'If we had continued the contract [italics added], we would've wasted money,' said board Chairwoman Nancy Cook. 'We've done a better job of recruiting. They didn't follow through on what they said they could do.'" Maybe because there was no great incentive to do so, as I proved previously?

And where is the half funded by the community (as promised last January)? According to Don Kennedy, "the district has raised $27,500 in private donations to help cover that expense. . . . The state also has promised the district a $100,000 grant that could be used toward the contract cost, but the district has not yet received that money." That falls short of half, Don, and what "state" agency has promised this grant?

"Superintendent Nancy McGinley said the project didn't have a clear understanding of the state's teacher certification laws, which meant some of the recruits didn't meet state requirements." Well, whose idea was it to hire them? If they're such experts, why wouldn't they understand the certification laws?

"Charleston also is an expensive airport destination, and prospective teachers often had to pay their way, which was a deterrent to interviewing for a job here, she said." And we didn't know that last January?

"Officials initially sought the services of the New Teacher Project because they were looking for innovative ways to solve the teacher vacancy problem, McGinley said." Those would be nameless officials, right? Ones who had no clue about air expenses and state teacher certification? The school board voted to approve this boondoggle--they bear responsibility here also.

Okay, here's the best part, a McGinley quote: "larger cities are different than Charleston." Good. I hope she remembers that in the future and stops thinking in the Broad-Fellow mode.

CCSD: You Mean We Can Do It Ourselves?

For the edification of those just finding this blog I have reprinted below my posting of last January. This is in response to the Post and Courier's article today on CCSD's success this year in filling teacher slots. The success is truly a turn=around from previous years, with only 37 vacancies remaining at a time when usually 100 or more remain.

No doubt this success is linked to district efforts on many fronts, as Supt. McGinley states.

HOWEVER, the hiring of the New Teacher Project (known as Teach Charleston) is NOT one of them. McGinley acknowledges such. Apparently the number actually signed up by Teach Charleston is unmentionable, but it clearly does not approach the 90 in the contract with this nonprofit.

Is anyone going to admit a mistake here? Teach Charleston has a two-year contract that will be quite profitable even if it never signs another teacher!
See below:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Non-Profit Does Not Mean Non-Profitable

Today's Newsless Courier announces that CCSD has signed a contract with The New Teacher Project (TNTP) [ see their website http://www.tntp.org/ ] to recruit "enough good teachers" for school years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Admirable goal, that.Who cannot sympathize with Stall High School's principal (and students) as they limp through this school year minus three math teachers? Who cannot help but notice that the schools listed to benefit from this recruiting are the "usual suspects."Noticing the numbers, however, forces the reader to contemplate this: for every teacher short of 90 each year that is not recruited, TNTP will pay back the district $1500; however, each teacher being successfully recruited (assuming 200 over two years) will cost the district $5500.DO THE MATH: that's $4000 NOT paid back to the district per recruiting shortfall.Of course, TNTP is a non-profit. What would be profit is paid out in salaries, expenses, and bonuses. Let's not assume that it is not a money-making venture! And exactly what WAS Nancy McGinley's connection to them? The article says "[she] worked with TNTP in Philadelphia." As an administrator? As an employee of TNTP? As a teacher? Not clear, Diette.According to the article, "half of the money [that's $550,000 by my count] will come from the district, and officials want to collect the other half from the community." [italics mine] So far the district seems to have collected $40,000 of that other half, meaning another half-a-million dollars will either be raised from the community OR be paid by the district, since the contract was signed before even 10 percent was raised from the community. Good luck. I hope someone, or several someones, has deep pockets!

P & C Discovers the Broad Foundation!

Only three months after my posting on the Eli Broad Education Foundation and its production of urban superintendents Abelardo Saavedra (for Corpus Christi), Maria Goodloe-Johnson (for Corpus Christi and then Charleston), and Nancy McGinley [see my post of April 5 on "Roving Opportunists"], the P & C broke the news last Monday that the foundation has provided "substantial" resources to CCSD!

Clearly the editors need to pay more attention to this blog. Perhaps their attention was raised when CCSD appointed its THIRD graduate of the Broad Foundation's fellows program for urban educators, Randy Bynum, Sr., who was in its Class of 2007.

The Broad Foundation is active in many other cities, too, including Portland, Oregon. An on-line weekly newspaper, wweek.com, identifies its goals: "to create competition by starting publicly funded, privately run charter schools, to enforce accountability by linking teacher pay to student test scores, and to limit teachers' say in curriculum and transfer decisions." Whether true or not, this list sets up some interesting queries for CCSD. Portland parents are mainly unhappy about the closing of neighborhood schools in the name of progress.

Googling into the efforts of Broad-trained personnel will certainly turn up some disgruntled, in fact, ranting, opponents of the foundation, especially after it joined forces with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. No doubt many, if not all, of these unhappy districts (such as the one in Christina, Delaware), like CCSD, had many problems waiting to be solved when these supers arrived. But Broad's philosophy (and follow-through) should raise some yellow flags (notice I didn't say "red").

To assist them in succeeding, Broad-trained fellows have resources available to them that support their training, and Goodloe-Johnson took full advantage of them. According to Courrege's article, the "foundation has spent more than $100,000 in the district." Thus,

"--The foundation will provide McGinley with a strategic support team of superintendents and leaders who will come to Charleston periodically and work with her on any issue she picks.
"--The foundation paid for an outside expert to come in and look at the district's communications department to see what could be better, and it will do the same for the district's information technology department.
"--The foundation has paid for Jim Huger, an independent consultant, to lead school board workshops.
"--The foundation covered expenses associated with executive coaches for Goodloe-Johnson in her first years as superintendent and McGinley, just beginning her tenure.
"--Brenda Nelson, the school district's new director of community outreach, will apply for the Broad Residency in Urban Education program, which involves two years of management training.
"--The foundation, with the Council of the Great City Schools, gave an $18,500 grant to the district to review operational or instructional processes and capacities for change."

Board members Hillery Douglas and Nancy Cook and training-participant board member Ray Toler are quite satisfied that the foundation's support "has done a good job" in helping schools.

But I'm wondering about the outside consultants. One aspect of Broad Education Foundation training encourages participants to explore the expertise of other national organizations to address specific problems in a district--for example, the New Teacher Project (or Teach Charleston) to recruit teachers for hard-to-fill positions and Community Education Partners to run Murray Hill Academy. No doubt there are other nonprofits either under consideration or in effect. So far the jury is out on whether the money spent on these consultants will reap rewards.

In addition, what are the qualifications of Randy Bynum, Sr., to be chief academic officer, other than being a Broad Fellow?

Try Googling "Randy Bynum."

Do the Math: New Teacher Project Doesn't Add Up

What if you got paid to fail? And the S.C. legislature helps to pay you? Sounds like Alice in Wonderland, doesn't it? Well, how about the New Teacher Project (NTP), contracted by CCSD to provide about 100 teachers per year for two years for the sum of $1.1 million.

Okay, that's $1.1 million divided by 200, which equals approximately $5500 per teacher.

Now, if the organization finds and trains teachers for failing schools that have difficulty recruiting and, especially, retaining teachers, and those recruits effectively teach for, say, at least five years each, that works out as a pretty good, if somewhat expensive, deal for students in failing schools.

But, what if NTP doesn't reach its target? Why, the NTP must pay CCSD $1500 for each position it falls short of the minimum of 90 per year that the contract requires. That means the NTP earns $4000 for each teacher IT DOESN'T FIND!

Right now, according to today's P & C, the project has signed nine teachers, "only 10 percent of the goal," and has 14 "potential hires" more in the works, for a potential total of 23. School begins in about six weeks. The seven middle and high schools in question have about 50 vacancies. The article does not clarify if 50 is the norm for them.

While the site manager for NTP says that she "believes Teach Charleston will meet its goal," let's assume just for argument's sake that instead of signing 90 it signs 50. NTP will then pay CCSD $60,000 for the shortfall, but NTP will have received $550,000 as the contract requires, for a cost to the district of $11,000 per teacher. A bit stiff, don't you think? What if NTP signs only 25?

One would hope that these teachers not only must sign but also must teach for a minimum number of months in order to count as fulfilling the obligation. Who knows?

And where does the state legislature come into play, you ask? In order to pay for Teach Charleston, CCSD "wanted to" pay half and get the community to pay the other half. Right now the community has contributed $27,600, or about 10 percent of its share.

BUT WAIT!

"The community" apparently includes the state legislature, which in its wisdom has granted $100,000 to the Coastal Community Foundation to give to Teach Charleston as part of the pork [read "earmarks"] doled out from its Competitive Grants Committee made up of former state legislators. So in effect the state legislature has given CCSD another $100,000.

No, don't get me wrong. I hope NTP succeeds with these schools that desperately need effective and stable teaching staffs. There are other ways in which the legislature could help, however--even if the State Department of Education, Jim Rex, and the education lobby would blow a collective gasket if it did:

• South Carolina should accept out-of-state certificates in good standing as qualifying those who hold them to teach in SC public schools, and those attempting to change careers through alternative certification should have their process smoothed and made less expensive.


• A hefty proportion of non-need-based lottery scholarships should be awarded to those pledging to teach for at least three years.


• Teachers who take advantage of state funding to get National Board Certification should be required to teach and/or mentor for at least three years in failing schools in order to get the salary bonus.

And individual school districts, such as CCSD, must revamp their support of "newbies" by mentors and principals as well as their discipline programs to prevent the huge percentage of certified teachers who leave the profession prematurely. Stop blaming that drain on low salaries alone.

Non-Profit Does Not Mean Non-Profitable

Today's Newsless Courier announces that CCSD has signed a contract with The New Teacher Project (TNTP) [ see their website http://www.tntp.org/ ] to recruit "enough good teachers" for school years 2007-08 and 2008-09. Admirable goal, that.

Who cannot sympathize with Stall High School's principal (and students) as they limp through this school year minus three math teachers? Who cannot help but notice that the schools listed to benefit from this recruiting are the "usual suspects."

Noticing the numbers, however, forces the reader to contemplate this: for every teacher short of 90 each year that is not recruited, TNTP will pay back the district $1500; however, each teacher being successfully recruited (assuming 200 over two years) will cost the district $5500.
DO THE MATH: that's $4000 NOT paid back to the district per recruiting shortfall.

Of course, TNTP is a non-profit. What would be profit is paid out in salaries, expenses, and bonuses. Let's not assume that it is not a money-making venture! And exactly what WAS Nancy McGinley's connection to them? The article says "[she] worked with TNTP in Philadelphia." As an administrator? As an employee of TNTP? As a teacher? Not clear, Diette.

According to the article, "half of the money [that's $550,000 by my count] will come from the district, and officials want to collect the other half from the community." [italics mine] So far the district seems to have collected $40,000 of that other half, meaning another half-a-million dollars will either be raised from the community OR be paid by the district, since the contract was signed before even 10 percent was raised from the community.

Good luck. I hope someone, or several someones, has deep pockets!