Cuts to All City High’s teaching and non-teaching staff amount to a self-inflicted wound for the Rochester school district, says Adam Urbanski, president of the Rochester Teachers Association. All City High’s instructional staff of about 120 teachers will be cut next school year to about 64, according to current plans, Urbanski says. That doesn’t include reductions in guidance counselors and non-teaching staff, he says.
Urbanski says that the cuts follow Superintendent Bolgen Vargas touting the school as a model for his expanded learning program, and that students and teachers are just beginning to see favorable results.
“You can’t judge how well a school is doing in a year,” Urbanski says.
Vargas proposed All City High primarily to support students in schools being phased out and closed under former Superintendent Jean-Claude Brizard. Many of the students in those schools were at risk of dropping out. All City High offered students a more flexible schedule with an infusion of extra academic and emotional support.
The cuts are attributed to low enrollment, according to a written statement from district spokesperson Chip Partner.
“All City High needs a smaller staff because of declining enrollment — from more than 1,300 students at the beginning of the school year to 870 today to a projected 500 students next year,” Partner wrote.
But Urbanski calls that baffling.
“That’s not the whole story,” he says. “Mid year, the district stopped accepting enrollment.” No reasons were given for that decision, Urbanski says.
Some board members say they’re getting calls and emails about the All City from teachers, students, and parents. And they say the superintendent’s decision caught them off guard.
“Something is very inconsistent about all of this,” says school board member Van White. “All along we’ve been asking for data on All City High, and just two weeks ago we were told everything is fine there.”
But school officials say that All City High was always intended as an immediate option for students floundering or at risk of dropping out of the five schools that are being closed. The school has fulfilled that mission, officials say, and though there are no immediate plans to close All City High, Vargas says he wants to stop creating schools that are permanently in a remedial mode.
The changes at All City High have touched off a much larger concern about the district’s future. Adding to a discouraged and stressed-out teaching staff, Urbanski says, is a prediction among some school and city leaders that the proliferation of charter schools will dramatically shrink the district in the near future. The district’s estimates, according to one school board member, are a reduction between 10 and 20 percent, but some observers say that’s the low end. Urbanski says this would be a disaster for city students and parents.
“It would exacerbate the gulf between the have’s and the have-nots,” he says.
Urbanski says he understands the difficult position Vargas is in, and says that’s why Urbanski supports more innovative schools, such as parent- and teacher-led community schools. But he says that Vargas wants to convert the failing schools to parent- and teacher-led charter “conversion” schools.
“What I want to achieve is giving teachers and parents maximum autonomy and maximum accountability,” Vargas said in a prepared statement. “The conversion concept holds great promise for making significant improvement in student achievement for a district that is running out of time.”
Charter conversions are not like most public charter schools. They operate with some of the same autonomy, but they still function within the district, and they can have unions. A majority of the teachers in the school would have to agree to the conversion, and the Rochester school board would have to approve the change.
Charters typically are not unionized and are fully autonomous from the host district — advantages often touted by charter-school advocates.
But critics of charters say they essentially siphon off the better performing students from the host school system, leaving the district with mainly low-performing, disruptive students — those requiring more and costly special services.
“This seems counter-intuitive to put it mildly,” Urbanski says. “The goal should be to fix the broken system, not opt out of it.”
This article appears in Jun 5-11, 2013.
Parents should be cautious of the charter conversion option. Converted charters are not ‘real’ charters: they have the same contracts and work rules as the district schools. Charters in name only.
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/03/instead_of_a_war_on_teachers_how_about_one_on_poverty/
Here’s a solid article that points out some of the flaws of “reformers” like you Mrs. Remis, and your local education cronies ( Gantt, Warren, Williams, etc). Charter’s are a corporate hustle and don’t deal with the real issue that is holding back many RCSD students, overwhelming concentrated POVERTY. You can call out teacher accountability and unions and support charter schools until you’re blue in the face, but more and more people are realizing the dishonesty and lack of evidence to support this new con game. How is your child’s unionized, non-charter, affluent, suburban school performing?
PLEASE PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE ARTICLE ABOVE. IT IS MOST INTERESTING, IF NOT AMAZING, FOR SEVERAL REASONS:
1) Some of the comments in the article MAY be indicative of the very first time that any semblance of a small fissure of public disagreement has occurred between Dr.’s Vargas and Urbanski — who have pretty much, walked in lock-step (at least publicly) concerning all major education issues — since the time that Vargas was first hand-picked to so-called “lead.” In fact, development and implementation of All City High was obviously an almost exclusive, joint-venture between leaders of the Rochester Teachers Association and Rochester City School District’s top Administration.
2) Surely it is not news that the 7 people who were elected to lead the RCSD are totally out of touch. Instead of them issuing policy directives, and insisting that the highly-paid Superintendent adheres to their directives — they are continuing their long-standing abdication of responsibility, and literally begging the highly-paid Superintendent to keep them informed of what he’s doing. So, we have the 7 people who are elected to lead the school district NOT holding the highly-paid Superintendent accountable for his actions, and you have us (voters and taxpayers) NOT holding the 7 people who are elected to lead accountable for their in-actions. So, NO ONE IS HOLDING ANYONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING. WE LITERALLY HAVE THE BLIND LEADING THE BLIND, AND WE WONDER WHY CHANGE AND IMPROVEMENT NEVER OCCURS? A couple of clear, outstanding examples of the phenomenon referenced above are as follows:
a) “Some board members say the superintendent’s decision caught them off guard.” WHAT???!!!
b) “Something is very inconsistent about all of this,” says school board member Van White. “All along we’ve been asking for data on All City High, and just two weeks ago we were told everything is fine there.” WHAT???!!! Well, now that Board members know (based on the latter quote) that the highly-paid Superintendent has essentially been lying to them — what do they intend to do about it? And, if Board members follow their long-standing, normal pattern of not doing anything about it, what do we (voters and taxpayers) plan to do about the fact that they are not going to do anything about it? Will we all just continue the long-standing pattern of no one holding anyone accountable for anything? When will heads roll?
3) There are some statements in the article that are disingenuous (to say the least), and designed to bamboozle and hoodwink the public into believing that some type of magical transformation has occurred. The following is a classic example: “But school officials say that All City High was always intended as an immediate option for students floundering or at risk of dropping out of the five schools that are being closed. The school has fulfilled that mission, officials say,…” WHAT???!!! Are we to believe that there are no longer any students who are “floundering or at risk of dropping out?”
4) The article also contains some brand new language, which the writer seems to be attempting to palm off as part of the norm. It is not. For example, we have heard, and read general rhetoric concerning the idea and possibility of future, “teacher-led-schools,” but there hasn’t been any mention of parents being a part of leadership until now. Thus, based on the following quotes, apparently someone has had an epiphany, and realized that, with regard to leadership, it’s critically important to include parents: “Urbanski says he supports more innovative schools, such as parent-and teacher-led community schools. But he says that Vargas wants to convert the failing schools to parent-and teacher-led charter conversion” schools.” I repeat, the term “PARENTS” in the latter quotes is BRAND NEW LANGUAGE. Yet, (based on past rhetoric), it is my unequivocal view that parents need to be very cautious, and even suspect. That is, we have heard TALK in the past about “shared leadership and decision-making,” but for the most part, it has boiled down to nothing more or less than just TALK. Additionally, in my humble, but firm view, it is important for us to reject the idea, and past practice of hand-picked parents being assigned as our so-called “leaders” (such as, for example, many of those who are part of the so-called District Parent Council) who are clearly disconnected from the vast majority of RCSD parents and guardians. Instead, we must insist on a completely democratic process that provides equitable opportunities for involvement and engagement of ALL RCSD PARENTS AND GUARDIANS. According to information in the article, there is already a serious, potential, fundamental problem with Vargas’s idea of “parent- and teacher-led charter conversion” schools,” i.e., “A majority of the teachers [BUT NOT THE PARENTS] in the school would have to agree to the conversion…”
Indeed, parents and guardians, especially those whose children are struggling the most, should be skeptical of any type of charter school arrangement — because one thing is crystal clear: Charter schools definitely “siphon off the better performing students from the host school system, leaving the district with mainly low-performing, disruptive students — those requiring more and costly special services.”
It is important to give credit where credit is due. If he is really serious, Urbanski is correct about one thing: “The goal should be to fix the broken system, not opt out of it.”