Teachers may take over some schools in Rochester

Rochester schools Superintendent Bolgen Vargas has asked the
Rochester Teachers Association to present plans for schools to be run by
teachers instead of central office administration and principals.

Any
proposals for teacher-led schools would be part of the administration’s new
contract negotiations, which have just started, RTA President Adam Urbanski
told about 200 teachers at a meeting on Monday afternoon. The district could
convert one to six schools into teacher-led schools.

“We have
tried everything else [to improve city schools],” Urbanski said. “I think it
would be a sin of omission to not try it.”

The teachers
listened to a presentation by Kim Farris-Berg, co-author of “Trusting Teachers
with School Success: What Happens When Teachers Call the Shots.”

Farris-Berg
said that there are nearly 70 teacher-led schools throughout the United States
in urban, suburban, rural, and charter school settings. Some have unions and
some don’t. After a close examination of 11 teacher-led schools, Farris-Berg
and her co-author found that autonomy can lead to greater accountability,
Farris-Berg said.

“The trend
has been to get tough with teachers and blame teachers for poor outcomes,” she
said. “But what if teachers were trusted instead of controlled? When teachers
are in a position of authority to make decisions, what you get is an emulation
of successfully run, high-performing organizations.”

Though
teacher-led schools vary in their degree of autonomy, some commonalities
include the ability to hire and terminate, set salaries and benefits, establish
leadership roles, and set policies for their schools — such as student
discipline.

Some of the
outcomes from teacher-led schools are more individualized student learning,
broader use of assessment tools, and greater collaboration between teachers and
students, Farris-Berg said.

She said
that teacher-led schools are not a panacea. But teachers in these schools are
pioneers of a movement that contrasts sharply with current education trends,
she said.

Deborah
Meier, senior scholar at New York University and author of “In Schools We
Trust,” will work with teachers and schools interested in developing a proposal
for teacher-led schools in Rochester.

This article appears in Mar 13-19, 2013.

Without seeing fully-developed, complete, clear details regarding this proposed idea, I would not automatically support, nor oppose the concept of teacher-led schools. However, the article below raises a number of critically important questions.

For example, if teachers, rather than “central office administration and principals” will run schools — then does that mean some of the very high-priced positions that “principals [and especially] central office administrators” currently hold will be eliminated? And if not, then what (exact, specific) type of “new” duties will the freed-up principals and central office administrators perform?

It is also critically important for us to categorically, unequivocally reject the notion that “we have tried everything else [to improve city schools].” In addition to the idea that’s proposed here, there are many, many other things that we have NOT tried. For example, we have not tried developing systemic / systematic (as opposed to piecemeal) pedagogical mechanisms and approaches that focus (with laser like precision) on early literacy-development (reading, writing, math at or above grade level all along the K-12-way) beginning in kindergarten, which is especially important, since we know that so many of our students enter the system (right from the very beginning) lagging far, far below social and academic developmental-levels that they should be at upon entering school.

We also have not tried development and implementation of serious, effective, required, staff education / development, which also needs to be focused with laser-like precision on doing everything necessary and possible to ensure that administrators, teachers, and support staff gain in-depth knowledge, understanding, and genuine appreciation of the collective, historical experiences and cultures of the majority of those whom they teach. I want to be crystal-clear on this point. What I am saying, and what we know is that, with regard to knowledge, understanding, and certainly genuine appreciation (since people are not likely to appreciate anything that that have little or no knowledge or understanding of), there is a definite historical / cultural divide between the majority of Rochester City School District teachers and administrators in particular, and the majority of black, and other students of color, whom they teach. We also know that acquisition/ development of knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the collective-historical-experiences and cultures of one’s students, is an important aspect of effective pedagogy.

Thirdly, we have not tried supporting development of serious, systematic, focused, and at least to some degree, independent mechanisms aimed at helping to organize and engage Rochester City School District parents in decision-making processes (at every level of the education system). The latter point is connected to one of the strangest parts of the article below, i.e., the article does not mention parents at all. Supposedly,according to the content, one of the outcomes of teacher-led schools is “greater collaboration between teachers and students.” What about greater collaboration between teachers and those who are ultimately responsible for students, i.e., parents? We know (without any doubt what-so-ever) that when teachers, and educators in general, and parents build positive and meaningful relationships, the chances that students will be successful are significantly increased. Thus, if the idea discussed in this article represents another of those cases in which top-level RCSD administrators and union representatives plan to use a strictly (ala-All-City-High, bi-lateral approach) in the process of developing the proposed initiative, and not including parents, other than a few hand-picked “representatives” who usually have no real or concrete connections to the masses of parents — then I would oppose the idea on those grounds alone. We are way beyond the days in which administrators and union leaders should be making bilateral decisions about the lives and futures of our children without serious, substantial, parent involvement, especially since we know (without any doubt what-so-ever) that such involvement matters greatly.

Additionally, the following quote is most interesting “After a close examination of 11 teacher-led schools, Farris-Berg and her co-author found that autonomy can lead to greater accountability, Farris-Berg said.” What’s so interesting about it is that there are no details offered regarding the “11 teacher-led schools,” which were “examined” — not even their names.

Also, based on what I have read and heard about her, Dr. Deborah Meier is knowledgeable about urban education. However, I’m not so sure that (if this idea comes to fruition) she should be the only one (exclusively) “working with teachers and schools interested in developing a proposal for teacher-led schools in Rochester.” As far as I know, Dr. Meier does not operate in accordance with African centered perspectives and approaches, which is, as noted above, very, very important. However there are many very knowledgeable scholars in the field of urban education who do possess outstanding African centric perspectives and expertise — such as New York Sate Regent Emeritus, Dr Adelaide Sanford, Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, Dr. Molefi Asante, Dr. Maulana Karenga, and so many more.

Lastly, no matter who is hired for this task, it is vitally important to lay out (in plain public view) right from the start, the total costs, and exactly what the costs are suppose to produce (in specific, fine, details). The last thing we need is another well-intended, super-expensive experiment that produces nothing at all.

4 replies on “Teachers may take over some schools in Rochester”

Howard J. Eagle says:

March 21, 2013 at 5:38 pm

Without seeing fully-developed, complete, clear details regarding this proposed idea, I would not automatically support, nor oppose the concept of teacher-led schools. However, the article below raises a number of critically important questions.

For example, if teachers, rather than “central office administration and principals” will run schools — then does that mean some of the very high-priced positions that “principals [and especially] central office administrators” currently hold will be eliminated? And if not, then what (exact, specific) type of “new” duties will the freed-up principals and central office administrators perform?

It is also critically important for us to categorically, unequivocally reject the notion that “we have tried everything else [to improve city schools].” In addition to the idea that’s proposed here, there are many, many other things that we have NOT tried. For example, we have not tried developing systemic / systematic (as opposed to piecemeal) pedagogical mechanisms and approaches that focus (with laser like precision) on early literacy-development (reading, writing, math at or above grade level all along the K-12-way) beginning in kindergarten, which is especially important, since we know that so many of our students enter the system (right from the very beginning) lagging far, far below social and academic developmental-levels that they should be at upon entering school.

We also have not tried development and implementation of serious, effective, required, staff education / development, which also needs to be focused with laser-like precision on doing everything necessary and possible to ensure that administrators, teachers, and support staff gain in-depth knowledge, understanding, and genuine appreciation of the collective, historical experiences and cultures of the majority of those whom they teach. I want to be crystal-clear on this point. What I am saying, and what we know is that, with regard to knowledge, understanding, and certainly genuine appreciation (since people are not likely to appreciate anything that that have little or no knowledge or understanding of), there is a definite historical / cultural divide between the majority of Rochester City School District teachers and administrators in particular, and the majority of black, and other students of color, whom they teach. We also know that acquisition/ development of knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the collective-historical-experiences and cultures of one’s students, is an important aspect of effective pedagogy.

Thirdly, we have not tried supporting development of serious, systematic, focused, and at least to some degree, independent mechanisms aimed at helping to organize and engage Rochester City School District parents in decision-making processes (at every level of the education system). The latter point is connected to one of the strangest parts of the article below, i.e., the article does not mention parents at all. Supposedly,according to the content, one of the outcomes of teacher-led schools is “greater collaboration between teachers and students.” What about greater collaboration between teachers and those who are ultimately responsible for students, i.e., parents? We know (without any doubt what-so-ever) that when teachers, and educators in general, and parents build positive and meaningful relationships, the chances that students will be successful are significantly increased. Thus, if the idea discussed in this article represents another of those cases in which top-level RCSD administrators and union representatives plan to use a strictly (ala-All-City-High, bi-lateral approach) in the process of developing the proposed initiative, and not including parents, other than a few hand-picked “representatives” who usually have no real or concrete connections to the masses of parents — then I would oppose the idea on those grounds alone. We are way beyond the days in which administrators and union leaders should be making bilateral decisions about the lives and futures of our children without serious, substantial, parent involvement, especially since we know (without any doubt what-so-ever) that such involvement matters greatly.

Additionally, the following quote is most interesting “After a close examination of 11 teacher-led schools, Farris-Berg and her co-author found that autonomy can lead to greater accountability, Farris-Berg said.” What’s so interesting about it is that there are no details offered regarding the “11 teacher-led schools,” which were “examined” — not even their names.

Also, based on what I have read and heard about her, Dr. Deborah Meier is knowledgeable about urban education. However, I’m not so sure that (if this idea comes to fruition) she should be the only one (exclusively) “working with teachers and schools interested in developing a proposal for teacher-led schools in Rochester.” As far as I know, Dr. Meier does not operate in accordance with African centered perspectives and approaches, which is, as noted above, very, very important. However there are many very knowledgeable scholars in the field of urban education who do possess outstanding African centric perspectives and expertise — such as New York Sate Regent Emeritus, Dr Adelaide Sanford, Dr. Gloria Ladson-Billings, Dr. Molefi Asante, Dr. Maulana Karenga, and so many more.

Lastly, no matter who is hired for this task, it is vitally important to lay out (in plain public view) right from the start, the total costs, and exactly what the costs are suppose to produce (in specific, fine, details). The last thing we need is another well-intended, super-expensive experiment that produces nothing at all.
sean says:

March 22, 2013 at 2:20 pm

The teacher’s job is to teach. The administrator’s job is to administer. Let’s leave them where they are.
Judi flanders says:

June 5, 2013 at 12:34 pm

The situation in the city (school district) won’t change because the key issues aren’t being addressed. I talked to teens all over and the ones who have the part time jobs at Wegmans usually are in college and doing well. I do this on my own as I love talking to teens.
Mo Pdot says:

June 8, 2013 at 12:51 am

AMEN HOWARD EAGLE…I COULDN’T HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF!!! Sad to see, but it appears that 9 people “dislike” hearing (reading) the truth. You keep speaking that truth brotha cuz the people that really care about our children are listening and reading!!!