Erich Martel
An open letter to councilmembers on the Board of Education’s new initiatives
May 2, 2004

DCPSWatch Home

Major Areas
DC Public Schools
Mayoral Takeover
Special Education

State Education Agency
State Education Office
Vouchers
WTU
Wilson S.H.S.

Calendars
Board of Education
School Year

Columns
Elizabeth Davis
Ron Drake
Erich Martel
Nathan Saunders

Directories
Schools

Letters

Links

Organizations
DC Education Compact
Parents United
Proposition 100%

Press

Search

DCWatch Home

The purpose of this report is to try to answer the question,

This is a timely question, since the BoE intends to allocate funds for this investment by abolishing teaching and other professional staff positions.

I have read the "Proposed 2005 Operating Budget" and the transcripts of former Supt. Massie's & then-Acting Chief Academic Officer (now Acting Supt.) Rice's budget testimonies before the City Council Education Committee on April 19, 2004.

Questions that the BoE and administration should answer are highlighted. Program descriptions written in future-descriptive, feel-good language are no justification for the drastic step of eliminating teaching positions. Such language is designed to imply future success and discourage critical review. The Council should require the BoE to provide full and extensive documentation of the three programs it plans to fund through the abolishment of professional staff positions.

My questions address the need for specific information and details about the proposed new expenditures and for apparent inconsistencies in the budget request and testimonies to be clarified. Given DCPS's abysmal performance, details and justification should be required for every academic decision. This is not asking too much

I will examine and/or propose the following:

1. The false promises of the Business Plan should be challenged, not diplomatically skirted. They are evidence of the need for the Council to hold the BoE accountable for full details of all programs it intends to implement and detailed documentation of success in DCPS or elsewhere.
2. Cut the $4.1 million for "Reforming Senior High Schools" (CTE Academies);
3. Explore legal means of redirecting federal funds for the DCPS CTE Office toexisting vocational education programs, e.g. computer instruction, home economics, etc.
4. Reduce or eliminate funds to Transformation Schools ($2.0 million) pending a report on the successes and failures, school by school;
5. Eliminate questionable components of the literacy initiative to ($13.3 million);
6. DCPS has spent exorbitant sums on a variety of software programs and systems. in the past five years (not including Student Information System software & hardware). DCPS needs to provide a detailed analysis of these recent purchases and explain why they are inadequate for supporting the literacy initiative. Some of the requests appear to be overlapping or even redundant.

The Business Plan, first released in 2001, is nothing but a list of timetables and goals. Goals are fine, if realistic and tied to specific diagnoses of existing problems and the concrete specifics for addressing the problems and meeting the goals. These aren't; they were meant to deceive or were written by officials completely out of touch with reality. Like the deficient academic standards, especially in history and the social studies, the refusal of DCPS officials and BoE Members to act as if they are quality documents undermines the credibility of other initiatives.

The Business Plan (page 89 in the 2005 Budget Proposal) projects a rise (from 2001 to 2006) in the combined SAT score average from 822 (in 2003 it was 800!) to an "expectation" of 1000 and an "aspiration" of 1100, an almost 200-300 point increase. Were that to occur, people would be breaking down the doors to get into DCPS.

It alsoprojects a 25% rise in the graduation rate and in the number of seniors taking the SAT. It is common knowledge, that increases in the number of test takers invariably LOWER system-wide averages, since the bulk of new test takers usually come from groups of lower performing students whose school performance [and, therefore, new SAT results] traditionally was not good enough to prepare them for college.

In addition, elsewhere on the DCPS website is the BoE'sFall 2003 "Facilities Master Plan Update," which projects a very sobering five-year enrollment decline of 6,000 students and an equivalent charter school growth. This isnot what one expects of such historic SAT increases.

This document projects future capital (buildings) needs and future student enrollment, based on recent enrollment trends. Projections of capital needs are tied to concrete specifics of competing demands for limited resources; whereas, this discipline of real world data has little effect on DCPS academic projections, since their consequences don't fall in a measurable manner on the budget, just immeasurably on children.

This is typical of programs and policies developed by DCPS central staff and uncritically rubber stamped by the BoE. Ifthe BoEcan be sodetached from realityand so willing to approve any illusion of future improvement without demanding evidence of how it will be achieved, then no responsible public official should trust any plans they propose. They must demand the complete details of all planned expenditures.

Why are DCPS officials and the BoE continuing to promote this plan?
How do they explain the discrepancies between it and the Master Facilities Update?

Dr. Rice's testimony unfortunately confirms the intention to implement the "small learning communities" in each high school.

Thehigh school reform plan (the 10 CTE Academies), which claims to "prepare students for post-secondary education and career readiness," will require all students to lock into one of ten "academies" organized around arbitrarily lumped together "industry/career clusters." Instead of a foundation in core subjects, students will be forced to take pseudo "career readiness" courses.

The Academy of Human Services is one such "industry/career cluster." It will supposedly"provide students with a strong academic background and specialized understanding and knowledge of concepts and skills in the career areas of cosmetology and barbering, teacher and counseling education and childcare and development (sic)." The logic of that cluster defies explanation!

These career academies have been around since the 60s, esp. in Pennsylvania. They are grossly overrated. DCPS has had small in-house academies since the mid-1980s in a number of schools. They tend to attract the more motivated students, e.g. those at Wilson, Dunbar's Math & Science, etc. However, when every student in a high school is required to be in an academy, then one is merely rearranging and dividing the existing school population into multiple mini-schools, whose pathways will resemble the traditional "track" and make it more difficult for kids to take courses out of their pathways.

The ultimate question of school performance depends upon the school climate or culture. Is it focused on learning and the attitudes that support learning? That depends on the leadership of the principal as the chief local school officer and what is required (not simply "expected") of all staff. A school divided into in-house academies will be no better than one without academies. The motivated kids and their parents will quickly figure out which academies are centered on real learning and which ones are jokes. That's no different than kids choosing a schedule with easy teachers or demanding ones.

The only thing that prepares kids for future jobs & college is core math up to precalc & calc, core science courses, core history, literature, two or more years of a foreign language, etc. These "career prep" courses are pseudo courses, nothing more. For example, why would a student in the "teaching pathway" in the Human Service Academy take a "career prep course" in teaching, when he or she is reading at 5^th grade level or is still struggling with division and fractions in a course called Algebra I? Just what would this student be teaching or pretending to teach?

Look at the other "academies" and "pathways." Each one covers a range of jobs from highly technical and skilled to unskilled walk-ins, the typical McJob. The CTE literature purports to link students to real careers, but its descriptions are all tentative and conditional:

• "Establish clear measures of success: Determine measurable indicators of success..."
• "Identify current and future workplace needs"

Why is DCPS implementing a program based upon "future workplace needs," when they have yet to "identify" them?

The biggest single item in this portion of the budget is for a "state of the art data system that captures student and program data" - $1 million; and training teachers and principals to use it - $150,000 (p. 45).

QUESTIONS:

Why can't the existing or new student academic database (eSYS or whatever) be used?
What "state of the art data system" is DCPS planning to purchase for this purpose?

This program was initiated in SY 2003-2004 in Anacostia, Eastern & Woodson High Schools. Teachers in Anacostia H.S. report that academy classes were forced to relocate in the new wing (1970s) open space, where the noise from different classrooms and makes teaching very difficult for all. Every time a teacher leaves his or her room, everything important has to be stored and locked, since there are no classroom doors. A request to Dr. Currie's office for closed rooms was unsuccessful.

3. Explore legal means of redirecting any federal funds for the DCPS CTE Office to existing vocational education, e.g. computer instruction, home economics, etc. The federal funds used to support the CTE office should (if legally possible) be redirected to support other needs, e.g. computer instructor, home economics, real vocational education (Phelps or whatever???). If that is not possible, I would still urge the dissolution of that section to send those people packing, since that program is not just useless, but creates barriers to real learning and academic improvement. As one prominent observer of DCPS put it, that program is "garbage."

There's nothing wrong with turning down funds, if there is a valid reason that is thoroughly explained and documented.

The Academic Performance Database System (APDS) on the DCPS website, which lists SAT9 scores from 1999 to 2003, shows mixed results for the Transformation or T-Schools. Some have improved from 2002 to 2003; some declined; others remained about the same.

If DCPS wishes to give this program more money, it should provide the Council with a detailed evaluation of the programs in each school and offer an explanation for improvements, declines or stagnation.

In his testimony before the Council, Dr. Rice refers to the recommendations of the Council of Great City Schools Report, which have resulted in

• "a full partnership with Houghton Mifflin Publishers to provide a revised reading program recommended by the COGCS; adopted a locally developed research-based reading and writing program by IN2Books;" and
• "entered into an agreement with EduSoft, web-based software, that provides very prompt progress assessment data for students, teachers, administrators and parents" (Rice, Transcript of Testimony, 4/19/04; pp. 3-4).

The Council of Great City Schools Report recommended Nation's Choice, Open Court (SRA McGraw-Hill) and Trophies (Harcourt Brace). Among reading specialists (which I am not) who are committed to the scientific approach to reading instruction, i.e. decoding/phonics, supported by the NICHD National Reading Panel report, Open Court is preferred. Please look at the following website, where reading specialist, Prof. Bruce Murray, compares the 2002 Open Court with the 2003 Houghton-Mifflin: http://www.auburn.edu/%7Emurraba/HMvOC.html

In his summary, he writes:

"Of the basal reading programs I've reviewed, Open Court offers the best basal reading series for learning to read given a typical population of elementary school children. It is a much stronger program than Houghton-Mifflin for teaching phoneme awareness. Though the two programs offer comparable phonics instruction, Open Court offers more and much better decodable text reading practice. Open Court presents more coherent fluency instruction in grade two and better-conceived summarization instruction in grade four."

DCPS should explain how it made its decision. If the new HM "Nation's Choice" is superior to the previous HM Reader, that should be explained - in detail.

In his testimony, Dr. Rice describes the

"$4.8 million to be used for exemplary school staffing to support literacy. Based on the experience of urban districts, such as Chicago, Philadelphia and Houston, as well as our pilot program with 14 elementary and 4 secondary schools, the training and placement of high quality literacy coaches in each of the elementary schools is critical …"

"The literacy coaches will be trained centrally to assure full understanding and implementation of the core reading program" (Rice, Transcript of Testimony, 4/19/04; p. 12).

QUESTIONS:

How many reading programs are being described here?

• HMP will "provide a revised reading program" and
• In2Books will provide a "locally based … reading and writing program."

What is the difference between each?

• Grade levels served by each?
• Teacher training required by each?
• Who provides the teacher training for each?
• What texts each one uses? - - ancillary materials?
• To what extent are they software based or software linked?

How will the existing Voyager program that has cost DCPS a great deal of money fit in with these two programs?

• What will its function be once the other one or two are implemented in a building that currently uses Voyager?
• Could Voyager pick up the software component of EduSoft?
• What does EduSoft do that Voyager doesn't do?

What are the factors for deciding which one will be used in a given school?

Can Dr. Rice provide the Council with a complete description of each program AND documentation of each one's track record?

Regarding the "$4.8 million to be used for exemplary school staffing to support literacy," can Dr. Rice

• describe what exactly "exemplary school staffing" is, how it was evaluated, etc., and
• provide "evidence of the experience" of
  • Chicago, Philadelphia & Houston?
  • "our pilot program with 14 elementary and 4 secondary schools"?
    • by listing each school, a description of the staff member's assignment and how that person was assigned to support literacy (trained other teachers; one to one with students; worked with small groups of students, etc.)

From 1997 to June 2001, reading research and specialist Louisa Moats ran the NICHD-NIH K-2 Early Childhood reading intervention program in 8 DCPS elementary schools. She trained literacy coaches.

QUESTION:

• Can Dr. Rice provide the Council with the specifics of how DCPS has taken advantage of the foundation that Dr. Moats left in each of the schools, including making use of the literacy coaches she trained?

For example, the FY Operating Budget, under "Related Services" (p. 41) calls for DCPS to

"Conduct research and data analysis and establish an [READING ?] assessment tool that is developmentally and grade-level appropriate measuring student achievement." and:

"Provide a diagnostic testing and developmental screening tool for teachers and data that can be analyzed and reported (sic)."

SERIOUS CONCERN: The term "developmentally appropriate" is commonly used by those who oppose the phonics method, which is fully and accurately described on pp. 41-44 of the CGCS report). This implies that the central office staff member who wrote this does not understand phonics instruction or is opposed to it.

"Developmentally appropriate," like "multiple intelligences," is one of those terms that appears to be sound until it is more closely examined:

QUESTIONS:

• What objective tests are there to determine a child's "developmentally appropriate age to learn to read? How does one determine which of Howard Gardner's eight "intelligences" is the student's strong "intelligence? And then, having made that arbitrary decision, how is that child to be differently taught than one with a different "intelligence"?
  It ends up with teachers making impressionistic decisions.
• This is not an idle concern: See the DCPS Ad for "K-12 Reading Content Specialist" (sent as a separate attachment) that was posted on the DCPS website from January 8-30, 2004. It was posted after the CGCS report was delivered to the BoE, Dr. Massie and Dr. Rice and posted on the DCPS website; and after Michael Casserly's op ed article in the Washington Post. Yet the ad does not specify that the reading content specialist, responsible for implementing reading instruction, must be familiar with scientific reading instruction as required by NCLB.

SERIOUS CONCERN: Why is DCPS planning to develop a reading assessment tool, when a number of good ones are available "off the shelf"?

The same concern holds true for (p. 41) the following:

$375,000 - "Expand reading department to develop rigorous and extensive reading curriculum and standards;"

QUESTIONS:

1.  Why is there a budget item "to develop … curriculum and standards," if HMP is providing a "revised reading program"; and
   In2Books is providing "a research based reading and writing program"?
2. The CGCS report criticizes the multiplicity of reading policies, programs and practices.

DCPS has a terrible record in the area of curriculum and standards development. When excellent standards and curricula are available, the wisest course is to purchase what's best0

The 2005 Proposed Budget recommends:

"Implement a 9^th grade reading initiative and institute new reading incentives, campaigns and contests." (p. 40) $1.3 million

This is a proposal that must be questioned. Ninth grade reading instruction is an immensely greater challenge than in the early grades. There is a lack of good instructional materials that will take a 9^th grader (who may be 16 or 17 years old) through the formative decoding steps in age appropriate, i.e. subject matter, reading materials. It also calls for small classes.

QUESTIONS:

• What texts are to be purchased?
  What is the evidence of their effectiveness with 9^th graders?
  How will the teachers be trained? - - by whom?

Between 1998 and 2001 DCPS purchased computerized reading programs (Voyager) and then purchased reading materials that were not aligned. This could have been avoided, had the academic officials consulted with Dr. Louisa Moats, whose NICHD office was around the corner from the Chief Academic Officer and Early Childhood Director. They didn't.

Thus, there is good reason to question the purchase decisions.

For each item, the Council should request detailed documentation of expenses, system functionality and capability, etc. VERBAL EXPLANATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. DCPS & THE BoE WILL NEVER PROVIDE PROOF OF THEIR POLICY AND PROGRAM DECISIONS UNTIL THEY ARE FACED WITH THE LOSS OF FUNDING:

1. $1.15 million: "Design & implement a state of the art data system that captures student and program data." & "Train teachers and principals on how to use the new technology and data to improve performance outcomes."
   (From proposed "Core Initiative No. 2, Reforming Senior High Schools," (aka: small SY 2005 Budget, p. 45).
2. "entered into an agreement with EduSoft, web-based software, that provides very prompt progress assessment data for students, teachers, administrators and parents" (Rice, Transcript of Testimony, 4/19/04; pp. 3-4).
3. How will the existing Voyager program that has cost DCPS a great deal of money fit in with these two programs since SY 2000-2001 or earlier?

• What will its function be once the other one or two are implemented in a building that currently uses Voyager? (see contract below)
• Could Voyager pick up the software component of EduSoft?
• What does EduSoft do that Voyager or eSyS doesn't do?

4. KidBiz from Achieve3000. (see contract below)
   DCPS purchased this software system for 50,000 students in 2001.
   What is the status of this purchase?
   Why did DCPS purchase this software, when it was already using Voyager?
   50,000 students in 2001 were approximately 70-75% of DCPS students.

"KidBiz3000 to Provide Full Line of Online Educational Programs to Washington DC Public School System
KidBiz3000 Receives Contract Award for 50,000 Students

"Washington, DC, July 15, 2001 - KidBiz3000 announced today that the Division of Academic Services for the Washington DC Public Schools will facilitate the purchase of KidBiz web site subscriptions for 110 Washington DC schools. The schools, which service over 50,000 students, will begin using the KidBiz3000 product line during the upcoming school year.

"Dr. Howard Brown, director of the DCPS TANF Programs and facilitator of this effort, says that he is excited to see KidBiz3000 become a part of the online package that he offers his schools, and he recognizes that added value to the KidBiz product. "Giving kids the basics of reading is not enough. They need to have a reason to read every day; KidBiz offers an applied reading incentive to students of all ages. And the reading level news articles demonstrate how effectively KidBiz can be used in any classroom environment.

"According to Dr. Susan Gertler, President and Chief Educational Officer of KidBiz3000, this is an important step for the DC public schools. "The DC schools are well situated to take full advantage of what KidBiz has to offer. The schools are very well stocked with computers and state of the art equipment, which will help with the implementation of the KidBiz3000 program.""

(http://www.achieve3000.com/news_7-15-01.php)

5. The following are all hardware or software contracts from the DCPS Website: "Office of Contracts and Acquisitions: Awarded Contracts Status Report"

I only list contracts with the Office of Academic Services and TANF. There are many others that aren't listed.
(Please Note: This list is incomplete. DCPS should be required to post ALL contracts that are awarded. For example, the contract with Gardiner, Kamya & Associates to do a review of high school academic records, which started as a $62,000 contract in October 2002 and was quickly expanded, is not to be found on the website)

6. What is the status of the eSys database that DCPS has been planning to install?
   Can this database also do the data analysis that EduSoft is supposed to do?
   In fact, when is this system supposed to replace the existing POISE (aka Neptune)
   Student Information System?

COMMENT ON DOCUMENTATION

NB: Documentation does not consist of listing the places where a program has been used. Nor does it consist of a general reference to the CGCS report's recommendations. Full documentation requires citation of a study, a report, including statistical data, so that anyone, such as a Council Member or parent can independently confirm the accuracy of the claim. (Please remember: this is a large budget item that promises to improve reading instruction AT THE COST of teachers losing their jobs. The world of education is notorious for claiming research that is at best anecdotal or uncritical citation of other sources. See the Abell Foundation's study of Maryland's teacher certification requirements: www.abell.org for a good example of claims, which, when checked, turned out to be of inaccurate, misquoted or erroneous).

Back to top of page

DCPS Vacancy Announcement

AREA OF CONSIDERATION: Open

TITLE: CONTENT SPECIALIST (K-12 Reading), EG-1720-15

REQUESTING OFFICE: Office of the Chief Academic Officer, Office of Standards, Curriculum and Professional Development

SALARY RANGE: $72,498 - $93,441 (Adjustments based on experience verification)

DUTIES:

• Applies established criteria to reading curriculum initiatives for completeness, soundness of DCPS goals, and suitability

• Provides support services in the implementation of PK-12 reading curriculum by obtaining information, explaining procedures, and performing assessment functions

• Develops core assignments, rubrics, pacing charts, curriculum linkages, lessons, units, mid-term exams, and end of course exams to align with the SAT-9 and other alternative methods used to determine student achievement

• Works to ensure that professional development translates into classroom practice through on-site and classroom monitoring, coaching, and technical assistance

• Establishes a communication network for disseminating pertinent reading information

• Recommends approval or disapproval of reading curriculum initiatives, and prepares necessary supporting documentation for review by the Assistant Superintendent or designee

QUALIFICATION STANDARDS:

A. Master’s Degree and progressively responsible experience in education with five years of specialized experience at least at the next lower level.

OR

B. Bachelor’s Degree, certification in reading and at least five full academic years of professional teaching experience. This experience is defined as full and primary responsibility, under general supervision, for instruction of assigned students in an accredited school or institution. This includes responsibility for preparing and presenting lessons and for evaluating students’ progress, including a determination of the students’ success or failure.

OR

C. Three years of progressively higher-level graduate education from an accredited college or university leading to a PhD degree or equivalent degree.

Combinations of successfully completed education and experience may be used to meet the requirements for this position.

RANKING FACTORS:

Please address the following ranking factor on a separate sheet of paper. Only applications that are accompanied with ranking factors attached will be considered for employment.

1. Mastery knowledge of implementation styles of various instruction methods including technology integration and utility skills.

2. Experience in applying, developing criteria or requirements for testing, and evaluating new approaches and concepts for major education problems.

3. Knowledge that allows incumbent to be recognized by school district officials, professional colleagues, and persons in the education community as an expert in their education subject matter.

Ability to adapt and extend established concepts and methods, and assesses proposals for innovative alternative approaches from the standpoint of educational soundness, likelihood of success, feasibility, cost, priority, and consistency with overall program objectives of the school district.