Chatting with the Chancellors

Tonight I had the privilege of attending a program titled, "Can the New York City School System Serve as a Model for DC?" I was initially leery about attending - was it worth my time to brave the rainy rush hour traffic to attend a presentation where I'd have to pass through a metal detector to hear more eduspeak?

Absolutely.

The discussion with New York Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee was the best presentation on K-12 education I have heard in a long while. I've lived in DC, Maryland, and NYC, and moved to Maryland because of the schools. DC and NY may have more educational challenges, and, like MoCo, their educational leadership certainly has its share of detractors.

With the exception of the metal detectors, Bell HS is like your average MoCo school - no soap in the bathrooms, posters on the wall. The auditorium looked like Blair's.

But - the first noticeable difference was that the audience wasn't packed with school staff members with matching notebooks. Listening to the folks around me, I heard a variety of voices - some were in the educational world, others were members of the organizations sponsoring the talks, while others, like me, were somewhat tangentially related.

Second - no canned presentation by Ms. Rhee or Mr. Klein. The moderator, an educational consultant, opened up discussions with a few questions to the panelists, and both responded - without power points or notes.

Then the presentation was opened up for questions from the floor. Not the fill in your index card and we'll select the ones we think are appropriate variety of questions, prescreened or planted, but actual questions from the floor. Anyone who wanted to ask a question simply got on line and waited their turn.

So - what is my takeaway from tonight's talk?

We may have a school system that has fewer challenges than these districts, but what NY and DC have and what we lack in MoCo is a focus on the kids in the schools.

Here are some of the more memorable discussions from my notes. I wish I had a tape recorder, or could type faster, or a larger piece of paper on which to scribble, but here goes. Apologies in advance for any transcriptional or misquotes.

Mr. Klein talked about organizations that don't insist on accountability fall into disrepair and are nonperforming; accountability must be at every level with transparency. He also mentioned trimming the bureaucracy - if a position doesn't contribute to the kids, get rid of the position and move the money back to the schools. His goal is not a great school system but a system comprised of great schools.

From Ms. Rhee - the main resource is time. Three necessary elements of a strong program are human capital, choice, and a better infrastructure as measured by accurate data and good decision making. Mr. Klein added that mayoral control is also essential. Does this mean they welcome oversight?

Ms. Rhee also discussed that it was not merely enough to have programs like IB or Montessori unless these programs were implemented with fidelity. No "mini" or sounds like programs are on her agenda - do the real thing so parents and students get what is advertised.

Both stated that the status quo is probably their biggest obstacle in improving the school system and getting the students to minimal competency to meet the challenges of the future.

Ms. Rhee and Mr. Klein actually go and sit down with teachers and students. Genuine, authentic conversations, on a regular basis, sometimes with the press in the room, but not with the intent of a soundbite for the next day's paper.

And, at the end of the program, when the moderator wanted to cut short the questions to give the speakers time for closing thoughts, Mr. Klein cut in to say that he'd rather continue with the questions, since the folks had stood on line very patiently.

Wow.

Tangible results in the DC and NY City schools may not be apparent for a few years because change takes time. However, if I were sitting on a panel selecting a new superintendent for my kids school district, I would select the applicant who actually sits down and talks with kids on a regular basis.

This event was also covered on the Washington Post's Blog D.C. Wire: Rhee and Klein Talk Reform

Berthiaume: "I'm sorry...had I known...I would have sat stone faced."

Statement of MCPS Board of Education member Laura Berthiaume on February 9, 2009, during Board of Education discussion of resolution to vote on MCPS FY10 Operating Budget
(transcribed from webcast at 1:25:57)

Once I pass my vote on this proposed budget, the budget will move forward and I will support it as it will be the decision of the whole board, which I will be obliged to support. To be on the team means to support the team position, and I will. But I do not believe that to be a team player means to sit mute when the play is being called, or to fail to vote in good conscience yea or nay, or to fail to explain my vote on how the play should be executed and so I am going to do that now.

First, I want to say that I am disappointed that the Board was unable to have the benefit of the evaluation of the Learning Center transition before acting today. The resolution before us specifically approves the 2010 Special Education staff plan as proposed. I don't know how the Board can effectively provide oversight on, or input into, a special education staffing plan when it is missing vital information on whether or not one of the major moves in how we provide special education services over the last two years has in fact worked for the special education students receiving those services. This is the equivalent of buying a "pig in a poke".

Second, I do not agree with the Board's current approach to the budget. As this stands, it does appear that a majority of the Board is committed to passing the Superintendent's budget without change. Apparently on the theory that the federal, state and county numbers at this time are uncertain and furthermore that to change anything at all is to somehow invite the County Council to change the numbers in the eleven categories as set forth in the resolution. The uncertainty as to the federal and state numbers can be rectified, as I believe we are going to entertain a motion to amend, to take up those considerations in April, rather than in June. At that time those state and federal numbers will be certain. I hope and encourage the Board to support that motion.

The uncertainty as to the county number is present every single year. To take the position that the Board will always support the Superintendent's Budget in February, without change or until it comes back from the County Council, lest the Council interfere with the budget, effectively means that every February the Board will always accept the Superintendent's recommended funding. By taking this position the Board is agreeing to basically limit its role to behind the scenes advocacy for priorities that may, or may not ever receive public exposure. And furthermore, is largely agreeing to limit its role to that of cheerleader for the budget. What is left to be decided in June is solely whether anything will be restored, not whether anything that perhaps should have been cut was not in fact cut.

Keep in mind that our inaction now does in my opinion effectively doom the Middle School Magnet Consortium and the Reading and Staff development positions, because teachers will need to commit to positions for the next school year and many will chose to take new positions or leave the system, rather than bet on an uncertain restoration of the cuts.

It seems to me moreover that a failure by the Board to actually evaluate and make appropriate changes to the proposed budget now is in fact itself an invitation to the County Council to meddle. If the Board will not do its own business as a body that is supposed to oversee the school system budget, and do so in a representative fashion for the best interests of the students, taking into account public testimony, then I see no reason why the County Council should hesitate to do our business for us. Beyond this it seems to me that to take this approach to the Budget wastes an awful lot of time and effort, both by the Board and by the community at large.

If it is the Board's intent to always support the proposed Budget in February, as is, with no changes, and then to make changes around the edges only in June after the County Council has adopted its budget, then perhaps we should just have the Superintendent present the budget to the County Council directly in February. Let our PTA's and parent's advocate directly to the Council. For it is clear we'll take no action right now as a result of the public's advocacy. And perhaps not very much action at a later time. After all, it will always be true that the school system as a whole will have moved ahead by June on the assumption that 99% of the Budget is a done deal. It seems to me to be inefficient and unseemly to sit in front of a crowded room in January full of people who think that their pleas will result in action now, if we know that no changes will be made. To raise hopes and expectations when the reality is that there is no hope is unfair.

As I left one Budget hearing I heard one parent say to another that the Board seemed to be moved by the stories that we heard of the children in the MPAC program. And there was real excitement in that parent's voice. I was the Board member who responded so enthusiastically. To that parent, I'm sorry. Sorry I responded so positively to your story. Had I known how misleading my reaction was, I would have sat stone faced.

In sum, if the Board will not do its job, then I will cast my vote against the budget because I believe we have a job to do. After I cast my vote, as I said, I will support it once it passes. But I encourage the Board to take this up again in April and to do its job now. Thank you.