Baltimore City School Board

Groups like Rethinking Schools, as well as other organizations such as the Education Opportunity Network, Parents Across America, Class Size Matters, New York Collective of Radical Educators, Forum for Education and Democracy, Coalition for Essential Schools, and A Broader, Bolder Approach to Education are examples of organizations advocating for an alternative vision of good public education. These organizations promote public schools that are open, nested in communities, have excellent teachers and school leaders, and are well resourced, diverse, and democratic. Despite a lack of funding and political support, they have the potential to reorient current efforts toward more democratic, high-quality, and representative public education. Their task is to build networks that bridge communities, as the civil rights movement did decades ago.

Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners School Board Members

Neil E. Duke- Chairman, a graduate of The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina with a degree in Political Science... More...

Jerrelle Francois-Vice-Chair, has dedicated her life to teaching and learning. In her 30-year career with Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools)... More...

Lisa Akchin is the mother of two graduates of Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools). Since 1994, she has been Associate Vice President and Assistant to the President at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County... More...

Marnell A. Cooper is a graduate of the University of Maryland and the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. He is a founding partner of the Baltimore law firm of Palmer, Cooper & Hopkins, LLC, where he represents both individuals and companies in civil litigation and international business... More...

Robert Heck A native of New York City, Robert Heck has worked in the entertainment industry for more than 30 years. His career as an actor and writer includes work in network TV ... More....

Tina Hike-Hubbard began her education career when she was selected as a Teach For America (TFA) Corps Member in 1994. She taught at West Baltimore Middle School for three years...More...

David Stone has more than 20 years of experience in the field of special education, both as a teacher and administrator for students ranging from Pre-K to grade 12 and college level instruction... More...

Shanaysha Sauls, a parent and educator, remains indebted to her own parents and teachers, who have encouraged and supported her at every stage of her life. She received her Ph.D. in political science from Duke University, after graduating Phi Beta Kappa with an honors degree... More..

Maxine Johnson Wood is a native of Baltimore, Maryland and a product of Baltimore City Public Schools...More...

Chris Maurice Harried is a proud student of Baltimore City Public Schools (City Schools), currently in his senior at Vivien T. Thomas Medical Arts Academy. He is also serving as ... More...

Schedule of Public School Board MeetingsThe Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners usually meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, except November (Thanksgiving Holiday), December (Holiday & Winter Break), April (Spring Break), July and August (Summer Break). Schedule changes will be publicized. The executive session begins at 3:00 p.m.at the school system headquarters at 200 E. North Avenue, unless otherwise noted. The public session begins at 6:00 p.m.and may last 3 to 4 hours. For additional information about Board meetings, call the School Board Office at 410-396-8709.

GET TO THESE MEETINGS EARLY IF YOUR WANT TO SPEAK.....SIGN IN IS EARLY AND LIMITED IN NUMBER.

PLEASE MAKE ATTENDING SCHOOL BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS A REGULAR EVENT. WE NEED POLITICIANS TO SEE WE ARE WAKING UP TO WHAT IS WRONG AND WHO IS DOING THE DAMAGE!

Schedule of Public School Board Meetings The Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners usually meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month, except November (Thanksgiving Holiday), December (Holiday & Winter Break), April (Spring Break), July and August (Summer Break). Schedule changes will be publicized. The executive session begins at 3:00 p.m.at the school system headquarters at 200 E. North Avenue, unless otherwise noted. The public session begins at 6:00 p.m.and may last 3 to 4 hours. For additional information about Board meetings, call the School Board Office at 410-396-8709.

School Board Meeting Calendar by Date

July 9, 2013
August 13, 2013
September 10, 2013
September 24, 2013
October 8, 2013
October 22, 2013
November 12, 2013
December 10, 2013
January 14, 2014

January 28, 2014
February 11, 2014
February 25, 2014
March 11, 2014
March 25, 2014
April 8, 2014
May 13, 2014
May 27, 2014
June 10, 2014

* Public comment is not taken during special board meetings.

Below is the format for communicating a problem to your School Superintendent, which you should be doing often. Just change the name to Dr. Alonzo and the address if you are writing from Baltimore City.

How to File a Complaint With the Baltimore County Superintendent of Schools
by Lane Cummings

Filing a formal complaint with the Baltimore County Public Schools requires writing a letter. A school superintendent is a high-level executive and administrator with wide-ranging responsibilities. The superintendent oversees the needs of teachers, students and the community. If you live in Baltimore County, Md., and have a complaint about a school, principal, teacher or other area of education, you can file it Joe A. Hairston, superintendent of the county public schools. Other People Are Reading Things You'll Need

Computer
Printer

Instructions

- 1 Type your address in three lines at the top left corner of your letter. Skip a line and type the date. Skip another line and type the address of the superintendent's office in three lines:
  
  Baltimore County Public Schools
  
  6901 Charles St.
  
  Towson, MD 21204.
- 2 Skip another line and type "RE:" followed by a few words about the nature of the complaint. For example, if the complaint is about the hot lunch program, type "Hot Lunch Program Issues."
- Sponsored Links
- 3 Skip another line and type "Dear Dr. Joe A. Hairston." Skip another line and begin the first paragraph. Provide your name and identify yourself as a parent, teacher or community member, for example. Explain your complaint in a brief sentence. Skip a line.
- 4 Explain the complaint in detail, including dates and times. Explain why you consider the problem to be important. For example, you could point to a threat to the community or to the goals of education. Offer examples such as what you consider the inefficiency of the schools' response to gang violence.
- 5 Say how and when you would like the problem to be remedied. Include your contact information and invite the superintendent to discuss the matter with you. Close the letter with "Sincerely," followed by your name.
- 6 Mail the letter to the address at the top of the letter after making a copy for your records

Read more: How to File a Complaint With the Baltimore County Superintendent of Schools | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/how_8493515_file-baltimore-county-superintendent-schools.

_______________________________________________________

YOU SEE IN BALTIMORE A DRIVE TO TURN SCHOOL GROUNDS INTO PARKS, ELIMINATING PLAYING AREAS IN LOWER/MIDDLE-CLASS COMMUNITIES. A BUILDING MEETING WITH A HOPKINS DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION TOLD THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT URBAN SCHOOL YARDS WERE GOING TO CHANGE AND THAT THE CHILDREN WOULD LEARN TO SIT AND REFLECT RATHER THAN PLAY.

BELOW YOU'LL SEE THIS IS A SHARED GOAL WITH THE UK's CONSERVATIVE PARTY AS THEY DISMANTLE SCHOOL ASSETS TO PAY FOR BANK FRAUDULENT GAINS. IT TAKES A POWERFUL LOSS OF INTEGRITY TO DENY CHILDREN AN ATHLETIC FIELD ON WHICH TO PLAY, ESPECIALLY KNOWING THE SOURCE OF THE ECONOMIC PROBLEMS IS MASSIVE FRAUD. THIS IS BIZARRE FOLKS!!!

Anger as Labour hits out over playing field sales

Cook, Chris. Financial Times [London (UK)] 20 Aug 2012: 2.

School sports

Labour accused the government of a "cosy relationship" with Conservative local authorities, after establishing that 26 of the 31 school playing fields approved for sale by the Department for Education were disposed of at the request of Tory councils.

Stephen Twigg, shadow education secretary, said: "The real blame for these sales lies with Michael Gove and the government, who have cut the schools capital budget."

Schools, Mr Twigg said, were selling off their land to 'plug holes in their -budgets'."

Michael Gove, education secretary, is obliged to sign off the sale of school playing fields in most circumstances. His department has also apologised for forgetting to declare all sales in response to Freedom of Information Act requests. ________________________________________________________________________
I AM SEEING A TROUBLING USE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS FOR SOCIAL ENGINEERING BY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS RESULTING IN SEGREGATION AND DISCRIMINATION IN OPPORTUNITY.

May 7, 2010

VIA EMAIL to: ESEAcomments@help.senate.gov

U.S. Senate

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Washington, DC 20510

Re: ACLU Priorities for ESEA Reauthorization

Dear Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Enzi, and Committee Members:

The ACLU, on behalf of its more than half a million members, fifty-three affiliates

nationwide, and countless additional supporters and activists, is pleased to submit

the following recommendations for ways to improve the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) for students, parents, and teachers as the Committee

undertakes its reauthorization process. These recommendations are rooted in the

ACLU’s strong belief that all students should have the equal opportunity to a highquality, safe, and supportive learning environment.

2. Promoting School Diversity and Providing Equal Access to High-Quality Schools

A. Preventing Racial Re-segregation in our Schools

Due, in part, to a troubling series of recent Supreme Court decisions, public schools are at risk of becoming re-segregated along racial and class lines. Many students are forced to attend failing schools simply because they live in poor areas with underfinanced schools and school districts, disproportionately impacting the educational opportunities of students of color. To prevent the re-segregation of our nation’s schools and school districts, the ACLU recommends:

• Strengthening the Title I requirement of resource equity between and within school
districts;

• Discouraging states and school districts from further increasing the re-segregation and
concentration of poverty in certain schools or districts by creating enforceable financial
consequences; and

• Requiring charter schools and other educational institutions which receive federal
funding to promote racial and economic diversity among students in their programs.

B. Providing the Right and Ability to Transfer Out of Failing Schools and Failing

Districts

Currently, NCLB provides a student who attends a failing school the right to transfer to a nonfailing school. Unfortunately, this provision has not succeeded in ensuring that students have access to a high quality education because of administrative hurdles, lack of transportation, and because the right provides only for transfers within a given school district, and only if space permits. To provide students with the ability to obtain a high-quality education, regardless of the students’ neighborhood or economic background, the ACLU recommends:

• Maintaining and strengthening the right to inter-district transfers provided by the NCLB,
and requiring states to ensure that students from low-income families have the right and
the ability to transfer into high-performing schools;

• Providing support, counseling and transportation assistance for families who wish to
transfer their children out of failing schools;

• Providing students and their families with a private right of action to enforce their rights
to transfer to high-quality schools; and

• Requiring cooperative agreements for transfers between districts in instances where every
school in a district is failing, or where non-failing schools within in a particular district do
not have the capacity to accept additional students.

C. Promoting an Equitable Distribution of Resources Among Districts and Among
Schools

Although early education is a significant predictor of later academic performance, many schools
and school districts are severely under-resourced while others receive an unequally large share of funding. The Title I requirement of intradistrict resource equity has been substantially eroded by later revisions to the statute, and there is currently no requirement for resource equity between districts. To provide all children with an equal opportunity to receive a high-quality education, the ACLU recommends:

• Strengthening the Title I requirement that intradistrict resources and funding be allocated
equitably;

• Providing children and taxpayers with a right to judicial and administrative enforcement
actions for violations of Title I;

• Requiring states to address resource gaps between school districts;

• Collecting annual data from each district regarding key educational resource indicators,
such as access to high-quality teachers, access to high-quality preschool, and the
distribution of funds among districts and among schools; and

• Providing competitive funding grants to states with high levels of resource variations
among their districts or schools so that they may develop and implement plans to
ameliorate these inequities in and among their schools.

3. Assistance, Rather than Funding Cuts, for Schools and Districts “In Need of Improvement”

The current NCLB structure punishes schools and districts that do not meet their AYP goals.
This structure further hampers schools which are frequently under-resourced to begin with,
harming the very students it is intended to help. To properly encourage schools to improve their performance while avoiding the harmful effects of punitive funding cuts, the ACLU
recommends:

• Increasing funding for schools which are in need of improvement so that they may obtain
the necessary resources to initiate effective interventions;

• Permitting growth as a measurement in determining AYP standards;

• Permitting multiple academic assessment measures; and

• Rewarding schools and districts that make progress toward meeting goals.

4. Prohibiting Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

Reauthorization of ESEA presents the opportunity to provide critical protections to students who are, or are thought to be, lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT). LGBT students are
frequently denied equal educational opportunities on account of their sexual orientation or
gender identity. Current federal law does not explicitly protect students in our nation’s public
schools on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. To prevent
discrimination against public school students based on sexual orientation or gender identity, the ACLU recommends:

• Including LGBT students as a protected group under federal civil rights statutes which
prohibit discrimination, thereby adding to existing protections against discrimination
based on race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin;

• Clarifying that all exclusions or restrictions from participation in any public school
program based on sexual orientation or gender identity constitutes discrimination;

• Prohibiting retaliation in any form against persons who challenge school, district, or state
policies regarding discrimination against LGBT students;

• Providing a cause of action for LGBT students and their families to challenge
discriminatory actions or practices, whether in the form of express discrimination or in
the form of toleration of acts of discrimination committed by teachers, students or other
persons; and

• Incorporating into the ESEA reauthorization the Student Non-Discrimination Act (HR
4530), which would provide the first-ever comprehensive federal prohibition against
discrimination in public schools based on a student’s actual or perceived sexual
orientation or gender identity and provides victims with remedies modeled after Title IX.

5. Expanding Data Collection

The Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) program compiles
statistical information about the placement, treatment, and achievements of students in order to discover issues which have a discriminatory impact on particular groups. Recently, OCR has
made significant improvements to its data collection efforts. However, as ESEA is reauthorized
there are many areas in which a more comprehensive and detailed collection of data is needed.
In order to ensure that information about access to high-quality education is readily available, the ACLU recommends:

• Expanding the collection of disaggregated data from every public school, disciplinary
alternative school, and charter school in the country on an annual basis;

• Requiring disciplinary alternative schools to provide and report the same accountability
data that other schools provide, as well as additional enrollment information, including
average length of enrollment, peak enrollment, number of absences per year, and number
of students who graduate, dropout, or re-enroll in their home school upon departing the
disciplinary alternative school.

• Publishing separate data analyses for disciplinary alternative schools to allow for
comparisons of the proportional assignment of students of color and students with
disabilities into regular schools versus alternative schools;

• Requiring all public schools, disciplinary alternative schools, and charter schools to
compile information on the rates of in-school suspension; out-of-school suspension;
expulsion; transfers and referrals to disciplinary alternative schools or programs; schoolbased
arrests; referrals to law enforcement or the juvenile justice system; and other forms
of punishment, including corporal punishment and restraint and seclusion;

• Disaggregating collected data by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, LEP status,
socioeconomic status, and parental status;

• Cross-tabulating data according to multiple categories to accurately distinguish which
sub-groups are affected in what ways (for example, by race or gender and also by
disability status);

• Reviewing the number of disciplinary referrals in failing schools in order to replace
harmful punitive measures by implementing positive behavior supports;

• Requiring accountability for improvements in graduation rates, including subgroup
graduation rates;

• Collecting and providing information that distinguishes between incidents of
discrimination based on gender identity and incidents of discrimination based on sexual
orientation. In collecting such information, the Department of Education must protect
students’ privacy and should only collect and publish voluntarily-submitted information
about discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity; and

• Collecting and providing information about the placement of pregnant and parenting
teens in alternative schools.

________________________________________________________________________________

TAKE A LOOK AT BALTIMORE'S HISTORY WITH PRIVATIZED PUBLIC EDUCATION. THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS PROVIDED A STRONG ANALYSIS OF THE FAILURE OF PRIVATE COMPANIES TO PROVIDE RESULTS AND THE MONEY WASTED TRYING A DECADE AGO!

CORPORATIONS DON'T DO EDUCATION AND WE NEED THEM OUT!

Subcontracting Public Education

By Ted Volskay

BACKGROUND

An education management organization (EMO) is a private entity that is subcontracted to manage one or more traditional public schools charter schools, or an entire school district. The EMO objective is to achieve efficiencies that translate into improvements in academic performance, cost savings for the school districts or profits in the case of for-profit EMOs. As a result, EMOs operate schools with the same or fewer financial resources than had been provided to the schools by the public sector. In 2007, it was estimated that for-profit EMOs operated approximately 20 percent of all charter schools.1

Education Alternatives, Inc., (EAI) was a publicly traded, for-profit EMO that was headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Established in 1986, EAI stock was traded in the over-the-counter market and quoted on the NASDAQ Exchange.2 An EAIs ability to make a profit for stockholders is directly tied to EAI’s success in cutting the operating costs of the schools that it is managing.3

In 1992, the Baltimore City Public Schools entered into a $133 million, five-year contract with EAI to oversee the management and instruction at nine of the 182 schools within the district. The schools to be managed by EAI included eight elementary schools and one middle school. The contract was later modified to include three additional schools. The contract called for yearly reviews and a provision for the Baltimore City Public Schools to terminate the contract at any time following a 90-day notice.4

Under terms of the contract, EAI responsibilities included facilities management, financial management and some staff development. Under the contract, EAI had the autonomy to determine which services it would provide directly and which services it would subcontract with the school system to deliver where it did not wish to provide such services directly. EAI also had partial discretion to select staff, curriculum delivery, instructional methodology, training and other areas supporting instruction. The contract provided for a periodic transfer of funds based upon a negotiated per-pupil allocation for educational and most non-instructional services.5

EAI management expected a 25 percent reduction in operating and administration expenses. Of these savings, 20 percent would be reinvested back into the classroom and the remaining 5 percent of savings would be profit for EAI stockholders. In turn, the Baltimore City Public Schools would not incur any additional cost beyond what already was allocated for public education or approximately $5,500 in average annual per-pupil cost.6

EAI and school system staff agreed to appoint a school district employee to serve as a liaison to represent the superintendent. The liaison was responsible for staffing decisions and disciplinary measures, and for adhering to thepolicies and procedures of the Baltimore City Public Schools.7

In November 1995, the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners agreed to serve EAI with a 90-day notice to terminate the contract, and the contract was terminated in the spring of 1996, one year prior to completion of the original five-year contract.8

Privatization Case Study: Subcontracting Public Education – Baltimore City Public Schools and Education Alternatives, Inc. (EAI).
Governmental Level: City (Baltimore, Maryland)
Primary Privatization Mechanism: Subcontracting/Outsourcing

EAI proposed to operate the schools for the average annual per-pupil cost of approximately $5,500. One criticism of the annual per-pupil cost approach was that the contract called for the district to provide EAI the average cost per pupil for the district as a whole. However, all but one of the schools managed by EAI were elementary schools, which are less costly to operate than high schools on a per pupil basis. Furthermore, on a per pupil basis, the cost to teach special needs students is much higher than the cost to teach students without special needs. This is an important cost consideration because the schools managed by EAI served proportionally fewer special needs students than the other schools served by the Baltimore City Public School District.9

According to the Superintendent of Baltimore City Public Schools, during the time EAI was managing the schools, EAI had the autonomy to determine whether it would provide the services directly or whether it would contract back to the school system for delivering those services. However, EAI had partial discretion with respect to selecting staff, curriculum delivery, instructional methodology, training and other areas supporting instruction, although the contract language on this point was ambiguous.10

Critics have argued that as a result, EAI inappropriately exercised its discretion and transferred all counselors and specialists (art, music, physical education and special education teachers) out of the schools managed by EAI.11 For example, EAI eliminated all special education programs in favor of complete inclusion in the classroom. Since the student to teacher ratio is lower for special education classes than for traditional classrooms, this decision eliminated the more costly special education programs in favor of an increase in the number of less costly traditional classrooms. Students in need of special education services were simply moved into traditional instructional programs. These moves effectively lowered the student to teacher ratio for the majority of students. Integrating special education students into a traditional classroom setting helped a majority of students but came at the expense of students with special needs.12

EAI reportedly guaranteed improvement in student test scores after the first year. When compared to a control group (non-EAI students), reading and mathematics scores of EAI students dropped after the first and second years, but the test scores of the control group increased. The EAI student test scores caught up with those students in the control group after the third year.13

The University of Maryland Baltimore County (UMBC) evaluated and compared EAI managed schools with schools managed by Baltimore City Public Schools. Here are some of the conclusions cited by the study:

Schools managed by EAI cost 11 percent more to operate than district run schools;

Parent involvement levels in EAI and district run schools was approximately the same; and

Overall effectiveness of teaching was the same among EAI and district run schools.

The UMBC study concluded that “the promise that EAI could improve instruction without spending more than Baltimore City was spending on schools has been discredited.”14

The superintendent of the Baltimore City Public Schools at that time cited the following lessons learned:15

Anticipate conflict – some in the education community embraced the EAI partnership while others were distrustful;

Secure the support of all constituencies beforehand – school leaders cannot impose innovations on school communities;

Establish specific performance objectives at the outset with milestones to monitor progress and accountability mechanisms linked to funding;

Establish a reasonable time frame for changes to occur and inform the public about realistic expectations;

Agree to terms of severance – when preparing the contract, be very specific about the disposition of leases, equipment, materials and supplies when the contract is terminated;

Anticipate the need to reopen the contract and of the agreement as needed – when implementing innovative changes, flexibility is needed to resolve unexpected issues.

THINGS TO CONSIDER

The first school managed by EAI was South Pointe Elementary School in Dade County (Miami) Florida in 1990. The contract to manage South Pointe Elementary School was not renewed by the school district.16

In November 1994, EAI signed a 5-year contract with the Hartford, Connecticut, Board of Education to manage the school district. EAI was given the responsibility of operating 32 schools in the distric,t while the Board of Education retained authority for policymaking. Controversy began when EAI’s proposed budget for the 1995-96 school year included cuts in teaching positions. Most school board members would not support the reduction in teachers. The school board terminated the contract with EAI in January 1996, reportedly because EAI would not operate under the contract as written. EAI countered, saying that it ceased services because the school district failed to pay for services rendered in accordance with the contract.17

Maryland became the first state to exercise its authority to seize control of failing schools under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The Maryland State Board of Education ordered new management of the schools, but the legislature immediately passed legislation to delay the takeover. The Governor subsequently vetoed the bill but the Governor’s veto was overridden.18

EAI was specifically mentioned as being less successful than privatization advocates predicted in a study comparing privatization of public schools in the United States and Great Britain. The study notes that the relatively low level of per capita funding for public education has made it difficult to make a profit and has contributed to a recent lull in public education privatization initiatives in the United States.19

During the first year of the contract withBaltimore City Public Schools, EAI was paid $26.7 million and reported a gross profit of $1.9 million or 7.1 percent; however, EAI’s refusal to produce a public budget aroused suspicions about the company’s reported profits and losses.20

One criticism of the EAI - Baltimore City Public Schools experience was that the administrators didn’t give teachers time to develop an open attitude toward the program.21

EAI changed its name to the Tesseract Group, Inc. The Tesseract Group filed for bankruptcy in October 2000.22

Ted Volskay (LWVNC) is a member of the LWVEF Education Study Committee on Privatization of Government Services, Assets and Functions.

Produced by the Privatization of Government Services, Assets and Functions Study, 2011

© League of Women Voters