Tuscaloosa International Baccalaureate programs – stuck in the middle

Last week I attended a presentation at the Tuscaloosa Magnet School about the International Baccalaureate (IB) program.  Parents of Magnet School children and Magnet School faculty and staff made this presentation to Tuscaloosa City School Board members.  (Since all board members were invited and the topic was one which will certainly come before the Board, the Sunshine Law had to be followed.  Thus, it was announced as a public meeting and I attended.  Board members present were Lee Garrison (at large), Cason Kirby (District 4), Harry Lee (District 5) and Marvin Lucas (District 6).)

For a thumbnail primer in case you aren’t caught up on what IB is and how it is implemented in Tuscaloosa, here are some bullet points:

• International Baccalaureate is an educational program designed and administered by The International Baccalaureate Organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.  There are IB programs in 147 different countries.  (http://www.ibo.org/who/)
• The first IB program in the Tuscaloosa City Schools System was the IB Diploma Program which was first implemented at Central High School in 1994.  (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ukogAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UKYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4455%2C9013908)
• The IB Diploma Program is designed for students age 16-19 (http://www.ibo.org/diploma/) which translates in Tuscaloosa to grades 11 and 12.
• In 2008 it was decided that the magnet schools (elementary and middle) which were opening in 2009 would adopt the IB curriculum.  (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20081124/NEWS/811249993/0/search?p=all&tc=pgall)
• The IB Primary Years Program is designed for students age 3-12 and the Middle Years Program is for students 11-16. (http://www.ibo.org/programmes/)
• The Tuscaloosa Magnet Elementary serves grades 1-5 and the Middle serves grades 6-8.

Because the IB programs do not align age and grade-wise with the grade levels at our local elementary, middle and high schools and because certification is site-specific there is a bad gap:  no IB offering for grades 9 and 10.  While the Magnet Middle School apparently has certification to offer the 9th and 10th grade curriculum, there are no 9th or 10th grades at that site because those are considered high school grades.  Central only has certification for the IB Diploma Years program, thus the program is only available for 11th and 12th grades.

Obviously this is a problem for those students who have been immersed in the fabulous programming at the Magnet Schools and would benefit from a continuation of that curriculum and teaching method (as would all students in the system), but who are now facing two gap-years.  These students have several options, none of them ideal.  (1) They can go to the high school for which they are zoned for 9th and 10th grade and then transfer to Central High School and attend the IB Diploma Program for 11th and 12th; (2) they can forgo the IB Diploma Program and stay at their zone school for all of their high school years and; (3) they can transfer out of the public school system and attend private school or be home-schooled.  There may be a 4th option of attending Central all four years but I’m not sure about that.  It involves some kind of waiver from the school board.  At any rate there would still be a gap with no IB in 9th and 10th grades.

Parents at the presentation described another scenario as well:  some families are pulling out of the Magnet School at the end of elementary school presumably so that their children can become immersed in the different culture and circle of peers at their zoned middle school prior to high school.  At least one of the parents present said that her child who has already completed 8th grade will be staying at Northridge and foregoing IB.

[I should note that there was no one present from the Diploma Program (grades 11-12) present at this meeting.  No information was given on how that program is operating.]

The parent committee wants the 9th grade IB program added to the Magnet School next year – and presumably, the 10th grade the next year – resulting in a school containing grades 1-10.  There was mention as well of adding kindergarten.  After 10th grade, the students are reportedly willing to move to the IB program at Central High School as a cohort.  The parents pointed out that the Magnet School’s IB certification already includes grades 9 and 10; that the faculty is already trained in the programming and that after the Alberta Elementary School students return to their home school in January, there will be enough extra space in the building to accommodate the extra grades.

The parent committee wanted to know from the Board members what information they would like to have or they thought Superintendent McKendrick would need in helping move their request forward.

At-large member, Lee Garrison was the first to respond by reminding the parents that the Board does not have the authority to initiate proposals, but must await a proposal from the Superintendent.  This is a matter of Alabama law and not within the discretion of local lawmakers.  There ensued a bit of dialogue between board members and parents present.

Lee Garrison reminded the group that this does involve additional expenditure, but, at first, seemed to minimize the significance of that expenditure.  He also pointed out the critical absence from this discussion of the Diploma Years coordinator and faculty and emphasized the importance of having the entire IB range united in this effort.  As for what the Superintendent and the Board needed to see, he specified budget, number of additional hires and timeline all of which a parent in the audience assured him was prepared already.  Lee Garrison acknowledged that there is a Demographic Study/Facilities Analysis underway now, but he thought that it would not have much impact on this particular school.  He did say that there needed to be an “open discussion” about where the permanent home of IB will be, at the Magnet School or at Central.

Cason Kirby then said that it seems like the easiest solution would be to continue the 9th and 10th grades in the Magnet School.  He asked the audience though, if they were designing an ideal program from scratch would they want 9th and 10th grade housed at the Magnet School because the other years of the middle years program and there or did they think it would be more appropriate at Central because the students would be there with other students their own age.

A parent answered that it should be at the Magnet School because it is a 5-year program so if you have the first 3 years at the Magnet School and the last 2 years “somewhere else” you have to have two separate certifications, faculties, administrators, etc.  It would double the cost to the system whereas if they complete the 5 years at the Magnet School, many more students will be likely to go “over there” and do 11th and 12th with their peers.  She continued that if the students and families are told they have to go “somewhere else, that’s a lot of questions because a lot of us took a lot of risks by leaving schools that were great to come here.”

At several points during the presentation/discussion it was mentioned by a parent that it had been her understanding that it was always the intention of the school board that grades would be added to the magnet school/IB both higher grades and kindergarten, but that it was the tornado events that had halted those additions.  (Note:  I reviewed the 2010 and 2011 school board minutes available on the system’s website and saw no mention of this in any of those minutes.)  She emphasized that in January the Alberta students temporarily housed at the Magnet School would be moving to the new Alberta School and that the space would then be available.

Marvin Lucas addressed the group last and his remarks left the room in something of a deflated silence.  He started by assuring everyone that he and the entire school board support this school and have no intention of allowing it to go the way of so many other wildly successful magnet programs that this system has abandoned – specifically naming the Central Primary Magnet School which closed in 2003 after Federal funding ended.  All that being said, he reminded the Magnet Middle Principal Kristi Thomson and the IB Coordinator Lavanda Wagenheim that when they were hired, they were specifically tasked with working with the IB Coordinator and staff at Central High School to plan for continuity between programs.  He asked them both directly if that was true and Ms. Thomson responded verbally both times that it was true.  (I couldn’t see Ms. Wagenheim so I cannot report her response, but there was no verbal disagreement.)  I assume, based on the fact that no coordinated effort or joint proposal was reported in this meeting, this has not happened.

Mr. Lucas then reported to the group the discouraging state of finances for the school system.  State and federal funding is dwindling.  The state government is talking about diverting more from the education trust fund.  The local sales tax income is not what it was projected to be by this time in the fiscal year and now is projected to be even lower next year.  Mr. Lucas reminded the group of parents and board members that state law requires that board members act with the best interests of the entire system in mind and that while he is as passionate about his daughter’s school as they are about the magnet school, the entire board has to look at the big picture.  He talked about how they have had to shuffle and move things around in the budget almost every time they’ve created new units.  The other school board members expressed understanding and glum agreement with Mr. Lucas.  Mr. Garrison said that this community is fixing to have to have a serious discussion about education funding if we expect to continue and improve and, with that, the meeting was adjourned.

So, what was the outcome?  Views were aired and hopes were expressed.  Dr. McKendrick was not present and so he couldn’t say what he will propose to the full board for a vote.  The hard, cold reality of the financial situation was expressed.  Was it understood – fully comprehended?  Probably not.

The elephant in the room was not discussed – being attitudes toward Central High School, race, integration, etc.

I have heard that there has been talk among Magnet School parents of a centralized full-campus location for the Magnet School/IB program grades K-12.  It has even been suggested that Central High School be converted to that use and that students attending Central High School be reassigned to either Northridge or Bryant thus having two primary city high schools and a magnet/IB high school.

Clearly, this is a mess.  The only solution I see involves either a duplicate certification of the Middle Years program and a splitting of it between campuses or a non-traditional combination of grades – 6th grade through 10th grade- on some campus:  Magnet, Central or somewhere else.  Hopefully, the IB governing body will be engaged in this conversation at some point and help craft a workable solution.

As a final note, they say IB is not for every learner and maybe it isn’t but it is an outstanding program and it’s a shame that more of our children, our future productive citizens, do not have access to it.

 

I am sure this is purely coincidence, but…

Last month at a meeting of the Tuscaloosa City Board of Education (1/21/14) three people, including myself, availed themselves of the public comment period.  One individual addressed the Board on the subject of textbooks.  Two of us used that time to address the interesting land deal that was revealed at the board’s retreat on January 18.  A local University student, Adam Seale, made a powerful statement about trust and how this shadowy deal does not serve to bolster public trust in our elected officials.  I used the time to ask the Board Chairman, Lee Garrison, a direct question.  It went like this:

Laurie Johns: I’m trying … to track down the chronology of what happened with this land deal that was revealed to [the board] Saturday at your work meeting. Some of … you already knew about it. … So, I read in the paper today … that Mr. Garrison only knew about the land deal as a “rumor” until recently. What confuses me about that is that the deal was signed in December 2012 but you served on the board at Ol’ Colony until May 1, 2013. So, my question to you specifically is whether you attended any meetings prior to the election where the deal was discussed either in your role as a, I believe Vice Chairman of the Ol’ Colony Board of Governors or as a city councilman?

Lee Garrison: It’s a fair question. No, I did not attend any negotiations between what happened with the Chairman and the Governor and Mental Health or Mayor.

[I might discuss this non-answer in a separate post.]

So, anyway, like I said, I’m sure it had nothing to do with those specific comments and questions, but last night at the board meeting, Mr. Garrison presented a new idea.  

To all those pesky members of the public who care enough to leave home at night and sit all the way through the meeting waiting for their small, little time to address elected representatives:  Sit down.  Shut up.

 

He read out a statement that he proposes to have printed and given to anyone who has the audacity to sign up to speak.  Here’s what he says to those hapless souls:

“At this time we want to entertain public comment relating to Board policies, curriculum, finance, facilities, or achievement data as they pertain to the system as a whole. The Board will not respond to comments or inquiries and no action will be taken at this meeting.  Instead, the Superintendent and/or his designee will provide (?) response to the speaker, if necessary, following the appropriate review and investigation a copy of the response will be provided for them.

 “Public comment will not be allowed in matters pertaining to day-to-day operations of the school systems, individual statements or staff members, specific personnel matters, and/or student disciplinary issues.

“Matters such as these are the purview of the Superintendent and the staff require a thorough review and consideration impossible in this forum.

“These concerns should be directed to the Superintendent or appropriate staff members during school operation hours.

 “All public comment will be limited to five minutes.”

Back a few years ago a similar tactic was proposed by a previous member of the Tuscaloosa City Council to try to get rid of the ever-present Ethel Whitt.  http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20110817/NEWS/110819794/0/search?p=all&tc=pgall.  Mr. Garrison sat on the Council then, but the Mayor’s sage advice seems to have passed him by.  “I understand the frustration at times,” Maddox said. “But I think what makes local government so great is the access to your local officials.  I’d be very wary about going down this road.”

Interestingly, Mr. Garrison has started a new FaceBook page apparently for the purpose of keeping us informed of the goings-on of our school system.  He announced Monday on that page that he plans to start issuing a newsletter because “I strongly believe that the more information we relay to the community, the more the community will trust our Board and the TCS System.”

Right.  So long as he doesn’t have to listen to us.

The Chamber of Education?

The Tuscaloosa Chamber of Commerce has its sights set on the Tuscaloosa City Board of Education.  This is not a secret; they have published their intentions.  On their website you can find a document titled 2013 Business Plan Priorities

The following are 2013 business plan priority strategies as identified through the strategic planning process of The Chamber, listed in no particular order:

– Recruit seasoned business leaders to seek elected office on local boards of education to significantly improve the policy-making, financial management and operations of local public school districts. (Education Development and Government Affairs)

Their multi-page, glossy campaign brochure takes on our schools as its first topic:

Education and Workforce Readiness

Outcomes

The Chamber will recruit seasoned business leaders to seek elected office on local boards of education, beginning in 2013, to significantly improve the policy-making, financial management and operations of local public school districts.

They are  making good on their plan.  To date, three Chamber-related men have qualified to challenge current members of the City Board of Education:

Lee Garrison, running for Member at Large position

Back in April Lee Garrison announced his challenge to incumbent member-at-large and Board Chair, Dan Meissner.  (Tonight at the school board meeting Mr. Meissner let it be known that he will NOT be running for re-election after all leaving no opposition as of yet for Mr. Garrison.)

Lee Garrison’s LinkedIn page shows that he has been Vice President of Wells Fargo Insurance Services for 15 years and he belongs to the Chamber of Commerce’s LinkedIn group.  Wells Fargo Insurance Services is a member of the Chamber.  Mr. Garrison’s father, the late Howard Garrison was active in the Chamber of Commerce, serving as its Chairman.  

Norman Crow, running for District 3

Mr. Crow announced his challenge to Sena Stewart, the current District 3 board member back in June.  Mr. Crow is the owner of D T & Freight Co. Inc., a trucking and freight enterprise.  He is also the incorporator of Innovative Energy Services Company, Inc. and Tanglewood Properties, LLC.

Mr. Crow sits on the Chamber’s Board of Directors.   According to the Tuscaloosa News, Mr. Crow was elected to the Chamber’s board in 2010 for a three-year term that would start January 1, 2011 and run through 2013.

Renwick Jones, running for District 7

Last week Mr. Jones announced his challenge to Erskine Simmons, the current Board of Education member from District 7.  Like Mr. Crow, Jones sits on the Chamber’s Board of Directors.  (refer to link in paragraph above).  Mr. Jones’ term on the Chamber’s board is listed as until 2014.  Like the other two challengers, Mr. Jones is also a business owner, having recently started a consulting firm, VelBess Consulting, LLC.

There are other men who have let it be known that they are running, but since they have not officially qualified yet, I’m not going to name them here.

What does this mean?

Today I asked a teacher friend what she thought about this.  “Why are they doing this?” she asked.  Hmmm.  Good question.  My friend continued,  “in the last two years things have really turned around in our schools.  We are making progress.  Why do they want to change that?”  Another good question.  Alas, I am not in the Chamber and, therefore cannot answer them.

Stay tuned.

This is not your parents’ School Board (or even last year’s SB!)

The Tuscaloosa News covered last week’s community meeting pretty well and reported on the initiatives and promises made, but they didn’t report on the ONE THING which struck me the most, so here is my News Flash:

We have a School Board y’all!

Yeah, I know you know that, but what I mean is that we have a group of people who exhibit palpable interest, you could even say PASSION, in their responsibility.  The secretiveness and defensiveness is gone.  In its place is an interest and cohesiveness which I haven’t observed in the 5 years in which I have been observing.  They are actively seeking information and thinking beyond the confines of the walls of the Central Office.

The meeting opened with an air of question, “will this Board be like the old one?  Is this going to be another farce of public participation?”  It was like everyone (including yours truly) was holding their breath.  And then what a friend described as almost a wave washed over the room and we all relaxed.  (Well, not all of us, but there are always people who are going to complain.  Let’s don’t go there now.)  It wasn’t that people didn’t ask hard questions; they did.  But those questions – accusations even – were accepted as legitimate and answered non-defensively.

There was dissent.  We can all expect that there will be policies and decisions made with which we do not agree.  (I.e., uniforms or no uniforms.)  It is my hope that we do not let individual issues cloud the vision of our future set forth by our New Board because no matter how eager, clear-sighted, well-meaning, etc., they are, their work cannot be accomplished without the cooperation and support of the public.

District 1 & 2 Board members, James Minyard and Earnestine Tucker have set July 22 as a tentative date for a community meeting in the Western part of town.  Don’t live there?  Don’t let that stop you from going!  In fact, make that the reason you go.  In spite of the false divisions of district, cluster, neighborhood, race or wealth, we are all one thing that is the same:  members of this community.  As such, it behooves us all to come together to improve the whole.

Read.  Listen.  Think.

Then ACT.

School Architect Contract: Follow-up

The hiring of the architect is not what is so bothersome.  It is the fact that we are talking about hiring an architect when we (the public) don’t even know what is being developed.

What we have right now is the Tuscaloosa Center for Technology.   According the the City School System’s web site

• The Tuscaloosa Center for Technology serves as an extension of the high school programs for Tuscaloosa City and County schools.
• The purpose of the school is to broaden the curriculum of the local high schools by providing students with life skills to meet the challenging workplace and/or pursue a post-secondary degree.

http://www.tct.tusc.k12.al.us/home/abtsch.htm

No one would argue that a new building is not needed or that the programs are unimportant.  (Frankly, I think we constantly do ourselves, our society and our children a disservice with our attitude that unless you go to college you are a failure.  The bills that I pay to people in the trades would indicate quite the opposite.)  I do think it is reasonable, however, to ask what is being developed?

Will it still be cooperative between City and County Systems? I have heard that the County, in conjunction with some or all of the business community, is planning a different school to be located on or near the Shelton campus.   If that is the case, then are our tax dollars going to go toward duplicating programs for the City and the County?  Does it even make sense for the City and County systems to be sharing a facility?  Could a cooperative system be set up where programs are not duplicated, but there is still more than one physical facility?

Where is the Chamber of Commerce in all this? (Dear Reader, just so you know, I have been told that I have a “bad reputation” with the Chamber.  Make of that what you will…)  At any rate, the Chamber’s website contains several references to the technical school.  For example, http://www.tuscaloosachamber.com/PDF/workforceplan.pdf, which is their Workforce Development Plan sets forth the following strategies:

“Formally establish and incorporate an independent, self-sustaining regional, 501 (c) 3 workforce development corporation physically located at Shelton State Community College, and provide the short and long term public and private sector funding to support and sustain needed management structure.” (p.5)

“Provide efficient integration and alignment among all levels of education and workforce services, including K-12, technical schools and community colleges in the region, and higher education.  Consolidation of multiple technical advisory committees throughout the K-16 system is strongly recommended
“Establish an education-workforce training advisory council that includes representatives from K-12, community colleges, higher education, counselors, employers and other appropriate community leaders in the region to:

• Facilitate and encourage cooperation and consistent communications.
• Define employment and skill needs.
• Project employment standards, expectations, trends and job opportunities.Define and apply career paths and school-to-career opportunities.
• Enhance curriculum design and implementation.
• Expand dual enrollment design and applications.
• Expand career counseling at all levels of education.
• Contribute directly to increased graduation rates throughout the region.

“Foster and advocate development and establishment of a regional career-technical high school to address and achieve expanded workforce capacity and skills development in West Alabama.”

(pp. 6-8)

The Chamber’s “Directions 2012:  A Strategic Business Development Plan”  (http://www.tuscaloosachamber.com/tuscaloosa/busplan.php#ed) states the following:

Objective: Provide aggressive leadership, advocacy and coordination that fosters effective business-education partnerships that contribute to excellence in education, career preparation and enrichment for all students.

Strategies:

1. Maintain effective management and coordination of adopt-a-school program as a source for connecting business and education with a sustained emphasis on career preparation.
2. Actively support, pursue and advocate development and establishment of a regional technical high school for Tuscaloosa County and West Alabama.
3. …

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s as far as I want to look.  So, what cooperation, if any, is going on between the Chamber, the business community and the City Schools.

Where is this new school going to be built? I have been made to understand that it is going to be built near the old Tuscaloosa Middle School which is now the Magnet School.  What other locations have been considered, if any?  Does this choice of location indicate that, indeed, the City and the County are going their separate ways?

How does the pending Charter School legislation play into this? I have heard speculation that the County technical school at the Shelton campus will be a charter school.

Basically, I am interested in knowing that the needs of the community are being served in the best way.  The community includes the County as well as the City as many of us are tax payers of  both.

As for the specific contract that I referred to in my previous post…

Here is a link to the Tuscaloosa News story about the it (among other things): http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20100122/NEWS/100129890?p=1&tc=pg

I should have been a little clearer in my last post that there was a distinction between the contract that was discussed – and tabled – back in December and the one that was on the agenda for the Open Work Session last week.   The contract discussed in December was the full blown, beginning-to-end contract.  The contract being discussed now is $100,000 for preliminary work and advising.

This doesn’t quell my misgivings.  I am proud that Marvin Lucas, Board member from District 6, expressed this very concern at the meeting reported on in the article linked above.  No matter how small the contract you award right now, the same message gets sent to the public:  The System has decided to build such-and-such and your input doesn’t really matter.  I hope that that awareness of the importance of bringing the people to the table grows and I hope that with the welcoming attitude, the people will respond and embrace their opportunities to participate and actually own our schools.

PS.  The school system is planning a forum of some type to share information with the public as well as to gather input from various experts and the public.  More on that as it becomes available…

PSS.  My understanding is that the way architects are generally chosen by the city schools is that several local architecture firms take turns.  The desire is to keep the money spent on the architects in the local economy.  This is how it has always been done.  Does that mean it is the best way to achieve our goals?  Who knows?

Follow the money

Local elections are Tuesday (8/25/09).  The T-News is already predicting low turnout due to voter apathy.  Hey, it’s your choice!

Anyway, I have spent some time digesting the campaign finance reports of each of the candidates (for now the ones who are opposed) for both School Board and City Council.  My overall impression is that the local construction/real estate industry sure does participate heavily in local politics.  Well, who could blame them?  Peruse the data to your heart’s desire by clicking any or all of the following links:

School Board

• District 3
  • Tulane Duke
  • Sena Stewart
• District 4
  • Bryan Chandler
  • Kelly Horwitz
• District 5
  • Lester Edwards
  • Harry Lee
• District 6
  • Ginnye Capps
  • Marvin Lucas

City Council

• District 1
  • Bobby Howard
  • Coach Cunningham
• District 6
  • Bob Lundell
  • Mike Zeilner
• District 7
  • Bill Tinker

I will add to all this later with information about contributors to the unopposed candidates as well as some historic (as in history, not epic – well, that’s a judgement call, anyway you know what I mean) contributions.