The following, copied email, was sent to the superintendent of Horry County Schools, the members of the Horry County Board of Education, selected media, and the professional staff of Socastee High School on Sunday, November 3, 2013:
Socastee
Family,
Horry
County Schools claims the following happened in the development of our Race to
the Top application. This is taken from pages 25-27 of section B of
our consortium's submitted application. (We filed a joint application with
districts in the states of Washington, Michigan, Idaho, Texas, Alabama, and
North Carolina. By rules of the application, all are bound to all of its
statements and assertions.)
“Meaningful
stakeholder engagement is absolutely essential … engagement must occur at each
and every level of our Consortium, must include the active solicitation of
feedback that is responded to and acted upon, must be iterative, and must
encompass both those directly impacted by the actions of the Consortium --- the
teachers, parents, and students of each participating LEA…”
“In
this section, we provide clear evidence of the process we utilized to engage key
stakeholders in robust and meaningful ways… how each participating LEA has
engaged stakeholders within its local community."
“Each
participating district initiated a series of stakeholder engagement strategies
aimed at introducing principals, teachers, students, parents, and community
members to the RTT-D opportunity, the Consortium’s vision of personalized
learning, and the details of the proposal. Building upon these
strategies of comprehensive outreach, each participating district provided
stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback.”
“Recognizing
the importance of receiving feedback from staff at participating schools, some
districts determined the best course of action was to convene teachers at
on-site meetings. Horry County Schools, for example, scheduled
meetings at each participating school, preceding each meeting with a detailed
description of the content of the Consortium’s vision of personalized
learning.”
“Our
Consortium enjoys the widespread support of teachers within each member
LEA. It is our belief that this support stems, in part, from our
inclusion of teachers in the iterative process of the proposal’s
development."
The totality of the so-called
"evidence" provided by Horry County Schools includes four agendas, all with the
Race to the Top as one item among many. The only other
“evidence” presented is a 1 and ½ page summary of the Race to the Top grant
discussed at a board work session which took place four days after teachers
voted on the application. The following is taken from pages 1-57, the
"evidence" section of Appendix B.
P.
50 (SC) AGENDA Principal
Cabinet Race to the Top (one agenda
item) 9/11/13
P.
51 (SC) AGENDA Horry County
Board of Education (Work Session)
9/16/13
Race
to the Top Approval (item # 4) – Special Called Meeting
PP.
52-53 (SC) Race to the Top (1and ½ page
summary) 9/16/13
Presented
to Horry County Board of Education at work session
PP.
54-56 (SC) AGENDA
Executive Cabinet Meeting
8/27/13
Debrief
of 8/26/13 board meeting [item 4b –
discussion]
Race
to the Top grant, item # 2
P.
57 (SC)
AGENDA A-Team Meeting 9 a.m. – 3:30
p.m.
9/11/13
Core
Values / Race to the Top (11:40-11:50) one item
To
think that we were involved in all of this for less than one day, it makes my
blood boil. Oh, we were needed, our signatures of support, only because the
district had to have evidence of 70% faculty support, a requirement in the
application process. I will not be professionally abused and used, without
publicly challenging this nonsense. No, I am not Bill Gates, Pearson, Apple,
and all of those who have money and power on their side. I am one voice with
truth on my side. I like those odds.
If
you are interested in greater detail concerning this topic, study the e-mail I
sent out yesterday. For your convenience, it follows:
Socastee Family, Dr. Elsberry, Members of
the Horry County Board of Education, and Selected Media,
Please take the time to study the following. This
should be VERY IMPORTANT
to all professional
educators and citizens in Horry County and the other six member districts of our
Consortium with respect to our application for the Race to the Top - District
(RTT-D) federal grant. If I have made any errors of fact or in my evaluation,
please correct me.
Bobby
Stakeholder
Engagement in the Development of our Race to the Top Grant Application
(Facts)
Section B4 of our
2013 Race to the Top grant application is “Stakeholder engagement and
support.” Our district and
consortium have to show “The extent to which each LEA (local education
agency) has demonstrated evidence of --- Meaningful stakeholder
engagement in the development of the proposal and meaningful
stakeholder support for the proposal, including --- a) A description
of how students, families, teachers, and principals in participating schools (as
defined in this notice) were engaged in the
development of the proposal and,
as appropriate, how the proposal was revised based on
their engagement and feedback.
Section B4 of our
submitted application indicates that evidence for the above can be found in
Appendix B. The first page of
Appendix B, the table of contents, cites evidence for B4 on pages 1-57 and
refers to it as “Documentation of Stakeholder Engagement Strategies and
Feedback.”
The totality of
this evidence is listed below and each state participant
cited:
P.
1 (WA)
Race to the Top – League of Innovative Schools –
Consortium Application Principal
Meeting Agenda (9 principals/3 directors/1 chief of staff/1
CIO
9/5/13
______________________________________________________________________________
P.
2 (NC)
Letter to Parents – from Mark Edwards (Sup’t.) –
notification of RTT-D grant application – questions can be addressed
to ______ no
date
P. 3 (NC)
Letter to Parents --- Mooresville Middle School
--- sent out from
homerooms 9/10/13 (copy of
above)
P.
4 (NC)
Letter to Parents --- Parkview Elementary --- in teacher
boxes --- 9/9-10/13 (copy of
above)
P.
5 (NC)
Letter to Parents --- East Mooresville Intermediate ---
sent home to parents 9/9/13 (copy of
above)
P.
6 (NC)
Letter to Parents --- Mooresville Intermediate --- sent
home to parents 9/11/13 (copy of
above)
P.
7 (NC)
Letter to Parents --- South Elementary --- parent
notification letters 9/6/13 (copy of
above)
P.
8 (NC)
Letter to Parents ---
Rocky River Elementary --- from students to parents 9/9/13
(copy of above)
P.
9 (NC)
Letter to Parents --- Mooresville High --- from students
to parents
9/12/13
(copy of above)
______________________________________________________________________________
PP.
10-30 (TX)
Principal Survey (3 pp.)
7 completed
no dates
______________________________________________________________________________
P.
31 (ID)
AGENDA
Superintendent’s Community Advisory
Council
3/5/13 no specific mention
of Race to the Top
P.
32 (ID)
AGENDA
Superintendent’s Youth Leadership
Council
9/17/2012 Race to the Top (one
agenda item – 8 schools listed)
P. 33
(ID)
AGENDA
Superintendent’s Council of
Presidents
10/3/2012 Race to the Top (one
agenda item)
PP.
34-35 (ID)
UNDETERMINED (list of names and
groups)
9/5/13
PP.
36-40 (ID)
Race to the Top – Staff Survey (8
schools)
no date
PP. 41-49
(ID)
Race to the Top – Parent Survey (8
schools) no
date
P.
50 (SC)
AGENDA
Principal Cabinet 9/11/13
Race to the Top (one agenda item)
P.
51 (SC)
AGENDA
Horry County Board of Education (Work
Session)
9/16/13 Race to the Top
Approval (item # 4) – Special Called Meeting
PP.
52-53 (SC)
Race to the Top (1and ½ page
summary) 9/16/13
Presented to Horry County Board of Education at work
session
PP.
54-56 (SC)
AGENDA
Executive Cabinet Meeting 8/27/13 Debrief of 8/26/13
board meeting [item 4b – discussion] Race to the Top
grant, item # 2
P.
57 (SC)
AGENDA A-Team
Meeting 9 a.m. – 3:30
p.m. 9/11/13 Core Values / Race to
the Top (11:40-11:50) one item
Michigan
NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED
Alabama
NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED
For Your
Analysis
Questions:
1) Is there anything
“meaningful” in the facts presented that can qualify as “evidence” of
“engagement” in the “development” of the “proposal”? Notice the
dates closely. Think about how much
time would be needed for “meaningful stakeholder engagement.”
2) No evidence is given
from any district in our consortium for “how the proposal was revised based on
their engagement and feedback.” Could it be
that engagement and feedback were virtually non-existent?
One cannot revise something without something to
revise. What do you
think?
3) One form letter
notifying parents of the Race to the Top grant application from seven schools in
North Carolina sent out in close proximity to the time Horry County Schools’
teachers were asked hurriedly to give their support to the application would
lead one to believe that there was very little time for any “meaningful
engagement,” and any questions parents might have about the details of the grant
could not possibly be answered in time to have any significant effect on the
content of the application. What do you
think?
4) How much “evidence”
does Horry County give to defend its “engagement” of students, families,
teachers, and principals?
5) The totality of the
evidence provided by Horry County Schools includes four agendas, all with the
Race to the Top as one item among many. The only other
“evidence” presented is a 1 and ½ page summary of the Race to the Top grant
discussed at a board work session which took place four days after teachers
voted on the application. There was
certainly no time to consider any feedback for revision, none even presented,
after the board voted unanimously that night to support our
application. What do you
think?
6) How consistent
is the presented evidence with the following quotations taken from section B-4
of our district’s and consortium’s submitted grant application”?
(B-25-27)
“Meaningful
stakeholder engagement is absolutely essential … engagement must occur at each
and every level of our Consortium, must include the active solicitation of
feedback that is responded to and acted upon, must be iterative, and must
encompass both those directly impacted by the actions of the Consortium --- the
teachers, parents, and students of each participating LEA…”
“In this section, we
provide clear evidence of the process we utilized to engage key stakeholders in
robust and meaningful ways… how each participating LEA has engaged stakeholders
within its local community."
“Each participating
district initiated a series of stakeholder engagement strategies aimed at
introducing principals, teachers, students, parents, and community members to
the RTT-D opportunity, the Consortium’s vision of personalized learning, and the
details of the proposal. Building upon
these strategies of comprehensive outreach, each participating district provided
stakeholders the opportunity to provide feedback.”
“Recognizing the
importance of receiving feedback from staff at participating schools, some
districts determined the best course of action was to convene teachers at
on-site meetings. Horry County
Schools, for example, scheduled meetings at each participating school, preceding
each meeting with a detailed description of the content of the Consortium’s
vision of personalized learning.”
“Our Consortium
enjoys the widespread support of teachers within each member
LEA. It is our belief that
this support stems, in part, from our inclusion of teachers in the iterative
process of the proposal’s development."
My
Evaluation
Having taught
document analysis for many years, I can find almost nothing “meaningful” about
our Consortium’s “evidence” for “stakeholder engagement and
support.” Idaho seems to have
done a better job than the other districts, albeit insufficient, by at least
surveying staff and parents of eight schools on some of the content of the
application. North Carolina, South
Carolina, Texas, and Washington present such little evidence that it probably
should not be considered evidence at all. There is
certainly nothing meaningful about it. Michigan and
Alabama give absolutely no evidence. Numerous
statements in the application proper (see # 6 above), then, are
NOT supported in
Appendix B (evidence section). The question
arises, “Was this intentional or an oversight?” It has to be
one of the two. Either answer is not a good one.
I am still waiting
for the last question I submitted to Horry County Schools as part of my Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) request to be answered, to address its claim to have
“scheduled meetings at each participating school, preceding each meeting with a
detailed description of the content of the Consortium’s vision of personalized
learning” for the purpose of “receiving feedback from staff.”
No one at Socastee High School has identified any such
meeting as having taken place.
The only meeting that
even comes close might be the countywide televised presentation Superintendent
Cynthia Elsberry made at the beginning of this school year in which she
presented a brief overview of our forging ahead with technology innovations and
the need for all of us to “get on board.” There was
definitely no detailed presentation on the RTT content or our application and
absolutely no attempt to gain meaningful feedback from teachers in its
aftermath.
I had perfect
attendance last year and this year, and to the best of my knowledge, there has
never been a scheduled meeting at Socastee High School for the express purpose
of getting input from me or any other professional staff member on our Race to
the Top application and/or its detailed content.
If the above did
occur and what I have claimed in my recent opposition can be shown to be false,
I will make a public apology to Horry County Schools. On the other
hand, I expect the Horry County Board of Education to take some public action on
all of this, if what I have claimed proves to be true. Accountability
must be important to someone besides me.
Finally, as a
professional educator and one who was supposed to be involved in an iterative
process for the development of our district’s Race to the Top application, long
before being asked for my support, I believe I have been professionally abused
and taken advantage of. I am seen as
an afterthought in a process in which money and what the district wants is more
important than my professional input. I am
especially incensed that our application makes statements that cannot be
supported.
I simply want justice
to be done, no matter how corny that sounds. I cannot, in
good conscience, teach about the principles upon which our great nation was
founded and not act on them.
As a citizen first,
and a teacher second, my interest and responsibility (duty) concerning how
teachers and others are treated by Horry County Schools and other governmental
entities around our country demand that I act publicly.
Sincerely,
respectfully, professionally,
Bobby
Chandler
Teacher (Socastee
High School, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina)
International
Baccalaureate Advanced Placement United States History
International
Baccalaureate Twentieth Century World Topics
722 Pine Drive,
Surfside Beach, South Carolina 29575
No comments:
Post a Comment