The following, copied email, was sent on Tuesday, November 5, 2013:
Socastee Family, Dr. Elsberry, Members of the Horry County Board of Education, and Selected Media,
Our consortium, made up of seven districts from seven states, submitted a joint application early this month for the Race to the Top - District competition. The following deals with the lack of widespread "support" in the evidence section of the appendix (B4, pages 1-462).
Section B4 of the grant application proper, pages 25-33, "Stakeholder Engagement and Support," is supposed to be supported by evidence in Appendix B4 (pages 1-462).
I shared with you my analysis and evaluation of Appendix B4's first 57 pages concerning documentation of stakeholder and engagement strategies and feedback in the email, "Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement NOT Supported in RTT-D Grant Application" (Sunday, November 3, 2013).
Additionally, I shared with you my analysis and evaluation of the evidence presented in the "support" pages, 58-462, for the 70% minimum support requirement of faculty in districts without collective bargaining (Thursday, October 31, 2013).
Now, I would like to share with you some facts, my analysis, and my evaluation of the rest of the "support" section of Appendix B4, pages 58-462.
This section contains 326 letters of support for our RTT-D federal grant. The breakdown is as follows:
A) 142 letters of support from educational authorities, government entities, U. S. Senators and Representatives, academia, business leaders, community partners, and research leaders (four foundations, ex. Bill and Melinda Gates and the Broad Foundation)
B) 82 letters from school principals
49 Horry County Schools (SC)
11 Meridian Joint School District #2 (ID)
9 Vancouver Public Schools (WA)
8 Mooresville Graded School District (NC)
3 Piedmont City Schools (AL)
2 Utica Community Schools (MI)
0 McAllen Independent School District (TX)
C) 69 letters from parents
65 from Michigan
33 Dresden Elementary
31 West Utica Elementary
1 Utica Community School
3 from Idaho
1 Meridian Elementary
1 Eagle Academy
1 Chief Joseph School of the Arts
1 from North Carolina
Mooresville Graded School District
0 from South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Alabama
D) 23 letters from teachers
22 Idaho
1 Michigan
0 South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, and Washington
E) 10 letters from students
10 Michigan
3 from different high schools
7 Dresden Elementary
0 South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Washington, and Idaho
Brief Analysis and Evaluation ( will same some for later)
Many of the letters are form letters, such as those from Horry County Schools' principals and those from the parents of Michigan. Many letters of support from mayors and government officials are form letters, as well. Of course, in a number of these, some individuality is displayed, but, by and large, many read exactly the same.
I was not at all shocked to see the few letters for teachers' support, considering the lack of evidence presented for the minimum 70% faculty support in districts without collective bargaining. It would have certainly been better, however, to at least provide some letters from each district, rather than to have all, with the exception of one, coming from one district in Idaho.
The same can be said for student support, just ten letters, all coming from one district in Michigan.
The same can also be said for parents, 65 of 69 letters coming from one district in Michigan.
This evidence of support is shocking, for who seems to be the greatest stakeholders? Business, government, and external agencies, not those closest to the classroom, the students, parents, and teachers. It is not just numbers alone that tell the tale, but the lack of widespread support.
If there is indeed widespread support from students, teachers, and parents for this initiative, it is certainly not supported by the evidence presented. The evidence presented in Appendix B4 does not come close to substantiating the statements of widespread support made in the narrative of the application proper (B4, pp. 25-33).
It seems that the supporting evidence presented in Appendix B4 was designed to impress with sheer numbers, for it is lacking in substance and variety. The length is such as not to encourage in-depth thought and analysis, for who, other than one crazy, passionate teacher in love with his profession would take the time to critically analyze and evaluate a document of this nature?
Professionally submitted,
Bobby
Socastee Family, Dr. Elsberry, Members of the Horry County Board of Education, and Selected Media,
Our consortium, made up of seven districts from seven states, submitted a joint application early this month for the Race to the Top - District competition. The following deals with the lack of widespread "support" in the evidence section of the appendix (B4, pages 1-462).
Section B4 of the grant application proper, pages 25-33, "Stakeholder Engagement and Support," is supposed to be supported by evidence in Appendix B4 (pages 1-462).
I shared with you my analysis and evaluation of Appendix B4's first 57 pages concerning documentation of stakeholder and engagement strategies and feedback in the email, "Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement NOT Supported in RTT-D Grant Application" (Sunday, November 3, 2013).
Additionally, I shared with you my analysis and evaluation of the evidence presented in the "support" pages, 58-462, for the 70% minimum support requirement of faculty in districts without collective bargaining (Thursday, October 31, 2013).
Now, I would like to share with you some facts, my analysis, and my evaluation of the rest of the "support" section of Appendix B4, pages 58-462.
This section contains 326 letters of support for our RTT-D federal grant. The breakdown is as follows:
A) 142 letters of support from educational authorities, government entities, U. S. Senators and Representatives, academia, business leaders, community partners, and research leaders (four foundations, ex. Bill and Melinda Gates and the Broad Foundation)
B) 82 letters from school principals
49 Horry County Schools (SC)
11 Meridian Joint School District #2 (ID)
9 Vancouver Public Schools (WA)
8 Mooresville Graded School District (NC)
3 Piedmont City Schools (AL)
2 Utica Community Schools (MI)
0 McAllen Independent School District (TX)
C) 69 letters from parents
65 from Michigan
33 Dresden Elementary
31 West Utica Elementary
1 Utica Community School
3 from Idaho
1 Meridian Elementary
1 Eagle Academy
1 Chief Joseph School of the Arts
1 from North Carolina
Mooresville Graded School District
0 from South Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Alabama
D) 23 letters from teachers
22 Idaho
1 Michigan
0 South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, and Washington
E) 10 letters from students
10 Michigan
3 from different high schools
7 Dresden Elementary
0 South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama, Washington, and Idaho
Brief Analysis and Evaluation ( will same some for later)
Many of the letters are form letters, such as those from Horry County Schools' principals and those from the parents of Michigan. Many letters of support from mayors and government officials are form letters, as well. Of course, in a number of these, some individuality is displayed, but, by and large, many read exactly the same.
I was not at all shocked to see the few letters for teachers' support, considering the lack of evidence presented for the minimum 70% faculty support in districts without collective bargaining. It would have certainly been better, however, to at least provide some letters from each district, rather than to have all, with the exception of one, coming from one district in Idaho.
The same can be said for student support, just ten letters, all coming from one district in Michigan.
The same can also be said for parents, 65 of 69 letters coming from one district in Michigan.
This evidence of support is shocking, for who seems to be the greatest stakeholders? Business, government, and external agencies, not those closest to the classroom, the students, parents, and teachers. It is not just numbers alone that tell the tale, but the lack of widespread support.
If there is indeed widespread support from students, teachers, and parents for this initiative, it is certainly not supported by the evidence presented. The evidence presented in Appendix B4 does not come close to substantiating the statements of widespread support made in the narrative of the application proper (B4, pp. 25-33).
It seems that the supporting evidence presented in Appendix B4 was designed to impress with sheer numbers, for it is lacking in substance and variety. The length is such as not to encourage in-depth thought and analysis, for who, other than one crazy, passionate teacher in love with his profession would take the time to critically analyze and evaluate a document of this nature?
Professionally submitted,
Bobby
No comments:
Post a Comment