Division I regional track finals
Fenwick graduation 2012
Ponitz graduation 2012
Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > December
December 2006
The power of encouragement
Former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz
Over the holidays, I’m reading the autobiography of former Notre Dame football coach Lou Holtz. In one way, Holtz’s story is classic — poor kid overcomes odds and reaches great heights through hard work.
But unlike many other folks who made this climb, Holtz benefited from a very supportive family. And the turning point in his life came during a conversation with his parents and a coach who had a different vision for Holtz than everyone else in his life.
It’s a good demonstration of the life-changing power of teachers and coaches.
As Holtz tells it, he was by far the smallest and least suited player on his high school football team. And he didn’t have a reputation for great classroom smarts either. But he loved playing football and earned a reputation for not only knowing exactly what he was supposed to be doing on the football field at all times, but also knowing — and sometimes reminding teammates — exactly what the assignments were for the other 10 players on his side the field.
At the end of Holtz’s junior year, his school’s football coach got a job at a bigger school. Before he left, he called Holtz and his parents in for conference where he stunned all three by suggesting Lou ought to go to college and become a football coach. Holtz’s father was a bus driver and ex-coal miner from West Virginia. The thought had never occurred to anyone in the Holtz family that any of them should, or even could, go to college.
But that one conversation changed the direction of Holtz’s life. He probably would have ended up working in an East Liverpool, Ohio, hospital like his sister without that coach’s words. Instead the whole family pitched in to send Holtz to Kent State University.
Can you imagine what any of the folks involved in that conference — the coach, Holtz’s parents, even Lou himself — would had said if you’d have told them then that this boy could someday be the head football coach at Notre Dame? While Holtz was leading the Irish, he learned that the coach who inspired that early change of direction was still alive and retired in Southern California. For years, he was Holtz’s sideline guest for the annual Notre Dame-Southern California game.
It just goes to show what a little encouragement from the right teacher (or coach) can do for a young person.
(Image credit: Motivational Celebrity Speakers)
Permalink | Comments (9) | Categories: My Favorite Posts, Teaching and Learning
Best gifts: What they mean
Not too many people listed their favorite all time gifts, but that’s OK. Fix it in your mind now — what was your best gift ever?
Now I’ll explain why I asked.
A few years ago, my wife was home on maternity leave in December and was watching Oprah in the middle of the afternoon. The point of the Oprah show was to prove that the best gifts don’t cost a lot of money. She went around the audience proving her point over and over. Low cost favorite gifts included beloved family pets or time spent together with a parent or friend.
So my wife tried this one out on me that night — what was my favorite gift?
As I stated stated already, my all time favorite gift was Atari, the early video game system, which my brothers and I got for Christmas when I was probably about 12 or 13. She was offended. Video games didn’t seem all that special. Why Atari?
I chose it partly because it WAS expensive. My parents portrayed it as an impossible request largely for that reason. It was just shocking to learn that they had ponied up the money to get us the gift we most wanted. I asked my brothers and sisters, without saying why, to tell their favorite gifts that year at Christmas. One of my brothers immediately said Atari.
But this sort of blew the Oprah model to pieces since, as far as I remembered, Atari was the most expensive gift we ever received.
Two others listed their favorite gifts under my prior post. One fit the Oprah model of high sentiment at low cost — a stuffed bear as a first Christmas gift from a young girl’s father. The other gift — a new guitar — seems sort of down the middle. A guitar, as far as I know, is at least fairly expensive, but presumably it makes a great gift because it keeps on giving in the form of musical enjoyment for years to come.
It’s not too late to play my little game. Does you all time favorite gift fit the Oprah model?
Mario: Roosevelt decision sound
There’s been a lot of talk about Roosevelt High School that followed developer Beth Duke’s plea for the city to block demolition of the historic school.
Board member Mario Gallin has some comments in response to the criticisms of the board’s decision-making process. She E-mailed her thoughts to me and asked if I would post them. Here is Mario’s view of the Roosevelt controversy:
“Over the last few days, there has been renewed comment on the school board’s decision demolish the old Roosevelt High School and build a new PreK-8 school on that site, in conjunction with the City’s plan to build a “rex-plex” on adjoining property. Some of the comments have seemed to indicate that the Board did not consider all possibilities to save the old Roosevelt building. As a board member who has been intimately involved in all aspects of this decision, and as the Board Liaison to the Construction Project, I would disagree. We had been gathering information and hearing presentations for 3 years before the recommendation was made to locate the Boys’ Academy on that site. There have been public meetings and discussion during that time
On May 20, 2003, the board approved a contract to purchase the Reynolds & Reynolds property in order to consolidate central office operations in one location. This meant that the staff at Roosevelt Center would be moving out and into the new location, which occurred in August of 2003. Central State also relocated their operations around that time to space they continue to lease from DPS at Jackson Center. In a moment of serendipity, they are now strong partners with the Dayton Technology Design High School, a Dayton Public School charter high school targeting out-of-school youth as well as high school students considered at risk of dropping out. The police station that was located at Roosevelt moved in December of 2005, at which time the building was officially closed.
On May 30, 2003, a press release was issued announcing the formation of a Blue Ribbon Task Force to identify alternative uses for the Roosevelt High School building. In that press release, President Littlejohn indicated that one possible use of the property could be a new school site.
The Task Force originally consisted of Dave Bohardt, Chair, Jim Francis, Annie Bonaparte, John Moore, Jr., Tom Webb, Andrea Amonick, and Raleigh Trammell. In a memo from Gail Littlejohn dated June 24, 2003, the Task Force was charged with bringing a recommendation or appropriate alternative use for the Roosevelt Center: “The process should include an assessment of all viable options, solicitation of input from the surrounding community and Roosevelt alumni, business community and other interested parties and the recommendation should include potential owners of the property, appropriate use of the property and anticipated funding sources.” The original deadline was November 30, 2003.
Annie Bonaparte sent a letter to the board on September 3, 2003 asking for an opportunity to present a proposal to the board at the October 7, 2003 meeting. In a response dated September 30, she was told that all presentations would be postponed until the Task Force made its recommendation, at that time anticipated in March 2004.
On November 4, 2003, a recommendation to request proposals for the redevelopment of the Roosevelt site was approved by the board.
On April 20,2004, Jeff Wray gave an update on the planned redevelopment of Roosevelt which included a PreK-8 school within the building. I believe this was in the context of the Blue Ribbon Task Force and was not a proposal from what later became the Roosevelt Renaissance proposal.
On May 18, 2004, another recommendation to request proposals for the redevelopment of the Roosevelt enter, including specifically exploring the option of using part of the building as a PreK-8 school, was approved.
These recommendations to request proposals was necessary because we are unable to arbitrarily pick a developer. There is a legal process that needs to be followed, from advertising to a timeline for submission and an evaluation by the purchasing department staff, before a recommendation is made to the Superintendent and then the official recommendation to the Board.
On September 7, 2004, the task force met to consider three proposals submitted to Dayton Public Schools. Their recommendation to the board, made on September 8, was to accept the proposal submitted by the Roosevelt Collaborative. At that time, Dave Bohardt, as chairman, thanked Gail, Dr. Mack, John Carr and Stan Lucas for their support of this process.
A recommendation to authorize the Superintendent and the Chief Construction Officer to pursue the plan for redevelopment of Roosevelt Center with Karrington/Wilkinson, primary partners in the Roosevelt Collaborative, was approved by the board on December 7, 2004. At that time, UJIMA was also involved in that collaborative.
Several informal deadlines for presentation of the projects came and went.
On July 12, 2005, I met with John Carr, Mark Parks and Oliver Wilkinson. Mark and Oliver made up Karrington/Wilkinson. They provided an update on their planning and committed to giving DPS a decision the feasibility of the project by the end of July. On July 18 John Carr received an email saying that Karrington/Wilkinson had dissolved their partnership and that each individually would be preparing a proposal. In an August 1 meeting with Mark Parks, John Carr and I were informed again about the dissolution and that the Wilkinson Group would be working with UJIMA. At that meeting the plan to include a PreK-8 school was dropped. Use of OSFC funds for part of the renovation as well as ownership of joint use space became problematic. The Karrington Group wished to proceed without the school.
I sent a memo to the board on September 2 outlining this development and also letting them know that both groups were to provide a proposed use and financial statements by September 2, 2005. Those proposals were attached. The intent was, if the board was agreeable, to make a commitment on the Sept. 13th agenda . The designated group would have until December to make a firm presentation. At that time we would either approve the transfer or take Roosevelt off the table and move toward demolition.
The Wilkinson Group did not provide the financial information requested and was asked via email on Sept. 7th and Sept. 10th to provide it by September 16th for a board decision on September 20th. On September 15th, Oliver Wilkinson emailed that, while his proposal had the support of the community, he did not have financial information to submit at this time.
A letter dated September 21, 2005 was issued to the Karrington Company as a letter of intent to proceed with the proposal for the Roosevelt Project. They had asked for this board action to be able to show potential investors that they were the designated developer. This would help them in getting firm commitments on the project. The deadline for a final presentation was Dec. 31, 2005 or another mutually agreed upon date. On Dec. 16th they asked for a 30 day extension.
At the same time, UJIMA was finalizing their proposal. On October 3, they sent a letter to the board with a draft proposal for the redevelopment of Roosevelt. At that time, they indicated that Mark Parks was no longer associated with them and they still wished to move forward. It was apparent that Oliver Wilkinson had not kept them apprised of the events in September and the decision was made to schedule them for a presentation as well on December 20, 2005. They were to come back to the board January 15. An extension was granted to January 31 because of personal circumstances relating the presenters.
A letter from Lee Massoud on January 18, 2006 to the Karrington Group reiterated the level of detail that the board was looking for and asked that it be part of the board meeting presentation on January 24, 2006
During a lengthy board meeting on January 31, 2006, both the Roosevelt Collaborative and UJIMA presented their proposals for use, and detailed financial documents. This meeting was recorded and broadcast over DPS TV.
The Karrington Group financial plan had multiple aspects. It included LLC equity, which consisted of cash and deferred fees. A User Capital Campaign would feature a consortium of non-profits who would be renting space in the building. Their responsibility would be to raise the money to renovate that section of the building they would occupy. City of Dayton funds would be sought over multiple years. Issue One Funding, which is Brownfield development money from the state, would require that the property be transferred to the Collaborative and would require that the City take the lead to manage the application process. Low Income Tax Credits are extended to projects that create low income housing. The Collaborative would go after the 4% tax credit, which is non-competitive. This project was not deemed to be fully competitive for the 9% tax credit and that tax credit requires a significant track record in doing 9% projects in the past. Historic Tax Credits are applied to 20% of the certified rehabilitation expenditures and has a three-part application process. Moving ahead with the Historic Tax Credits would require permission of the owners.
Jeff Wray told the board that the Low Income and Historic Tax Credits would be bundled together and used to work with the equity partner who would contribute dollars to the project. They were a significant part of the funding. It was crucial that those things that can, be assembled and identified because it contributed to the equity portion of the financing, at 54.7%.
The balance of the funds would be from grants or the City of Dayton. A loan equivalent to 16% of the project cost would be needed.
There were pointed and specific questions from board members regarding all aspects of the financial proposals. Clayton Luckie questioned the need for senior housing with the VA Center project in the works. It was explained that that is for veterans. He also questioned whether the affordable tax credits would be that easily obtained. His experience with the County indicated otherwise. At the end of the meeting he also expressed concern that additional housing experts, i.e. HUD, look at the impact of additional low income senior housing on the community.
Mark Parks was asked about the Collaborative being in a position to assume the operating costs of the building until the funding for renovation was in place. He said that he had not yet discussed it with the partners but was willing to do so.
Joe Lacey asked for a copy of a letter sent to the Collaborative after a “dry run” on December 12. He also asked for a copy of the letter of intent September 26, 2005 authorizing the Karrington Group to move forward with this proposal and also how many streets would be vacated (1).
Lee Massoud asked how the project would go if the marketing study indicated that the market for senior housing was not a strong as originally indicate. Mark and Jeff replied that a softening of the numbers would still be feasible but a total loss of market would scotch the project.
Annie Bonaparte and Bill Johnson presented UJIMA’s proposal, the Roosevelt Preservation Initiative. Their proposal was based on putting programs into the Roosevelt building that were programs already being provided or were opportunities that the community identified that they would like to see available. Funding for their proposal relied primarily on a $12 million dollar loan from Charter Funding Mortgage, out of California, which would be repaid with lease and operation income from Roosevelt tenants. While there were no firm lease commitments made at the time of the presentation, Mr. Johnson was optimistic tenants would come on board once they saw some movement on the project. Again, Lee and Tracy asked specific questions regarding the financing and debt service payments. Tracy asked what would happen if the projected revenue did not materialize and we were told the building would revert to the mortgage holder.
The fact is that many of the funding proposals made by both parties were challenged and it became clear that things were not as cut and dried as it would appear.
On March 16, 2005, the Karrington Group was provided with the carrying costs of Roosevelt Center. The cost for 2005 was $248,000. The building had not been mothballed as anticipated because people were still going through it as proposals were being finalized. Also at this time, a group of business persons had been asked to review the proposals for sustainability. The review committee consisted of business executives and developers. That group met with both Karrington Group and UJIMA in April.
A review indicated that while both proposals had some exciting components, there was not enough financial information to allow a thorough review of the projected sources of income or the projected long term cash flow for the projects.
Concurrently, UJIMA and the Karrington Group announced that they were considering joining forces again to submit a united proposal. This was not, as far as I know, a request made by anyone in DPS. Remember, they originally started out as one unit. The strengths in either proposal could complement each other. In the end, however, they did not submit anything to the board.
At some point in the spring, the new Dayton Public School student population projections were released and John Carr was directed to begin adjusting the Master Plan for submittal to the Ohio School Facilities Commission. It would involve determining how many total schools would be needed for the district population projected for 2010 and where the remaining schools to be built should be located. He would need to factor in our boys and girls schools, Montessori and traditional elementary schools and look very carefully at where our student population was based, what existing school sites or properties were available, and what specific commitments had been made to community partners (specifically the Neighborhood School Centers initiative). No small task.
In particular, the site for the Boys Academy needed to be determined. It needed to be in an area that would be easily accessible from all sides of town as it is a magnet school. It should not be placed in a neighborhood that would rely on it as a neighborhood school as it was a magnet school. The Roosevelt site consistently came up as an ideal spot. When the City began its discussions on the new recreation multiplex, it became apparent that this would be a great collaboration in the same vein as was proposed during the levy campaign for the new schools. The Boys’ Academy would be a state of the art PreK-8 building on the Roosevelt site and the City would locate the Recreation Center adjacent to create a campus feeling for the area. Subsequently, the City has indicated that they will also be looking at housing redevelopment to truly help to revitalize that corner of the city.
The press conference in May to announce the Roosevelt site decision was held by Dr. Mack and Gail Littlejohn as Board President. While no official vote had been taken, all board members had been consulted and with the exception of Joe Lacey, agreed. Five of the board members had been a part of the process from its inception in 2003. Lee Massoud, while only on for about 10 months, was intimately involved in the latest iteration of the proposals and brought her banking and development expertise to the table in helping to analyze all the factors involved. Joe Lacey was the newest board member, having slightly more than four months as a board member. I spoke with him before the press conference and he indicated he did not feel that full board discussion had been held. I suggested to him that he ask our board assistant to schedule another meeting or just have the item put on the agenda for discussion. He said that he would wait until an official resolution was made.
That resolution was made on July 5, 2006. A recommendation was made to enter into a revised Master Plan with the Ohio School Facilities Commission. Part of that Master Plan included a Dayton Boys Prep Academy on the Roosevelt site. Another recommendation specifically asked for acceptance of Segment III, which also included the Boys Academy. Unfortunately, there was a technical problem and the sound was not recorded. Joe did have a prepared statement which he read at the meeting, and he did provide a copy to the board assistant afterwards. It is clear he is not in agreement with the majority of the board on the condition of Roosevelt, on the decision build a magnet school in general, and on the feasibility of the plans presented for reuse of the building. He sites examples of DPS schools which sat vacant for decades before being repurposed, with the implication that eventually something can be made of them.
I do not specifically remember what was said by other board members regarding this issue, but again, over the past three years, individually in the community and in our capacity as board members at official meetings, we have had a cohesive, consistent message. We will work with whomever in the community who can provide a sustainable reuse of the building that would benefit the community it is located in. Those proposals have to have solid and demonstrable financial stability for well into the future. In the absence of those guarantees, we will make good on our promise to leave no vacant buildings in Dayton to become eyesores and trouble spots. And we will do it in a timeframe that allows us to access 61% state funding for demolition, to relieve the tax burden on the residents of Dayton. In this case we are also able benefit the students and parents and to be a part of a revitalization of a corner of Dayton that has been looking forward to redevelopment.
I hope this has clarified and perhaps refreshed memories on the decision making process. I am sure that there are people who will still disagree with the decision to demolish the old building, but I hope that at least they will agree that it was a decision made with a great deal of thoughtfulness and due diligence on our part.”
Permalink | Comments (14) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
What was your best gift ever?
A couple years ago, I asked this question of everyone in my family during the holidays — what was your all-time favorite gift you’ve ever received?
The question is purposeful and each answer, I thought, was revealing. I’ll explain where I got this question, why I’m asking and what your answer possibly says about you, or us, after I give you all a chance to post your answers.
So go on, tell us. What was the best gift you ever received?
(Image credit: www.ccfc.ca)
Last minute school law changes
As the lame duck legislature rushes last minute bills to the governor, there are some that affect education.
A couple thoughts on the implications of the rushed changes:
Vouchers
I’ve already written about how the expansion of the voucher program affects Dayton. But I can’t help but wonder why lawmakers, if they want more Ohioans to try vouchers, don’t take a more direct approach.
This further expansion of the eligibility rules again demonstrates how the program’s small enrollment was disappointing to supporters of the idea. This move is designed to use up more of the state-approved vouchers that so far have gone unused.
But when I was writing about this early in the year, some of the strongest advocates for vouchers were parents who have already chosen private schools and are scraping every dollar to make it work. Those parents have never understood why the state just doesn’t make families already attending private schools eligible for vouchers.
Does that cast the net too wide? Well, perhaps the law could add some limits. An income threshold could reserve vouchers just for the poorest private school families.
School buildings
Another change lawmakers pushed is designed to help charter schools. Many of them are now in unsuitable buildings because, short of raising private funds to build a new school, there aren’t many great options for school appropriate space.
Charter supporters feel public school districts should play fair and sell unused buildings to charters but fear that school districts will hold onto those schools just to spite charters that they view as competitors. So a new law proposed to require school districts to sell unused schools to charters if the school has been empty for a year and there is no plan for re-use during the next three years.
My first thought on that provision was that it could affect districts like Dayton that are in the midst of major school construction projects. Take the former Julienne High School building on Homewood Avenue that now houses Stivers School for the Arts. It is a nice quality building that Dayton Public Schools plans to use as “swing space” to temporarily house schools in transition.
But now DPS must take care to have a plan for that building after Stivers moves into its new building late next year or face the danger of being forced to sell it. And that’s just one example. Dayton has a couple dozen schools in transition. It seems like this change in state law creates one more headache for the managers of the building program.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice, Dayton Public Schools
Voucher program expands (again)
On Thursay, my colleague Tony Gottschilich helped me out by writing a story about how Ohio’s statewide voucher program, which was approved last year, apparently will be expanded for the second time, making thousands more kids eligible to use tax dollars to pay tuition at private schools.
There is an interesting twist for Dayton. It’s the only city in the state where charter school kids are eligible to receive vouchers. By my count, students at six charters are now eligible to apply for vouchers to attend private schools on the state’s dime.
This is a little hard to explain.
In most districts, voucher eligibility is determined by the academic status of each student’s “home” school, or the public school in their neighborhood to which they would be assigned. So if a student has already opted for a charter school, the state views that student as having already exercised “choice” and if the charter the student picked is a low performer, its basically up to them to find a new charter, go back to the home school or ante up for private school.
Because Dayton is an “open choice” system, students are not assigned to home schools by neighborhood. They list their top three choices and are assigned by lottery. This created a problem for the state. There is no “home” school for some kids who started at charters in kindergarten.
So to solve this, the state took the easy way out. In “open choice” systems like Dayton, charter schools are subject to the same voucher rules as traditional public schools. So under the new rules passed by the legislature this week, students who attend any Dayton charter school that has been rated in the bottom category or “academic emergency” in two of the past three years are eligible to seek a state voucher to pay for private schools next fall.
By my count, this adds these six charter schools to the list of 14 Dayton schools that are eligible:
Colin Powell Leadership Academy
New Choices Community School
Omega School of Excellence
World of Wonder Community School
Academy of Dayton
City Day Community School
Here’s the list of the other voucher-eligible schools in Montgomery County:
Dayton: Allen, Belle Haven, Cornell Heights, Edison, Fairview, Kiser, Meadowdale, Orville Wright and Van Cleve at McGuffey elementary schools; Wilbur Wright Middle School; Belmont, Colonel White, Dunbar and Meadowdale high schools
Jefferson Twp.: Blairwood Elementary School and Jefferson High School
Trotwood: Westbrooke Village
Permalink | Comments (9) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice
Are we teaching kids an abstinence fantasy?
I’ve written before about how federal money for sex education is largely restricted “abstinence only” programs and how critics say this is damaging to kids because they don’t learn practical information they will really need.
Critics also argue that abstinence is fantasy — that almost none of the adults who preach this approached practiced it themselves.
A story in today’s paper provides more evidence that abstinence is exceedingly rare.
A study now shows 95 percent of Americans have had pre-marital sex, including both men and women going as far back as the 1940s.
So early sex is both universally common and a long tradition. Advocates of science-based sex education argue that a practical curriculum can give kids information they will need because they will face early sexual situations in almost all cases. They believe this sort of program can make a measurable difference in limiting unwanted pregnancy and other sex-related problems.
What do you think of this study and its implications for school use?
Permalink | Comments (13) | Categories: Sex Education
No cuts until February
Dayton school Superintendent Percy Mack said today that he will not announce any budget cuts or layoffs until after school is back in session in January. This means nobody will actually be forced out of a job until February at the earliest, since union contracts require 30-days notice for layoffs.
We’re now expecting around 67 layoffs — Mack said the original plan for 135 job cuts would be reduced by half after the district got a $3.8 million wiindfall from a tax lein sale earlier this month.
The cuts were supposed to be revealed in early November, then by Thanksgiving and then by the holiday break but were delayed each time. More on this story in tomorrow’s Dayton Daily News.
Permalink | | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Does this guy influence your eduthinking?
Checker Finn
Education Week’s latest issue has a long look back at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and native Daytonian Checker Finn, who 10 years ago reshaped a local charity into a national powerhouse promoting choice and standards in education.
With the anniversary approaching, Fordham ordered up a couple of reports — a narrative written by a freelance journalist on the group’s most recent decade in education and a separate report from Education Week’s research arm looking and what people and groups are most influential in education. Ed Week’s story about Fordham was separate from the other two reports.
As for the influence rankings, Finn and Fordham unsurprisingly make both lists.
I’d love to hear you thoughts on who should, or shouldn’t, have made the list or how you would have ranked them. EdWeek apparently doesn’t have its Fordham stories (the package includes profiles of some of the Dayton charter schools Fordham now sponsors) online. It does have a story on the influential people and groups, but it might require a subscription to read.
Here’s the ranking for most influential people:
Philanthopist Bill Gates
President George W. Bush
Kati Haycock, director of the Education Trust
G. Reid Lyon, education researcher
Senator Edward Kennedy
Former President Bill Clinton
(tie) Richard W. Riley, Clinton’s Secretary of Education
(tie) James B. Hunt Jr., former North Carolina governor
Marshall (Mike) Smith, education director for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
(tie) Linda Darling-Hammond, Stanford University education researcher
(tie) U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Rep. George Miller, D-California, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee
Chester E. Finn, Jr., executive director of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Here’s the most influential education groups:
U.S. Congress
U.S. Department of Education
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Education Trust
National Governors Association
American Federation of Teachers
(tie) Achieve, Inc.
(tie) National Education Association
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Center on Education Policy
The most influential education sources:
National Assessment of Education Progress (The Nation’s Report Card exam)
Education Week
National Center for Education Statistics
New York Times
U.S. Department of Education
Education Trust
Washington Post
(tie) Education Next education journal (a Fordham Foundation publication)
(tie) Public Education Network Weekly Newsblast
Education Gadfly (a blog-like weekly report from Fordham)
Eduwonk (Andrew Rotherham’s blog)
My own quick take:
—I think Gates is the right person for the top of the influential people list. He is throwing an incredible amount of money around (with lots more to come) and that has shaped education in big and little ways. Taking Checker and his Dayton ties out of the list, Gates is the one other person on the list who has had tremendous direct influence on the streets here locally. Dayton has developed small charter-like schools in the Gates model (DECA for example) and used the small schools approach as a blueprint for its new high school designs.
Although if you equate Bush with NCLB, it’s hard not to make him No. 1 as that law affected every single school in the country like no law before it.
Assuming this list is supposed to represent the most influential people in education today (and not of the last two decades or something), I’d have dropped Clinton, Riley and Hunt down the list and moved Darling-Hammond, Miller and Finn up. Also, if Rotherham’s blog is among the most influential information sources, I’d consider that and his work with Education Sector probably enough to get him on the influential people list.
I might be tempted to put someone involved in the state education systems of California, Texas and New York on the list, too. Those states have enormous influence on the national education scene. I also wondered about Jeb Bush, who certainly had influence with Florida’s significant reform efforts. From Ohio, I’d have considered charter school mogul David Brennan, House Speaker Jon Husted and the late Tom Mooney from the OFT.
—The organization list is pretty strong. I’m tempted to move Gates up, but its probably correct to put the foundation behind Congress and the Dept. of Ed. It’s interesting (and correct) that the smaller American Federation of Teachers is considered more influential than it’s much bigger cousin, the National Education Association.
—The information source list needs help. The New York Times and Education Week should be 1-2. I’d put the Washington Post a little higher and NAEP, a national test, seems a weird choice for this list, but the data from the exam is used for lots of research. It was interesting (and I’m not sure it’s correct) that a blog (eduwonk) and a pseudo blog (Gadfly) also make the list.
Alexander Russo has a different take on the lists here.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Categories: Charter Schools and School Choice, Schools and Politics
Vilsack: A president who gets education?
Tom Vilsack
I just watched Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who’s now running for president, on the Daily Show. He did much better than I expected.
I met Vilsack and watched him speak last year at an event sponsored by the Hechinger Institute for Education and the Media. He completely wowed a room full of education reporters with his deep knowledge of issues in education.
But at the same time, I didn’t come away feeling he would make a strong national candidate.
My first thought was he needed to get some handlers. He showed up to this speech in Chicago, a sitting governor, with an amazingly small detail of one aide and one or two security guards. He was remarkably accessible. All that was quite refreshing.
But on the other hand, he didn’t seem very polished. He told a couple of long, rambling anecdotes and had a tendency to get super wonky discussing education. I cut him a break there since his audience was also quite edwonky. Plus Bill Clinton was notoriously wonky on policy and still played well in front of a crowd.
I just wasn’t sure Vilsack would connect with general audiences. But he was pretty good with Jon Stewart tonight, even cracking a couple decent jokes. Stewart pushed him on Iraq, which made Vilsack sound like he perhaps hadn’t completely thought out his positions. And there was, unfortunately, no discussion of education.
But still, I thought he did well overall. If you’re interested in education, Vilsack is one candidate to keep an eye on.
(Image credit: http://www.governor.state.ia.us/)
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Schools and Politics
Would teachers trade pensions for big pay?
A group called the Commission on Skills in the Workplace wants to cut a deal with teachers — and the promise is salaries around $100,000 a year for experienced teachers.
The catch? To get the money teachers would have to give up their pensions and go with a traditional 401-K retirement plan.
The group has put forward a lot of interesting ideas in a report that warns of dire consequences without drastic change in the way we educate kids. More comment on the report can be found at Joanne Jacobs’ blog and at The Education Wonks.
The commission includes New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York school chief Joel Klein, former education secretary Rod Paige and former Michigan Gov. John Engler. It was funded in part by the Annie Casey and Gates foundations.
Some of the other ideas the report argues for are charter-like schools given autonomy with the hope they will innovate and allowing some kids to move on from school after 10th grade. One immediate criticism is that many of these ideas are not new and to some extent the recommendations are a hodge-podge or recent reform ideas.
But the teacher pay proposal intrigued me. In theory, the system would work like this. Teachers would start at much higher pay — at least $45,000 — and could earn over $100,000. But instead of a system that rewards longevity with comfortable retirement, teachers would be on their own to finance retirement through a 401-K. And, at least in theory, the innovative, charter like schools would weed out low performers more effectively, rewarding the best teachers with the highest pay. The report argues this system would attract more talent to the teaching profession.
So tell us, teachers, would you opt for this type of system and trade the retirement security for better financial rewards in your work years? Do you believe much more pay would attract better talent?
Permalink | Comments (12) | Categories: Teaching and Learning
Breaking News: Teachers approve deal
Dayton teachers Thursday approved a contract with the school board that includes a 1.25 percent raise this year.
Union President Pat Lynch did not release the vote total but said the contract was approved by “a good majority” and that the vote had strong turnout.
The two-year deal is retroactive to June 30 and does not address pay for the second year. It includes language that says the sides can negotiate next year’s pay increase and benefits later. The board has said a levy will come in May for new operating money.
Last month, teachers rejected a deal that offered no raise but included a one-time lump sum equivalent to 1 percent of annual pay for this school year. That followed contentious talks in which teachers demanded the board make a better offer or face a possible strike vote.
The district is struggling with a cash crunch that is projected to result in a deficit in 2008 without new money or drastic cuts. Layoffs and other cost cuts are still planned for January. School officials have said they would make those cuts public later this month.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Too late to save Roosevelt?
On Wednesday, I received an E-Mail copy of a letter to the editor from Beth Duke, the influential and well-known Dayton developer responsible for the rebirth of the Cannery and the Second Street Market downtown (and also, interestingly, Gail Littlejohn’s next door neighbor).
Duke’s letter is very direct — she says Roosevelt High School must not be torn down and she asks the city to refuse any school board request for a demolition permit.
When I shared this news with a few people involved in city and school district affairs, their reactions amounted to a collective “where has she been?” One observer of district affairs called Duke’s statements “irresponsible” because they could only create false hope among those sentimental about the school.
The Roosevelt decision was an agonizing one for the board and the total process took more than two years. Back in May, the board finally decided to reject a development proposal because board members said they felt the financing for the project was too iffy. Instead, the board signed onto a joint redevelopment plan with the city that calls for a city-run recreational center on the site paired with a new K-12 school for boys run by the district.
As I wrote then, there were strong arguments for saving Roosevelt. But, as I also wrote then, there was surprisingly little public outcry against the board’s demolition plan. And there’s been hardly a peep for the six months since the board made its decision.
As one person I consulted yesterday said, this is now very much a done deal. The district has removed all keepsakes from the building. A community “open house,” meant as a final goodbye, attracted hundreds of people over the weekend. At a city commission-school board joint meeting this week, both sides spoke openly of the progress of their redevelopment plans for the site.
Could the done deal be undone? Perhaps, if there was a real groundswell of support.
The question is whether that’s what the community wants. One “save Roosevelt” sympathizer told me yesterday that Dayton is the kind of place where sometimes it comes down to the last minute to motivate people.
So far, Dayton has not shown any urgency to keep the building rather than redevelop the site. The board and the city appear to have their minds made up.
What do you think of Duke’s letter?
Permalink | Comments (13) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Beth Duke: Block Roosevelt demolition
Here’s developer Beth Duke’s letter to the editor asking the city to block the demolition of Roosevelt High School, planned for early 2007:
There aren’t enough column inches available in the universe to enumerate all the reasons why the Dayton Public Schools’ decision to demolish the Roosevelt Center on West Third Street is such a bad idea. Here are the most important:
The building and site can be redeveloped. In fact, the DPS refused to consider a still viable, and very bankable, proposal from a local development team.
The building is in marvelous structural condition and could easily house the new school contemplated for the site – all within the financial guidelines of the Ohio School Facilities Commission. Moreover, as any architect will attest, new school construction simply will not match the quality, character and facilities of the existing building.
The building could also accommodate the recreation center tentatively planned for the Roosevelt site. The facilities available in the existing building – two swimming pools, large indoor track, mammoth auditorium, and practically unlimited common space – dwarf the facilities and amenities proposed for the new rec center.
The DPS’s alleged concerns about inheriting a building that will stand vacant for a long period of time is a lot of bunk. As already mentioned, there is a viable development deal on the table. Moreover, if others in the community resorted to the DPS logic, the Old Court House, the Arcade, the Duncarrick Mansion and even the house I live in (Red Oak at the Hook Estate) would have been demolished a long time ago. I could also say the same about my redevelopment projects, The Cannery lofts and the 2nd Street Public Market. It just takes creativity, vision and a sincere commitment to the community to create projects like the Cannery and the 2nd St. Public Market. The Roosevelt building is just waiting to be reenergized to again serve the greater Dayton Community in a new way.
Demolishing a perfectly good building – let alone a building with tremendous historic, architectural and cultural significance – simply because its preservation poses a challenge to the intellect and imagination of Dayton school officials is simply unacceptable.
In my view, the City of Dayton should refuse to grant a demolition permit until the DPS can demonstrate that redevelopment of the building and site is not feasible.
Sincerely,
Beth Duke Developer
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Teachers: How will you vote Thursday?
Teachers meet this afternoon to discuss the tentative contract offer from the school board. I have confirmed that the two-deal offers a 1.25 percent pay increase for this school year (retroactive to June 30) a teacher contribution of 15 percent on health care. In other words, comments on this blog here and here had it right.
Teachers will vote Thursday at their schools, a move some teachers suspect was designed to make voting easy and perhaps boost the number yes votes.
The second year of the deal provides a zero raise for teachers, but includes a “re-opener” that allows either side to request new talks on that topic only. So the two-year deal holds non-pay issues (including insurance) in place next year.
Teachers, let’s do an informal poll. How will you vote Thursday, yes or no?
Permalink | Comments (17) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Fairview to anchor neighborhood project
The Phoenix Project, a public-private partnership aimed at improving the neighborhood around Good Samaritan Hospital, announced today that a new Fairview Elementary School would be the centerpiece of a redevelopment project.
Currently two Fairviews, a middle school and an elementary school, serve that neighborhood. The hospital, the city and the City-Wide Development Coalition hope to work together to place the new school on a new site at the center of a project linking public areas and amenities. The fate of the properties where the current buildings stand is undetermined as yet.
The new K-8 school should open in 2009 at a cost of about $13 million plus about $2.5 million to acquire land.
Permalink | | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
What about selling Ludlow II?
The one question (suggested by a GOTB reader) that Stan Lucas didn’t completely answer from his Q&A here Saturday about the Ludlow buildings was about whether the district might consider selling the Ludlow II building, across the street from its main downtown headquarters.
On Thursday, I asked board President Gail Littlejohn about that idea. It sounds like that reader’s question really got her thinking and prompted some research into the question.
This all began with a GOTB reader’s observation that few people seemed to work at Ludlow II. In his answer, Stan Lucas said the building is mostly classrooms as it was used by Reynolds for training. He said only about 24 people actually work in the building.
The reader’s question also raised the possibility of selling Ludlow II, which is a pretty nice downtown building, to raise cash. The reader pointed out that with new schools coming online, the district would have several good facilities to host training. I asked Littlejohn about this and here was her response:
“Any properties we own that are not going to be used directly for instruction are fair game to consider better use for that facility and perhaps even the sale of it.”
She went on to say that this question prompted the board to ask for an assessment of Ludlow II and the percentage of time the building is in use.
“Good ideas come from a lot of places. We will certainly take a look at that,” she said.
Littlejohn pointed to the district’s interest in selling its Jackson Center building as an example of its willingness to consider all options for non-instructional buildings.
Jackson Center has a bit of a sordid history. Once part of a school, it was converted into a “math and science” center at a multi-million dollar cost in the mid-1990s. When I started covering the district in 1999, the board was very frustrated with the ultimate length and cost of the project. But in the end, Jackson Center became a useful training center.
The district now rents part of it to Central State University for its west campus and the building hosts the Dayton Technology Design High School. It also still hosts district meetings and training programs, including board meetings.
The board actually had planned to put DTDHS at Ludlow II until downtown business leaders, who have made it their mission to rid downtown of teens, objected. Still, if the district ever had a buyer for Jackson Center, it could theoretically move DTDHS and perhaps even CSU West to Ludlow II.
Altogether, the district has four non-academic buildings for sale or that it potentially could sell — the old administration building on First Street; the old Patterson High School, also on First Street; Jackson Center; and Ludlow II. (This is not counting Roosevelt High School, which the district plans to demolish and replace with a new school and a city-run recreation complex.)
Meanwhile, the city wants to buy Patterson Career Center for its ball park village project near the riverfront. Of course, that is a rare case. Overall, downtown is a a pretty slow real estate market right now. I’m not sure proceeds from real estate sales is anything the district can count on for revenue, at least not in the short term.
What do you think? Are there other real estate strategies the district could pursue to raise cash in a time of crisis?
Permalink | Comments (16) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Lucas: Reynolds deal paying off
In 2003, Dayton Public Schools shocked a lot of people when it bought the former Reynolds & Reynolds world headquarters on Ludlow Street in downtown and consolidated three administration centers there as a single, central administrative headquarters for the district.
Efforts by the city and other downtown business leaders to talk the school board out of this move — arguing that another corporate client would be better for the location and that the board could find other suitable locations for its administrative home base — did not dissuade the board. So board members signed a deal to spend $15.5 million to buy the building.
Concerns, anger and above all lots of questions were raised about this move in the last month as the district began struggling with tight finances. A couple weeks ago, I asked Dayton’s school Treasurer Stan Lucas if he would be willing to answer a list of 10 questions about the Ludlow buildings and purchase and he agreed to do so.
Most of these questions came from GOTB readers through comments on different posts about the district’s finances. I added in a few additional questions. Here they are, with Lucas’ responses:
1. The reported cost of the Reynolds purchase was $15.5 million. What was the true final purchase cost and how is DPS’ payout for the purchase structured? Is it true DPS faces a balloon payment in 2007 that could be part of the reason for the levy?
Stan Lucas: The total amount financed for purchase of the facilities was $16,323,995 at an interest rate of 5.38 percent for 25 years. There is no balloon payment required. The purchase of the Ludlow property was made with capital funds. These funds are earmarked specifically for district facilities and are separate from operating funds, which are used for expenses like textbooks, salaries and utilities. The financing included the buildings, furniture fixtures and moving costs as shown below:
Buildings and Furniture: $15,570,000
Moving and Improvements: $500,000
Issuance Cost: $252,995
Total Cost: $16,323,995
2. In 2003, the district estimated the Reynolds deal would save nearly $9 million in four years. How much savings have been realized as of today, almost three and a half years after the sale closed?
Stan Lucas: Our analysis shows the purchase of the Reynolds property will have saved the district’s general fund $5.9 million through fiscal year 2007. While we did not realize a $9 million savings in the short term, we will continue to see savings of $2 million a year, at a minimum, from the consolidation of staff that resulted from the move to this location. Our purchase of the Reynolds property is a capital investment for the future; we are here for the long term.
3. In 2004, you told the DDN that administrative consolidation at the Ludlow buildings was saving the district about $2 million a year, which you said was less than the anticipated $2.25 million annual saving you projected but still enough savings to help stabilize the budget. How did you arrive at those figures? Can you demonstrate today that the Ludlow purchase still is a cost saver for DPS?
Stan Lucas: As discussed in the previous answer, our analysis demonstrates the district will save $5.9 million in the general fund through fiscal year 2007. This figure represents the total dollar amount saved from the consolidation of three facilities into one and the reduction of the central office workforce. We will continue to save a minimum of $2 million a year in salary and benefits from the central office positions that were reduced as part of the consolidation when we moved to the Ludlow facility. In addition to a projected $10 million in savings over the next five years, the district will be building millions of dollars in equity in the years to come.
4. You’ve acknowledged to the DDN that it cost more to prepare the Ludlow buildings for move-in than expected. What was the expected cost of retrofitting the Ludlow buildings for DPS use and what was the true cost? What were the additional upgrades that were undertaken and why?
Stan Lucas: We did encounter some issues when we moved in, the most troubling of which was the need to repair the elevators and bring them up to code for a public building. We also encountered a breakdown in the HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) system that we had anticipated we would be able to upgrade over a long period of time. In order to protect our investment in the building, we moved forward to make all the repairs up front. We financed the improvements without using general fund money, issuing a 10-year long-term note for $3.5 million at 3.3 percent interest. (The balance of the $3.5 million note was used for other district repair needs.) This note will be paid from the permanent improvement fund, which is separate from our operating funds, or general fund. Total improvements were as follows:
HVAC: $1,700,000
Elevator Upgrades: $400,000
Fire Alarm Upgrade: $250,000
Electrical Upgrades: $130,000
Total: $2,480,000
5. Teachers who comment on DDN’s education blog say the Ludlow II building, which is used for some training programs, seems largely empty most of the time. How many people actually work there and what do they do? Is the idea of closing down or selling Ludlow II feasible as a cost saver?
Stan Lucas: Staff training is a vitally important part of the district’s ongoing efforts to improve student achievement. Teacher training, as well as training for all DPS staff takes place throughout the school year for the district’s employees. Prior to our move, Reynolds and Reynolds used the Ludlow II Building as a training facility. The majority of the building is comprised of classrooms, which has made it a good fit for the district’s use as a training facility for staff. In addition to training sessions, building is used for principals meetings and other district meetings. There also are two district departments housed in the Ludlow II facility. We currently have 24 employees at the Ludlow II building. Staff development has 10 and the HR Department has 14.
6. The Ludlow buildings consolidated three former administrative centers, combining workers from Jackson Center, the former Roosevelt High School and the old administration building on First Street. How many total people now work in the downtown buildings and how many worked at those three centers before the move?
Stan Lucas: We are continuing to right-size our district staff, including our central administration office, to be leaner and more efficient. We are not the same school district in 2006 that we were in 2002, when we began this process. We originally moved 276 administrative and support staff to the Ludlow facilities. We have reduced that count further over the last four years and currently have 226 staff , a decrease of 50 positions. (The consolidation effort was originally targeted to central office administrators and support staff and did not include teachers, psychologist, interpreters, and occupational therapy and speech and hearing therapy staff who are assigned to the administration building for payroll processing purposes.)
7. Part of the district’s real estate strategy that figured into the Reynolds purchase was the sale of unused buildings, especially the former First Street administration building, the former Patterson High School and eventually possibly even Patterson Career Center and Roosevelt High School. The district has since decided to demolish Roosevelt in favor of a new school on that site and to keep Patterson Career Center for a new Montessori. What happened with the sale of the other two buildings — the First Street administration building and Patterson High School? What is the fate of those buildings now?
Stan Lucas: In every case, honest efforts have been made to maximize use of facilities and/or to convey structures to potential buyers. However, the sale of unused buildings was never part of the planned savings, because there is no way to predict the market or the final sales price. Efforts continue to sell the First Street Administration Building. Above all it’s important to keep in mind that simply to stand still with outdated facilities carries millions of dollars in annual upkeep costs. The Board feels strongly that those dollars are better spent in the classroom.
8. Teachers sometimes get E-mails from downtown listing the “specials” at the cafeteria inside Ludlow II. Does this cafeteria pay for itself? Why does DPS need a cafeteria in Ludlow II when there are two coffee/sandwich shops literally next door on both sides of the building (Terra Cotta and Kobricks)?
Stan Lucas: Nutrition Services is a self-sustaining profit center which is not supported by the district general fund and, therefore, must develop ways of generating revenue to support its entire food service operation. Chloe’s Café was established to provide a low-cost competitive alternative for nutritious meals for our employees. Many corporations provide food service options for their employees. Chloe’s is a division within Nutrition Services that generates revenue from three different areas—café, catering and vending. All of these are areas that help to supplement and generate revenue to increase the Nutrition Services’ profit margin. According to the Nutrition Services Department, they plan to expand Chloe’s Café to include downtown patrons. Revenue generated will allow them to provide additional services to the students we serve, such as breakfast at no charge for high school students.
9. What is the plan for the former Wilkie bookstore portion of the Ludlow I building? The rumor is work has stopped on a new board room for public meetings and television studio for taping school district TV programs because of the budget crisis.
Stan Lucas: That report about work stopping on converting the space is accurate. It would be irresponsible to proceed given the present financial circumstances of the district. This space will eventually be used for a community meeting room. Administrative meetings will take place there, including Dayton Board of Education meetings. Dayton Public Schools TV will be able to tape board meetings and other events in the facility. The project has taken a back seat to more pressing school building needs at this time.
10. If you could go back, would you still recommend the Ludlow purchase knowing everything you know today?
Stan Lucas: Yes. We were able to consolidate our staff and move them from three separate locations into one centrally-located facility that was a good fit for our employees and our organization’s needs. The move greatly reduced interdepartmental travel to conduct daily business; provided better coordination of services and, as a result, a higher level of service to our customers; and—most important of all—did result in an increase to the district’s general fund budget. We will be making a capital investment for the long term, while avoiding more than $30 million in repairs and upgrades to three separate facilities.
Permalink | Comments (16) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools, My Favorite Posts
Coming Saturday: Your questions answered by DPS
So why exactly did the Dayton Public Schools spend millions to buy the downtown Reynolds & Reynolds world headquarters? How much did it actually end up costing? How much was spent on repairs and upgrades? Would the district do it over again today?
Many GOTB readers asked these questions over the last couple of months as the district’s financial crisis worsened. Honestly, I was a little surprised by how angry many people continue to be about that purchase four years later and how many questions readers had about it.
So here’s what I did. I compiled many of your questions about the purchase, added a few of my own and asked Dayton Public Schools Treasurer Stan Lucas if he would answer them. He agreed.
Tomorrow I’m planning to post the complete Q&A. So if you’re interested, check back here in the morning.
Permalink | | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Breaking News: Another deal with teachers
I don’t have any details, but the Dayton teachers’ union has announced it reached another tentative deal with the school board on a labor contract today. I’ll let you know when I get details of the latest offer. What have you heard about the deal? Post any details you’ve heard here.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
The board’s choice
There was a flurry of Dayton school news Thursday, but I didn’t want the board’s intriguing choice to appoint Ronald Jackson to the school board to slide by without getting your reaction.
The board went with a parent who is fairly well known within the district but not widely known in the broader community. And at the same time, they passed on the chance to add to the board a guy who got 43 percent of the vote in the mayoral election a year ago and is well known and well connected in the community.
As today’s story on Jackson states, board President Gail Littlejohn said he was ultimately the board members’ choice because they liked the idea of adding a parent to the board and they were impressed by his work with children. Here’s one more quote about Jackson that was cut from my story today:
“He has dedicated countless hours and energy to implement a money management course for our program,” wrote Jody Williams, program director for the Youth Opportunities Program, through which Jackson works with kids in Preble and Butler counties.
Of the six members of the current board, only Mario Gallin has children attending schools in the district. I tried but couldn’t reach Bohardt for comment Thursday. He also got strong consideration, Littlejohn said.
“He interviewed very well,” she said. “He clearly has a vision for this community that includes strong public schools and we all appreciated that about him.”
I’ve posted statements about why they wanted the school board post from the four applicants who got serious consideration for those who want to know more about who the board considered.
What do think of the board’s choice?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Why they wanted the job
Here are the statements of why they sought a school board appointment from the four candidates who got serious consideration from the board:
Ronald Jackson
Jackson is expected to be appointed to the board Tuesday. He is a financial advisor with AXA Advisors and a former assistant vice president at Key Bank. He’s a graduate of Tennessee State University:
“I have a desire to be a productive citizen for our school district. As I look at the landscape of where Dayton Public School is headed, I am optimistic about its leadership. From the Board to the Superintendent, there is a strong moral foundation set in place. I see service to our students, employees, and the community. I want to be a part of that. Challenges are there, but they present opportunities that I want to be a part of. Being a member of the board would put me with a group that is effecting positive change in Dayton and the surrounding Miami Valley. If I become a part of that change or not, I applaud you for what you have done in the past, what you are doing now, and the rewards of your efforts in the future.”
David Bohardt
Bohardt ran unsuccessfully for mayor last year against Rhine McLin. He is executive vice president of the St. Mary Development Corporation and formerly was executive director of the Home Builders Association of Dayton and the Miami Valley. He is president of Preservation Dayton. He graduated from Chaminade-Julienne High School and holds a bachelor’s degree from Catholic University and a masters degree in journalism from Maryland:
“My involvement in land use and development issues over a period of more than 20 years has persuaded me, time after time, that the quality of public school instruction is a principal driver of economic development and prosperity — as well as community confidence and well-being.
Home buyers make their purchasing decisions based on the quality of local schools. Business expansion, relocation and investment depend on it. Public safety is significantly impacted by the quality of public school instruction, as are stable neighborhoods, values-centered families, and the quality of civic discourse in the community.
Through system-wide reforms, the Dayton Public School System has made remarkable progress over the past several years, but significant challenges remain with respect to (a) correction the region’s perception of our schools; (b) financing of the system; (c) using new school construction as leverage for revitalizing existing neighborhoods and creating new ones; (d) understanding how soon-to-be-abandoned buildings can contribute to economic redevelopment; (e) creating a stronger, more innovative partnership between the DPS and City of Dayton government; (f) attracting and retaining dedicated and effective teachers and administrators; and, finally, (g) sustaining the Continuous Improvement of the schools and moving to the next level of excellence.
If selected for the Dayton School Board position vacated by Mr. Luckie, I will devote my energy and focus to working with my Board colleagues, Dr. Mack and his team, and our teachers, parents and school children, to address each of these issues. I would be particularly interested in working with the business community — and especially with those businesses and business leaders located or housed outside the city — to secure their agreement that the success of Dayton’s public schools is critical for the future of our region and these enterprises. In that connection, I would expect to play a lead role in seeking region-wide business community support for the operating levy that will appear on the ballot next year.
I suffer no illusions about the challenges facing the Dayton Public Schools. But I know of nothing more important than providing the children of our city with lives whose fullest promise can be achieved only with an education of the very highest quality — and supported by a community that recognizes the achievements of this objective as a moral obligation.”
Geoffrey Drew Fuller
Fuller is a lawyer involved with government contracts and litigation for Sebaly Shillito & Dyer. He was the 1999 valedictorian at Colonel White High School and holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Dayton and a law degree from the University of Cincinnati:
“As a lifetime Dayton resident and Dayton Public Schools graduate, i have a vested interest in the success of the Dayton school system. I strongly believe in the importance of education and the invaluable opportunities that exist for shaping students’ lives. Students in the Dayton City Schools deserve an education that will prepare them to become productive and important members of society. The recent improvements in student performance and the ongoing upgrades to facilities, supplies, and technology are important steps in improving the educational opportunities offered by the Dayton Public Schools. The continued cooperation between the Board and the Superintendent and his cabinet will promote the System’s ongoing improvement. I am excited for the opportunity to work with the Dayton Board of Education, and to help continue its efforts to improve the educational opportunities offered by the Dayton Public Schools.
to continue the District’s improvement, the Board must maintain its focus on improving student results. As a successful Dayton Public Schools graduate, i am keenly aware of the opportunities available to students and the problems the District faces. Although I benefited greatly from my education, too many of my friends and classmates failed to realized their potential. While recent improvements in student performance indicate that the District is successfully addressing this problem, it remains the fundamental issue facing the Dayton Public Schools and most of its urban counterparts throughout the country.
The Board’s continued focus on holistic improvements is the key to ensuring that graduates of the Dayton Public Schools receive the education they need to become successful citizens. The new school buildings and upgrades to classroom technology and equipment will certainly support the ongoing improvement in student outcomes. Continuing to focus on both student and parent involvement is also vital for ongoing improvement. A school district with state of the art facilities and equipment, committed and well-trained teachers and administrators, engaged students and parents, and enthusiastic community support will provide students the education they need to become productive members of society.
My background and experience uniquely qualify me to work with the board to achieve these goals. As a successful graduate of the District, I understand both its successes and failures. That gives me a distinct and valuable perspective on the District. Moreover, my economic and legal education will allow me to understand the complicated issues facing the board and to provide valuable input on key issues. Perhaps my most valuable qualification is my understanding that the success of the District depends on cooperation among the Board, District, the City, and the community.
The success of the Dayton Public Schools is vital to the success of Dayton. I am sincerely committed to working with the board to provide exceptional educational opportunities to the students in the Dayton Public Schools and to help ensure they fully realize their potential.”
Nancy Nerny
Nerny retired in 1997 after 32 years as a teacher in the school district. She holds a bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Dayton and a masters in education from Wright State. She volunteers at Loos Elementary School among several other volunteer activities:
“I have been working most of my life to encourage and improve education as a teacher: (1) in curriculum and training of teachers; (2) counseling parents about their children; and (3) instructing children. Since retiring, I’ve continued seeking ways to improve the lot of our schools by serving on a Board evaluation committee; talking to many Dayton citizens willing to use their resources to work on the problem; and always volunteering one whole day a week at Loos to aid students and keep informed of the progress of the schools. I would like to continue to improve education as a board member.
I’ve been frustrated about the recent changes in Dayton education — the increasing number of charter schools distracting DPS students and monies; the lack of education funding from Ohio legislators; the poor support of students’ academic growth by some parents. Yet I’ve been inspired with hope by the present Board and Superintendent to improve our schools — their willingness to make tough economic decisions and maintain consistent behavior standards. i would like to join the board and work with the members to overcome those recent challenges.
I am sensitive to and cognizant of the financial problems you currently face as well as the community support you’ll need for the next levy. As a good problem solver, I would like to use my knowledge of our community to work with other board members to come up with some options, resources, mentors, or experts to help us involve the COMMUNITY in our school system’s financing, decision making, and growth”
Permalink | | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Tax windfall means half as many job cuts
Dayton Public Schools will get $3.8 million from the sale of delinquent tax liens. They were hoping for anywhere from $2 to $4 million but there was nearly as good a chance that there could have been no bidders for the liens and the district would have gotten nothing. The good thing about that is school officials didn’t count on any money from the sale, so the entire windfall can put put toward reducing the $9.4 million in cuts planned for January.
And that’s just what the district will do.
Up to 135 job cuts were part of the January cost savings plan. Superintendent Percy Mack said at Thursday’s press conference that he thought between this new money and revisions to the plan that have been in the works, about half those jobs could be saved. Exactly how many of the 58 teachers due to be laid off would be saved he didn’t say, but Mack did say the priority will be on maintaining the academic programs first.
He would not go all the way to promising all the threatened teachers and adjuncts would be saved.
We’ll have more on this and the new board member — Ronald Jackson — in Friday’s Dayton Daily News.
UPDATE: Here’s today’s story on the tax lien sale and here’s the story on Ron Jackson, who will be appointed to the board Tuesday.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Breaking News on school cuts, board member
Dayton Public Schools has planned a 4:30 press conference with Montgomery County Treasurer Hugh Quill to announce that the district will receive a multi-million dollar windfall from last month’s sale of delinquent tax liens. This is expected to have an impact on the plan for $9.4 million in cuts the board has planned for January.
Oh, and we have a new board member. And it’s not David Bohardt.
First the cash windfall. We’ll find out in a couple hours exactly how much the district is getting, but I think it’s safe to say it will be less than the $6 million it received last year when Quill’s office sold liens but more than the $2 million school officials hoped get from this year’s sale.
Here’s the deal with the liens. There are hundreds of property owners in the city who are delinquent on their property taxes. The county treasurer in the past has published lists of the worst offenders in hopes of shaming them into paying up. But last year, Quill’s office began making use of a state law that allowed it to sell this bad debt.
This works much like bill collectors who buy old debts from creditors. Companies, usually big banks, bid on the debt and then go after the debtors. Anything they collect they can keep. In the case of liens, the collectors can add a surcharge. The prospect of liens being sold also scares some delinquent property owners into paying their bills, which brings in more money, too. Most local property taxes go directly to schools. So its not an exaggeration to say school districts love Quill for this program.
So what will Dayton do with a few million bucks? Board President Gail Littlejohn said the money will be used to further reduce the number of layoffs and other cuts planned for January. Superintendent Percy Mack and his team have been working for weeks on a way to reduce the number of cuts anyway. So this new money raises the prospect that perhaps the cuts could be significantly reduced when combined with the changes that already were coming.
Littlejohn confirmed that there would be fewer cuts but she could not yet say how much the cuts would be reduced and what programs and positions would be saved.
Now onto the new board member. It is Ronald Jackson, a financial adviser with AXA Advisors and an active parent with two children attending Valarie Elementary School. Jackson will be sworn in on Tuesday.
Littlejohn said there were four strong candidates — Jackson, former mayoral candidate David Bohardt, attorney Drew Fuller and Nancy Nerny, a retired teacher. Any of them would have added helpful perspective to the board, she said.
It sounded like the decision came down to Bohardt and Jackson. Littlejohn said the board liked Jackson best because of his financial background and involvement with his school’s parent group but mostly because of his long term work with youth. She said Jackson puts on programs for youth to teach them about money and investing.
She said Bohardt interviewed well and that the board was impressed by his commitment to strong public schools. She said they considered his political and community connections a plus but ultimately decided Jackson’s skills were a better fit for the board’s needs.
I’ll have more on both these developments certainly in tomorrow’s paper and perhaps on the blog later today if I get a chance.
Also, coming Saturday here at Get on the Bus I’ll be posting some information from Dayton Public Schools that I think will be of high interest to may readers. So check back for a special post on Saturday.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Want to save tuition? Get hitched!
I got a laugh out of this story in the Chronicle of Higher Education, taken from Columbia’s student paper, about a student there who married a platonic friend in order to save, he says, $11,000 a year in tuition. His “wife” is dating another man.
The student’s full story of his financial hardships is an interesting read worth checking out. He is financially independent but faced frustrating barriers to receiving more college aid.
This is sort of a quirky story and I don’t think there is much chance this could become a widespread problem. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the ethics of his decision. What would you say to a friend who was thinking of getting married just to save tuition?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Categories: Colleges and Universities
Services for Tom Mooney set
Services are now set for Ohio Federation of Teachers PresidentTom Mooney, who died Sunday. The are planned for 11 a.m. Saturday at Memorial Hall, 1225 Elm St., in Cincinnati, Ohio 45202.
For more information, go to the OFT’s website.
Permalink | | Categories: Teaching and Learning
School board choice a no decision
The Dayton Board of Education completed interviews of six applicants for its vacant seat late Tuesday but decided to hold off on making a final choice for at least a day. Board President Gail Littlejohn said board members will mull over the choice and she will speak individually to them Wednesday.
If a consensus emerges, the board could name its choice as early as Wednesday. But if the board is divided, Littlejohn said two finalists would be invited to a second interview later this week. The board must name a new board member by next Tuesday, when its next meeting is scheduled.
Littlejohn credited the strength of the candidate field for making this a tough choice.
“You’ve just got different skill sets,” she said of the applicants. “We spent tonight talking about the skill sets we have and what we need going forward. The good news is we’ve got some good candidates.”
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
A new board member by tonight
We should get a new Dayton school board member later tonight. Yesterday the board interviewed four candidates. Tonight they’ll do two more. And when the interviews are done, they expect to name Clayton Luckie’s replacement.
Anyone want to venture a guess as to who they will pick? The have a good field to pick from — two ex-teachers, an active parent, a former day care director, a lawyer who was a top DPS graduate in 1999 and a guy who ran for mayor last year.
Who the board picks will say a lot about that person and about the board. The biggest question in my mind is whether they go with the high profile choice — former mayoral candidate David Bohardt — and why the did or did not pick him in the end.
Do you have a favorite? Or do you think you know who the board will pick? Let us know in the comments.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Saying goodbye to Tom Mooney
Tom Mooney
There was some sad news today in the education world. Tom Mooney, 52, was found dead of an apparent heart attack in Columbus Sunday. Mooney was the forceful and articulate head of the Ohio Federation of Teachers and a member of the guiding executive committee of the national parent union, the American Federation of Teachers, where he was influential in guiding the powerful union’s policy-making.
I always enjoyed speaking with Tom. He was smart and thoughtful and had a gift for explaining the most complex education issues in a way the average newspaper reader could grasp. That made him plenty popular with reporters.
I also had a bit of small world moment with him. I was telling my wife something he said one day when she asked who this Tom Mooney guy was. When I said he was the president of the OFT, she said something like, “Oh, must not be the same guy.” She said when she was a teenager in Cincinnati she used to babysit the kids of a teacher who lived in her neighborhood named Tom Mooney. It turned out it was the same guy.
But Tom’s passing made me think of a different story about him.
About three years ago, I was in Los Angeles at a seminar sponsored by the Hechinger Institute for Education and the Media at Columbia and one session featured Mooney debating Terry Moe.
Moe, who’s on the faculty at Stanford, is one of the smartest and most influential thinkers about education. His 1987 book, Politics, Markets, and the Organization of Schools, co-written with John Chubb, proposed a free-market, choice-driven system of education that helped inspire experimentation in charter schools by reform-minded state legislatures (Ohio included) in the 1990s.
Moe is sharply critical of teachers’ unions and in the session he painted them as a powerful and destructive force in education. Moe said the nature of democratically elected school boards renders them nearly powerless against the organized and well-funded labor unions. Moe described how unions can, at a moment’s notice, rally an intimidating mob of teachers to a school board meeting, or fan out an army of volunteers into neighborhoods to trumpet their favored candidates.
As Mooney and I spoke after the session about charter schools and choice, he seemed distracted. He apologized and said he was still worked up by the debate with Moe. Mooney, who led Cincinnati’s teachers’ union for 21 years, looked at me and asked, “Have you ever been involved in a local union?”
I told him yes. At the time I was on the executive board of the Dayton Newpspaer Guild, a union for editorial employees at the Dayton Daily News (I’m now the group’s treasurer).
“Perfect,” he said. “Let me ask you this — how many people do the bulk of the work in your union?”
Well, I told him, our executive committee had eight members. But at usually three or four do most of the work for a union with 150 members.
“Sounds like every local union I’ve ever heard of,” Mooney replied. “Where does he think we’d get these armies of people? When I was a local union president, we’d be lucky to get more than a few people to show up for anything.”
It was classic Mooney — passionate, a true believer in his cause and focused on the street-level realities over the philosophical. And putting it all in real terms for his listener.
I’ll miss him.
(Image credit: PBS.org)
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Teaching and Learning
Court to hear “bong hits 4 Jesus?”
You know, sometimes cases that make it to the U.S. Supreme Court just make you scratch your head. But this one is in league of its own.
A high school kid in Alaska in the audience as the Olympic torch runs by holds up a sign that says “Bong hits 4 Jesus” trying to get on T.V. and earns a 10-day suspension even though he was on his own time and nowhere near the school or any sort of school function. (Thanks to my good pal Frank Lockwood, the Bible Belt Blogger and religion writer for the Lexington (Ky) Herald-Leader for alerting me to this story.)
This little prank has opened quite a can of worms.
The principal justified the suspension by saying the kid was promoting drug use with the sign. But was he? As Lockwood points out, nobody seems to even know what he meant by the sign, or if it even meant anything other than “show me on T.V.”
San Francisco’s notoriously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals sided with the kid, ruling the school violated his right to free speech. (This is the same court that ruled “under God” should be taken out of the pledge of allegiance a couple years ago before being over ruled by the Supremes.) Oh, and arguing the case for the school district is Ken Starr. Yes, THAT Ken Starr, the Bill Clinton Whitewater/Monicagate prosecutor.
As goofy as this case is, there is one thing about it that I find interesting. Where does a school’s authority to regulate a student’s behavior end? This is a murky area. Certainly public schools can regulate behavior of students at school or those involved in a school-sponsored activity. But what about students who are entirely on their own time but do something that is not illegal but that school officials find embarrassing? What about behavior of a student in his or her private home that is publicly revealed? What about students’ public comments and actions on the Internet?
Any ideas on how and where to draw this line?
Permalink | Comments (10) | Categories: Schools and Politics
Centerville: Football capital and perfect town?
(Packers linebacker A.J, Hawk, right, with brother Ryan when they played at Centerville High School in 1998)
I love reading the New York Times, but every now and then you just see a story in the world’s best newspaper that makes you scratch you head and wonder, “How in the heck did that story happen?”
There is such a story on the front of the sports page today — a big feature on Centerville and the three NFL players who hail from this Dayton suburb.
Both the description of Centerville and the whole thesis of the story were, ah, curious.
First of all, I can’t imagine Centerville is the only city in America that boasts three NFL players (Hawk, Jets Center Nick Mangold and teammate Mike Nugent, a kicker). The story is pegged to this weekend’s first ever matchup between Hawk and his hometown friends when the Packers and Jets meet.
But it still left me wondering why this story merited the front of the sports page. Since these are our kids, we naturally find the story pretty interesting. But I wonder if anyone outside of Ohio cares.
Then there was the description of Centerville as an idealized “Pleasantville” type community. ESPN football analyst (and another Centerville native) Kirk Herbstreit used that title from a movie about an impossibly idyllic community to describe Centerville in the story.
I live right next door to Centerville in Kettering. Centerville is a very nice community, for certain. But really, it strikes me as a pretty typical upper middle class suburb. The story paints it more like the perfect small American town.
Of course it was a nice, high profile mention for our area and for some hometown kids who are, by all accounts, very nice folks. So I suppose we shouldn’t complain. I was a little surprised there was no mention of Mangold’s sister, who plays football at Alter High School. That’s a pretty good story in itself that previously earned a mention in the Times.
So tell us Centerville lovers — what is it about this city that makes it the poster child for the American hometown?
UPDATE: Forgive me. I should have explained the reference to Mangold’s sister more. Holley Mangold is Nick’s 16-year-old sister plays special teams and offensive line at Alter High School, which plays for the state football title this weekend. Holley was featured in a Times sports story last month also written by Karen Crouse.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Categories: Sports and Athletics
