Saturday, September 22, 2012
Support our Teachers
Marlene Pollock and Jack Livramento will be on WBSM 1420 at 8:00 a.m. this morning to push their small autonomous school agenda. Please support the teachers of Gomes and Roosevelt by calling in and letting everyone know that you support equality for all children and teachers. Please say "NO" to autonomous schools. 508 996 0500.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
- Publicly available schools data show that either Paul Dakin, Revere Superintendent, or Marlene Pollock is misrepresenting the performance of Paul Revere Innovation School.
- Publicly available proposals for the Renaissance and Esperanza schools show that either Jack Livramaneto or the proposals’ authors are misrepresenting the plans for class size, schedules, and leadership at the Renaissance and Esperanza schools . These elements that Livramento says have not been decided, constitute at least half of the autonomies laid out in black and white in each proposal.
- Other districts are praised by Livramento and Pollock for pushing innovation. However, these districts have seen teachers vote on Innovation schools but Gomes and Roosevelt teachers are being denied a vote.
- If both proposals are approved, within 12 months the New Bedford district will be forced to commit $30,000,000 to experimental projects that lack a number of critical elements in other Innovation schools in Massachusetts.
This morning on WBSM, Marlene Pollock made much of the Innovation school model in place at the Paul Revere School in the Revere school district. The Paul Revere school was proof, she said, that this Innovation model works and must be implemented in New Bedford without delay.
-------Innovation is not a miracle solution-----------
It is not surprising that Revere is presented a s a model. Revere started Massachusetts first innovation school a mere 24 months ago. Of the first three, it was the only elementary school and remains one of only about 12 experimental elementary innovation schools statewide.
Pressed by host Taylor Cormier to describe some innovations seen in these schools, Pollock pointed to the change in starting and finishing time for students in Paul Revere and curricular planning freedom for Paul Revere’s teachers. But the real proof seemed to come in comments she attributed to Paul Dakin, Revere superintendent. Pollock paraphrased Dakin as saying that Paul Revere had been the district’s worst school and, post Innovation, is now its best. When challenged by three successive callers on the feasibility and desirability of the Esperanza and Renaissance plans, Pollock ignored the specific concerns with the New Bedford’s models and kept returning to Dakin and Paul Revere’s dramatic turnaround and success- asking how anyone could be against such a successful model as practiced in Revere.
However, widely available state data show that Paul Revere has not been the Revere district’s worst school and is not now its best. No dramatic turnaround or success can be linked to Revere’s status as an Innovation school. Paul Revere was seeing modest success before it became an Innovation school and has seen a slight dip in performance in the most current data. The timeline is informative:
In 2006, long before it became an Innovation school, “Paul Revere school was .. officially removed from the [state’s] 2006 list of schools in need of improvement.”
The relative success of Paul Revere was again apparent in 2007 and in 2008 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) data ( again, before Innovation implementation), with the school having a performance rating of HIGH.
Impressively, Paul Revere maintained its HIGH performance rating in 2009 and 2010, with the Innovation conversion coming that Fall.
In the press record, Paul Dakin is more specific and his claims for Paul Revere’s Innovation status are much more modest:
“In 2009, when innovation planning work began at Paul Revere, the school’s students scored above average on three of seven categories on the state comprehensive assessment (MCAS) tests….Dakin announced to parents and teachers on Tuesday, with [Governor Deval] Patrick looking on, that just-announced MCAS results showed Paul Revere students above average on all seven categories.”
These quotes are from a year old article in the Daily Item and can now be compared with the most recent, 2012, MCAS data. Here, Paul Revere students return to their 2009 level – “scoring above average on three of seven categories on the state comprehensive assessment (MCAS) tests.”
To summarize, there was no Innovation miracle at Paul Revere, under any timeline. Paul Revere Innovation is not now Revere’s best school *and, as a Level 2 school, is a level below other elementary schools in Revere and the state, and below several elementary schools in New Bedford, in particular New Bedford’s Level 1 schools, Carlos Pacheo and Jireh Swift. * In fact the A. C. Whelan Elementary School in Revere is that district’s best performing.
Paul Revere is and was a modest, hardworking elementary, before and after it gained its Innovation tag. However, as outlined below, it is likely to be far more successful that the proposed Esperanza and Renaissance schools.
----Esperanza and Renaissance are untested, even compared to Innovation schools------
On the morning show, Livramento and Pollock both dismissed callers’ that referred directly to vast autonomies spelled out the Esperanza and Renaissance proposal documents. While these proposals request autonomy to set class size, schedules, staff duties, staff dismissal and leadership assignments, this differs considerably from the Revere school where significant collective bargaining autonomies were not exercised. The Paul Revere school is far closer to Level 4 schools in New Bedford like HayMac and Parker that have a longer staff day, or modified schedule schools like Pulaski than it can ever be to Esperanza and Renaissance. While Livramento and Pollock ignored the NBEA’s president’s request that Gomes and Roosevelt teachers be allowed to vote on the proposal s, staff at Revere did vote on their proposal. While Esperanza and Renaissance spend a considerable amount of time proposing untested curricular models that prioritize fine arts integration and bilingualism, the Revere school , in fact, simplified and refocused its curriculum with two basic goals:
Goal 1: To improve the instruction in Literacy and Mathematics
Goal 2: To focus on Standards Based Education**
(** This is far closer to the model of success that the Swift and Pacheco principals mentioned in the recent Standard times article praising their Level 1 status)
While other districts are praised by Livramento and Pollock for pushing innovation, the New Bedford proposals are very different. More important than asking how successful Paul Revere is, New Bedford’s leaders should ask why untried and untested art and foreign language models are being justified by repeatedly referring to Paul Revere – a school where no such experimentation is in place. Also, where the praised innovative districts have seen teachers vote on innovation schools, Gomes and Roosevelt teachers are being denied a vote. The NBEA president, Lou St John, points to the fact that the respective design teams choose to label Esperanza and Renaissance as “conversion” and not “new” schools. This suggests that faculty in Roosevelt and Gomes schools do not have to vote on these plans because they are completely unaffected by the “new” venture. However, both proposals explicitly refer to locating these “new” schools within the Gomes and Roosevelt buildings. St John’s sense that this is merely a device to avoid a faculty vote is supported by the fact that approved Innovation schools in Massachusetts are mostly either “new” secondary alternative schools with their own facilities, or “conversion” schools that are upfront about using existing facilities and have a vote that includes all affected faculty. In sharp contrast, Pollock and Livramento support a model force fitting separate but unequal schools that is virtually unheard of, with curriculum and content that are an untested experiment. Most worrying is that this is an experiment that cannot be reversed if it goes wrong, since, by law, the district must commit an estimated $30,0000,000 dollars to fund the legally mandated five year school licenses ( Pollock points out that each school would receive $13,000 for each student, directly from the district’s funds ).
Marlene Pollock's spin made me dizzy.
Marlene Pollock is big fat liar.
Marlene is on the ropes and is doing as much damage control as she can but I don't think she'll be successful. Those who know her know that she's a nut, perhaps a bigger nut then the other woman who was on the school committee.
Pollock claims were false. The principal of the gomes school has been decided.
Read page 38, ******* ***** is the "anticipated principal" even though she doesn't have her principal's license.
http://newbedford.massteacher.org/files/Renaissance%20School%20Prospectus.pdf
Jack lied too. Class sizes have been determined.
see page 34. http://newbedford.massteacher.org/files/Renaissance%20School%20Prospectus.pdf
see page 4 http://newbedford.massteacher.org/files/Esperanza%20School%20Prospectus.pdf
Here are some interesting facts:
Roosevelt Innovation Schoool first year enrollment, 120 Students ---- 6 staff members. In 7 years they will have total of 360 students with 22 staff members.
Gomes Innovation School first year enrollment, 128 Students ---- 22 Staff members.
In 4 years they will have total of 224 students with 34 staff members.
Cost neutral? Really?
The NBPS school committee is a joke!!! Things in New Bedford will NEVER really change because of incompetent people that truly know NOTHING about education or what is best for our students. Personal and political agendas are what rule the school committee. You should be ashamed of yourselves!!!! If I didn't need my job I would love to tell you in person what I really think of many of you. God help NBPS!!!!
On WBSM radio this morning (7:30 a.m. news) Pollock said the teachers at Roosevelt and Gomes are not required to vote on the innovation school proposal because the proposers "would be renting space" for those schools from the school system".
The Liar’s Club…
http://whalingcitywatch.com/2012/09/23/the-liars-club/#comments
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there was a TV game show called The Liar’s Club. WBSM’s Taylor Cormier brought the prevarications to radio yesterday morning as he hosted School Committee members “Moscow” Marlene Pollock and “Jackass” Jack Livramento. Of course, the topic was Innovation Schools. How do you know when Marlene Pollock and Jack Livramento are lying? The answer is pretty much each time they open their mouths.
First off, listening to this less than dynamic duo is absolute torture. Come to think of it, maybe the Pentagon can fly Marlene and Jack down to Guantanamo Bay to extract information from the terrorists imprisoned there. Who needs waterboarding when you have Marlene and Jack. The sound of their voices can cause ear pain and bleeding.
There was one light moment when Livramento said “I don’t pretend to represent any particular FRACTION within the community.” Hey Jack, the word is FACTION. Please don’t try to do math on the radio. So much for literacy from that particular School Committee member. Now, let’s get to the lies that were spewed over the airwaves.
Marlene Pollock said “Innovation Schools give teacher’s a lot of say.” We guess Marlene is ignoring the two proposals being developed for New Bedford. With all the “autonomies,” principals would have more power than ever.
Jack Livramento claims “Innovation Schools don’t take money away from the district.” Livramento’s statement, at best, is a half truth. Innnovation Schools would be fully funded with their per-pupil allotment. In these times of tight budgets, the other schools would divide the remaining funds.
Marlene Pollock cited an Innovation School in Revere that went from “the lowest performing to the highest performing.” The school in question, Paul Revere, was never that city’s worst. In fact, it is now a Level 2 school. WE have schools within our system that exceed their performance.
Pollock said the Innovation Schools would “rent space.” She also asserts these schools are part of the regular New Bedford Public Schools. How could the district rent space from itself? That is an inconsistency.
Ms. Pollock contends that no decisions have been made concerning who would serve as the principals of the Innovation Schools. However, the prospectus for the Renaissance School clearly states that ******** “Traitor” ***** is the anticipated principal.
Mr. Livramento said the effort to bring Innovation Schools to New Bedford has been a “Democratic process.” The deck has, and continues to be, stacked against the opponents. We all knew the outcome of the committee of three vote in August and the teachers at Gomes and Roosevelt have been deprived of the right to dertermine what’s best for their buildings.
Marlene claims the Innovation Schools “won’t take away union rights.” This is a foolish statement. The autonomies outlined in each prospectus would leave no room for collective bargaining.
Jack Livramento told the WBSM audience that “class size has not been determined yet.” He is either a poor reader or a liar as each prospectus has class size information.
Ms. Pollock can be very convincing. She is adept at double speak, half-truths, and outright fabrication. Whaling City Watch will continue to analyze Pollock and Livramento’s statements to bring you the truth.
Tomorrow: Street Justice…
Well, well, well... Marlene has learned how to be a politician afterall... next course she will teach at BCC- "double speak 101: how not to tell the truth, but not really lie either" AKA- playing dumb when you are questioned by someone with intellect
Jack, Jack, Jack- every single time you speak, you sound more of a baffoon than I thought possible. Use a thesaurus if you are trying to use BIG BOY words. Otherwise, just sit back and stare at Marlene admiringly
It looks as though they eliminated the wrong woman from the School Committee last November. B careful what you wish for, now you have it.
^wrong, they should have eliminated both of them. One is dangerous and the other was useless
Post a Comment