For a Monday morning treat, I’m reviewing the Renaissance proposal.
Those designing the school believe the following:
…the issues of low academic achievement of our students, the challenges of educating ELLs and students with disabilities, and creating a school in which families are viewed as bona fide partners, can be successfully addressed through the development of an innovation school.
The data seems to disagree, and I myself wonder why full autonomy is truly necessary to fix a school (and how that helps to solve district-wide issues) but the mission sounds noble enough. What exactly does the proposed Renaissance School offer that existing schools don’t?
…the issues of low academic achievement of our students, the challenges of educating ELLs and students with disabilities, and creating a school in which families are viewed as bona fide partners, can be successfully addressed through the development of an innovation school.
2 comments:
These 3 Gomes teachers are obviously self-serving. Shameful!
What is so innovative about a school that is so similar to what is already happening at the Pulaski magnet school for the visual and performing arts? Those teachers are doing great things with arts integration and they did not need to be fully autonomous to do that. And, they are a magnet school that accepts children from through the district by lottery not an exclusionary school for very few children. They have multiple special Ed programs and all students being it from the arts at that school. Bravo to those teachers for being do innovative and making it happen.
Post a Comment