Where are we with City Funding of Schools?

As City Council winds its way through a number of amendments to its budget, 1st District constituents have inquired about where things are with the RPS portion of the budget, including the status of:

• The School Board's request for $1.5 million above flat-funding to provide RPS staff with a 1% one-time bonus
  
• The potential allocation of capital funds for specific school projects not in the School Board's budget (in particular, I've been asked by some of you about the status of funds requested for the Patrick Henry building and Munford's gym)

Regarding the one-time bonus, Council seems to be looking to be equitable by either providing additional funding for both city and school employees or for neither. But do keep in mind that the proposal is for city employees to receive $1,000 each, while RPS employees would get a percentage of their salaries, which would be significantly less than $1,000 for most in RPS. I don't know if the two proposals will become more comparable as discussions ensue.

Regarding amendments to the city budget for capital projects, the School Board is requesting $5.4 million to complete the fourth year of ADA projects across the school district and $4.9 million in Capital Improvement Project funds to complete about 15 of the most critical needs in our old buildings (these are projects like boiler replacements and HVAC systems that must be upgraded after years of use.) Councilman Tyler has amended the ADA budget to provide full funding for the ADA projects needed for next year. However, our overall CIP budget is currently funded at $1.9 million, out of the $5.9 million requested by RPS, which would cause RPS to push some of the critical projects back to future years.

While individual council members have put in amendments for other school-specific projects; I have not seen an amendment for funding for a Munford gym project. I can confirm that there is an amendment being considered for the city to provide $500,000 to fund the renovations of the Patrick Henry building, which was closed by the School Board but sought to be reopened by the PHSSA charter school through private fundraising, Historical Tax Credits, and other external funding streams. (For a more detailed history of that building and all of the RPS ADA projects, see the historical recap below.)

Again, the School Board's capital requests have centered on the high-priority needs to keep our schools up and running for the 11/12 school year. Lighting at Hill; boilers at Ginter Park and Bellevue; water system upgrades at Marshall, Wythe, and Armstrong; air conditioning at Woodville; HVAC upgrades at Wythe, RTC, and Henderson; reconstruction of tennis courts at Henderson, Marshall, and Wythe; and bus loop reconstruction at Fisher are all included on this critical needs list.

I attended Monday's council budget session and will send information about the next sessions over the next few days. While we don't know what may come of these issues yet, we do know one thing: May will bring us a funding number for school operations and school facilities, and your input over the next few days can help guide some key city's decisions about funding for our schools. Thank you for reaching out to be informed on the current status of key budget items.

Kim Bridges

1st District School Board representative

RPS ADA and building actions

2006-2007

• The School Board agreed unanimously to settle a federal lawsuit that sought to bring the Richmond Public School System into compliance with certain disability laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").
  
• RPS reduced operating costs and capital needs by consolidating schools, rezoning hundreds of students, and reducing the number of inaccessible buildings when it closed Patrick Henry & Whitcomb Court schools
  
• Lower enrollment and high renovation costs were major factors in School Board’s decision to close the PH & WC buildings

2007-2008

§ RPS leased bandwidth to NASCAR and dedicated the $25,000 generated to ADA improvements

§ RPS reduced operating costs and capital needs by consolidating schools, rezoning thousands of students, and reducing the number of inaccessible buildings when it closed Norrell, Norrell Annex, REAL School, and 13 Acres buildings

§ RPS dedicated a $1 million fund balance from the prior year’s budget exclusively to ADA remediation.

2008 – 2009 (Year 1 of ADA work under the settlement agreement)

• City Council appropriated $5 million for ADA projects
  
• RPS completed more than 65 projects in 35 schools
  
• RPS School Board authorized a charter school requesting use of the Patrick Henry building, providing that the reopened school would receive needed ADA renovations through private, tax-deductible contributions and would not cause the School Board to violate its ADA settlement agreement.
  
• RPS reduced operating costs and capital needs by closing the building housing Richmond Community High School (Westhampton building) and relocating the program to the former Chandler Middle School building

2009 – 2010 (Year 2 of ADA work under the settlement agreement)

• $5,000,000 appropriated for 78 projects in 39 schools

2010-2011 (Year 3 of ADA work under the settlement agreement)

• Approximately 154 projects to be completed with $3,112,480 in city funds

2011-2012 (Year 4 of ADA work under the settlement agreement)

• $5,476,596 requested in city funds for 41 proposed projects

In 2012-2013 (Year 5/final year of ADA work for full accessibility at all RPS schools)

• $4,461,923 requested in city funds for 50 proposed projects
  
• RPS will open 2 new, fully compliant elementary schools constructed through the City’s Build A Better Richmond program

Why I voted for the Patrick Henry Charter contract

You're going to hear lots of discussion about tonight's school board vote that deadlocked over the signing of the Patrick Henry Charter school contract (4 ayes-4 nays-1 abstain, including my vote to approve the contract.) We're now in the heart of the election season, so lots of people are going to have something to say about what happened, with varying degrees of accuracy and, yes, even comments made with political motivations at the core. So I want to convey the rationale for my vote so that others don't have to speculate.

I voted to approve the charter contract because I believe that innovation is one way to get new families involved in RPS. I believe that this program had a grassroots, energized groundswell of people who wanted to try something new and were willing to invest considerable amounts of time to do that. I wanted to see how the unique approaches to public education worked in this setting and explore opportunities for expansion of successful measures.

I voted to approve the contract because it reflected the array of issues that must be taken care of in order to run any school. From transportation to school nutrition to special education services, there are many factors involved in running a public school, where admission isn't contingent on academic screening or ability.

I voted to approve the contract because the Patrick Henry folks had already agreed to the contract's provisions. They had weighed the elements involved in running a school as they considered the contract, so if they were willing to take on the diverse aspects of the job, I thought that they deserved the chance to follow through.

Tonight, I realized the decision-making process around charter schools is like walking a tightrope. Even when you try to lay the groundwork for the effort to succeed, you still have to balance the motivation do something new with the responsbility to fulfill all of the requirements of public education--and you're taking each step on an untested wire. Sometimes, you feel like you're learning from the effort involved and improving along the way. Other times, you just feel like someone's shaking the wire and you'll never be able to reach the other side. And sometimes, no matter how hard you've tried or prepared, you can't maintain the balance.

Tonight, I feel like I'm looking up at an empty wire, and I'm wondering how much damage has been done by the fall.

You can read about the vote at http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-09-02-0217.html and the contract's available from the school board clerk at 780-7716.

Young professionals--remaking urban schools?

They're all over the place here--twenty and thirty somethings making Richmond city their home, and bringing with them prositive change in the city's housing, social, and cultural arenas. But what can these young professionals and new families bring to the public education arena? Urban renewal trends in Richmond aren't so different from those of other metro areas, and people elsewhere are looking at how we can get the influx of new city blood to make its mark on city public schools. We should too.



Toledo, Ohio Blade took a recent look at how inner city schools could be influenced by the demographic changes of young people who want to live in the cities rather than the suburbs. The article's key points: 1) It's as simple as urban schools geting better when parents are involved, 2) positive perception is critical and 3) the differences between urban and suburban districts may not be as vast as we think. The takeaway for me after reading this is that public school systems like RPS must, must, must tap into the city baby boom.



Toledo, Richmond Comparison

That schools get better when parents are involved seems like common-sense to this former PTA leader, but many don't realize what a critical difference parent involvement can make in turning a school around. The schools my children attend/have attended, Mary Munford and Albert Hill, are perfect examples of the snowball effect of parents jumping into an environment that welcomes them: they're willing to spend time doing the activities that support the teachers, the teachers feel valued and supported with more time to teach, the learning environment improves, more people realize that the school offers a good learning environment, so perception becomes more favorable and more people are drawn to the school--and the cycle begins anew.



The Toledo reporter notes research showing that "a higher percentage of students who performed “above average” or “excellent” in school had parents who had attended a general school meeting or participated in fund-raising efforts." He also says "one way to make schools better is simply to have parents demanding better schools." According to one of his sources, "[Younger professionals] may slowly strengthen the inner-city schools much like their parents strengthened suburban schools, [and] the urban revival is not going to last without the schools getting better.”



I also concur with the article's assertion that differences may not be as pronounced between urban and suburban schools. Certainly, demographics and facilities are different here between the city and the counties, but in healthy city communities, issues like safety and teaching expertise may not be as varied from our county counterparts as we believe. According to the Blade: ”Various national statistics show some discrepancies in performance favoring suburban districts, but scant gaps in things like tobacco and alcohol use between the two areas suggest the perception of vast suburban superiority may not meet reality."



The Blade also says "a baby boom is happening right now in places such as Manhattan, Portland, Ore., Seattle, and Washington." It quotes a legislator who recognizes that trend as an impetus to focusing on schools. According to him, the city schools "should be given more attention." He notes the improvement the city schools have undergone but recognizes that many challenges lie ahead. I sure like the sound of a leader who recognizes the city's schools' improvements, realizes the challenges, and sees the need for increased attention to get them where they need to be.



That brings me to the key, final statement in the article: “Perception is absolutely critical. If people perceive something as good, they’ll go back." One of the most daunting challenges facing RPS in the next four years will be repairing the extensive PR damage done over the last four. Public perception about RPS lags way behind reality--there's much to be done but much has been done too and many of our schools have a great deal to offer and tremendous potential for more. Looks like we need to start by telling that story to the young city-dwelling professionals moving back into Richmond.

The mayor said to ask me...

Here's my answer to the question posed on Richmond.com's "Ask the Mayor," (where his answer kicked the question my way.) I also felt compelled to respond to Don Harrison's "Back Page" essay on the superintendent search process and committee.

First, from "Ask the Mayor"
I live near Albert Hill Middle School in the near West End and noticed some construction at the front steps. Can I assume this is related to the school system making improvements for students and parents with disabilities? - Wilton Burford, Museum District


Mayor's response: I wish I could say that is the case. The Richmond Public Schools has $7 million available for making improvements required by the Americans with Disability Act, yet has filed for only a handful of permits to initiate such work this summer. This is a school matter that City government has no control over, so I suggest you contact your School Board representative to find out the status of ADA improvements.


Kim's response: I'm the school board representative for the 1st District, which includes Albert Hill Middle School. The construction Mr. Burford noticed is part of the work RPS is doing to repair the crumbling but historic concrete balustrade at the front of the school. Last year the spanish tile roofing project was completed, and the PTA has plans for landscape improvements, so things are really looking up for overall appearance of this jewel of a building. But appearance does no good if the building's not accessible, so Albert Hill will also receive interior ADA upgrades in the days ahead. The mayor's correct that the school system now has $7 million available to complete critical ADA projects like the ones coming to Hill. $2 million came through savings achieved in RPS operations and $5 million was appropriated by city council on July 1, so there will be more ADA upgrades ahead for the system. We'll have an ADA update soon for anyone interested in getting the complete picture of the ADA projects; contact me for meeting details, which should be finalized within the next day or two. In the mean time, I invite Hill neighbors to take a look inside to see the numerous architectural features that give the school its wonderful character. A fireplace in the circular artroom and a turn of the century stove in the teachers lounge are just a few. Museum District residents and others, please feel free to contact me with any questions about the ADA or other ongoing capital projects for our aging 1st District (or citywide) school facilities at kbridges@richmond.k12.va.us.


Second, comments on Don Harrison's "Back Page" essay in Style


I've been very involved with the superintendent search process, so I feel compelled to comment on three aspects of the article:


1) Re: the quoted assertion that this search/selection committee “...was formed with no process in place, nor any duties or responsibilities identified." Not true! Actually, it's quite the opposite. The board adopted a detailed process with duties and responsbilities identified.

Two school board committees, the committee I chair and the HR committee chaired by Chandra Smith (6th district representative) spent much time reviewing search processes, and Chandra and I worked together to craft a selection process based on current research and best practices from systems across the country. The school board refined and approved this process in May with duties/responsibilities assigned task by task. One of the things Chandra and I learned from looking at how other systems had tackled their searches was that clarity about roles--who should do what? what are the expectations of RPS? the school board? the committee?---is crucial to a good search. So we worked hard to make the tasks clear to each party.

Also wrong is the statement that "the end result is a team that is uninformed about the hiring process or the necessary qualifications of a superintendent." To the contrary, the search committee was informed about both the hiring process and the qualifications the school board seeks. Chandra and I presented not only the process to the search committee--we also reviewed for them the forum/survey results, information about the hiring process, suggestions gleaned from other systems' searches, and superintendent qualifications/job description.


2) Re:public forums and publicity - Don's right that those were done quickly, but the rationale was to try to capture parent responses before the end of the school year. They were conducted by the school board, not the search committee, and Don's also right that TJ turnout was abysmal. Yes, we should look at additional ways to promote such events, but it was advertised and reported in the papers, on the website, and sent to principals (who can post information at the schools however they see fit.) In addition, in the 1st District I sent out at least two e-mail reminders to my constituent e-list, and other groups (PTAs, for example) added the forum to their e-mail reminders.


Once the superintendent announced her decision to leave, the school board scrambled to get some public dialogue going before the end of the school year. Participation rose with each forum but it did disappoint to see how low the attendance was. We did get far more responses (200+) from the survey RPS did. The board discussed additional opportunities to get public input and the sense was that these forums/surveys would not be our only effort, but again we wanted to reach out quickly on the first one.


3) Re: the composition of the search committee - There are others on the committee whom Don didn't mention, members with both parental and direct school involvement experience, so I have found it to be a mix of school consumers (i.e. parents, employees), education experts (VCU, UR, VUU), and business representatives. I support getting some of our biggest critics to participate in this search. One of the things RPS has been accused of in the past was ignoring the critics, so I thought it was admirable that George Braxton brought some on board on this effort.

In researching superintendent search committees elsewhere, I didn't find any with a composition that suited everyone, but I did come to believe that we shouldn't exceed the 15 members that it has. Some systems have had gigantic committees (others, much smaller than ours) and I thought this size was large enough to encompass a good number of stakeholders yet small enough to be effective.


Anyhow, the search process is far from done and there are more steps along the way. Public outreach is going to be even more critical, so all input is welcome on spreading the word better or on other aspects of the search.

The Richmond Crusade asked school board candidates

As an unopposed candidate, I didn't get to answer the school board candidate questions asked by the Crusade for Voters last week, but I promised to answer them here.

What is the biggest challenge facing RPS? Poverty.

Not just the poverty that impacts many of the families and neighborhoods served by Richmond's schools, but a poverty of interest and involvement that spanned years and led to neglected infrastructure and a disconnect between the community and the schools. Community investment is clearly on the rise--just look at the exponential increase in business/faith/civic partnerships with the school system that have occured in the last 18-24 months--but it's not nearly where it needs to be. And, yes, the socioeconomic challenges of the majority of students play a major role in our schools. This is common in most urban centers, but as both the recent Economic Policy Institute and Education Equality Project reports show (see David Brooks' 6/13/08 NY Times article for background as well as the respective group websites) a successful urban system does take a comprehensive approach combining school reform with initiatives in areas like health care, early education, family support, and economic development.

What is my position on charter schools? Mixed, but hopeful.

Traditionally, I have seen the most successful and long-lasting progress in public education come through grass-roots involvement in existing schools. But, when that involvement is stagnant, I have begun to see how innovation can attract it. Charter programs can be laboratories for innovation; that's why I decided (or I should say voted since I'm certainly not the sole "decider")to let a very dedicated group bring their ideas and energy into the schools. Is it a perfect program? No, but there's no such thing at any school, anywhere. Are the circumstances surrounding the charter ideal? No--state law, school system policies, and limited experience with charters all made this first Richmond attempt difficult, and cumbersome. But, we've got to give lots of things a try if we want everyone involved in our schools, and we'll never learn how to innovate if we don't take the plunge once in awhile.

(I can't remember the wording of the last question, but it was something along the lines of) Why do I want to serve on the board--does power or prestige factor in? I haven't found the Richmond school board to offer much in the way of either, but it does have an attractive quality to it.

When we have a board meeting that starts at 4:30 and ends at 10:30, and I'm paying out of my pocket $7 for my boxed dinner and $10 an hour for a sitter, that free bottled water doesn't feel very prestigious. But that's okay, because something else definitely attracts me to the job. I've found a wealth of work to be done that doesn't make the headlines or even Street Talk. As anyone who serves on a corporate or nonprofit board knows, an organization has to get good at both the mundane and the splashy to be successful. Progress--even in the areas that few people see--is addictive, and I want to be part of creating more. And maybe it's because I have two personal stakes in RPS (a rising 6th and 8th grader) but trying to make their public education experience the welcoming, inclusive, and diverse learning community that I had is a big incentive to continuing to serve.

As I've told many people who ask how things are going on the school board, it's not always fun, but it's somehow always engaging.

Mayor Working Hand in Hand with Schools

Alright, it's in Dallas, but Richmond can dream can't we? Forget a link, the whole news article is worthy of reading right this minute. The bold and italics are mine, results of excited highlighting of the big-picture thinking and mayor-initiated collaboration going on in other cities.

Dallas mayor's focus on schools seen as plus
12:00 AM CDT on Sunday, June 15, 2008
By KENT FISCHER / The Dallas Morning News
Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert acknowledges that his public education projects won't by themselves slash the city's dropout rate or dramatically boost literacy. But by creating city-sponsored programs focused on specific high-need areas, Mr. Leppert has joined mayors around the country who are increasingly involved in education reform, even though their offices have little authority over city schools. Their reasoning is simple: A high-quality public school system is fundamental to urban renewal, to creating jobs, to keeping families from fleeing to the suburbs.

In launching his four education projects – scholarships, summer jobs, early literacy and sprucing up old schools – Mr. Leppert has created programs that complement reforms under way in the Dallas Independent School District. And, if those are successful, more city-school ventures could be on the horizon. "In good communities, everybody works together," Mr. Leppert said. "Just this week, [DISD Superintendent] Michael Hinojosa and I were talking about some other problems we need to tackle."

In some cities – Chicago and New York, for instance – mayors have actually wrested control of schools away from school boards and are now operating their city's schools out of city hall. But such instances are still relatively rare.

By contrast, the efforts of Mr. Leppert and other mayors depend on their ability to marshal civic resources and to recruit corporate leaders to address specific problems that schools have identified. Mr. Leppert is relying on grants and corporate donations to fund his initiatives, and he's using his bully pulpit to call attention to the district's needs.

"He's using his office to raise the public attention to the needs of children, and he's not working at cross purposes" with the school district, said Kenneth Wong, a professor at Brown University who has studied mayoral involvement in public education. "I would say he's right on track with what's going on nationally."

Dr. Wong said he sees more school district/city government cooperation across the country. Children's issues – especially public education – play well with parents, and voters generally expect different government agencies to work together to solve big problems, he said.
Parents "don't understand why mayors shouldn't be part of the [education] solution," Dr. Wong said. "Mayors are playing an important role – a more formal role – because voters see it as the mayor's obligation" to improve the health of the city, and that includes good public schools. Dr. Hinojosa said he does not expect Mr. Leppert's programs to work in isolation. He said the mayor's efforts were designed to complement DISD's Dallas Achieves! reforms.

"[Former mayor] Laura Miller and I – we didn't talk on a regular basis," Dr. Hinojosa said. "... [Mr. Leppert] was the only candidate for mayor who came to visit me and ask what it was we needed." The two continue to meet regularly.

But the work of mayors in other cities suggests that Mr. Leppert could go further.
In St. Louis, for example, the mayor has successfully backed a slate of reform-minded school board candidates – twice. Denver's mayor helped negotiate a teacher contract and advocated for a controversial teacher pay-for-performance plan. In Stamford, Conn., City Hall oversees purchasing, payroll and IT for the school district.

Dallas has dipped its toe in that water. As part of the 2002 school district bond campaign, DISD and the city built two city libraries on the campuses of two new schools. The facilities serve both as city libraries and as the schools' media centers.

Mr. Leppert and Dr. Hinojosa said there have been no discussions about a further blurring of the administrative lines between City Hall and DISD, although Mr. Leppert said he is "open to anything." For now, both the mayor and superintendent seem content to build the mayor's initial four programs into successes, and then use them to launch more partnerships.

"These programs are complementary right now," Dr. Hinojosa said. "We're going to see how these [programs] roll out. Will they work? We don't know, but they'll make for an interesting study."

Public Schools As Good As Private Schools In Raising Math Scores, Study Says

Students in public schools learn as much or more math between kindergarten and fifth grade as similar students in private schools, according to a new University of Illinois study of multi-year, longitudinal data on nearly 10,000 students - From Science Daily's May 27 issue

Read the full report here http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080523162916.htm