It’s true when you speak of “minority” students in District 150 these days, you are referring to any race other than African-American. As Mahkno so succinctly puts it, "At 61.1% of the student body, the African-American students are not a minority."
So, today when we speak in terms of “inequality in education”, let’s make it clear what categories we are referring to: African-American, Hispanic and/or all folks below a certain income level (or street).
When I saw in the pjstar that a retired District 150 teacher was quoted as saying "not allowing Richwoods students the ability to attend [summer school] was "discriminatory" and "unfair."" I had to laugh, because Title 1 is specifically for disadvantaged children and typically when you think of your average student at Richwoods, disadvantaged does not come to mind.
The retired teacher raised a good point that the Title 1 students, who are bused from RiverWest to Richwoods, would miss out on attending summer school, because there are only 120 slots for students from Title 1 high schools. Alas, Richwoods is fortunate enough not to be a Title 1 high school.
Should the Title 1 monies be sent back and none of the children have a chance for summer school? Some may consider it a tough call, but I don’t.
On the surface, I can see how it appears to some as unfair, but from what I have been told, at the early summer school planning meetings at Richwoods, efforts to develop a plan for having summer school without any funds were futile. There were simply not any realistic options and at first it seemed that none of the Richwoods students were going to be able to take the summer school option.
There was some discussion to have students pay for summer school, but the costs to each student would have been prohibitive to a significant portion of the school’s population. Unfortunately many in that population are exactly the students that need summer school.
So, today when we speak in terms of “inequality in education”, let’s make it clear what categories we are referring to: African-American, Hispanic and/or all folks below a certain income level (or street).
When I saw in the pjstar that a retired District 150 teacher was quoted as saying "not allowing Richwoods students the ability to attend [summer school] was "discriminatory" and "unfair."" I had to laugh, because Title 1 is specifically for disadvantaged children and typically when you think of your average student at Richwoods, disadvantaged does not come to mind.
The retired teacher raised a good point that the Title 1 students, who are bused from RiverWest to Richwoods, would miss out on attending summer school, because there are only 120 slots for students from Title 1 high schools. Alas, Richwoods is fortunate enough not to be a Title 1 high school.
Should the Title 1 monies be sent back and none of the children have a chance for summer school? Some may consider it a tough call, but I don’t.
On the surface, I can see how it appears to some as unfair, but from what I have been told, at the early summer school planning meetings at Richwoods, efforts to develop a plan for having summer school without any funds were futile. There were simply not any realistic options and at first it seemed that none of the Richwoods students were going to be able to take the summer school option.
There was some discussion to have students pay for summer school, but the costs to each student would have been prohibitive to a significant portion of the school’s population. Unfortunately many in that population are exactly the students that need summer school.
School districts all around the state are canceling summer school, due to funding problems. This issue is not unique to Peoria or District 150. I guess we are fortunate that Title 1 will allow some students to get summer school classes. So, the question isn't "is it unfair that RHS students can't attend".The focus should be on if the District can develop a plan during these tough economic times; are they going to deny the plan because the plan can not be applied for all students? I think and many would agree, that not using the funds to help whatever students we can would be a horrible thing. The funds are there. Title 1 is what it is and what it has been.
The term discrimination implies that someone has options and chooses an option that discriminates. In this situation, there are not any options. That is the crux of this dilemma. Discrimination would be to choose that only certain people get into the boat when you have a choice to pick.
I bet if you were to ask Steve Ptacek, the Richwoods Principal, what he thought, he wouldn’t see a huge issue with this. At Richwoods, they have about 30% low income students that might be listed as Title 1 students if they were at the other schools. But Richwoods being RICHwoods, their low income students are scoring better than the other schools and have a very high graduation rate.
You see, Richwoods has tried and true achievement networks that their students are privy to. As a result, even without summer school, Richwoods will be able to work with their students and develop a plan so they can overcome some lost credits. If they need to be creative with a student's schedule, I’m thinking they can make it work.
So, note to retired teacher, don’t worry about the Richwoods students – they are going to be just fine.
17 comments:
Emerge, you know that being the retired teacher (and you can call me by name--I don't hide behind made-up names), I am going to object to being "underquoted" in the PJS. I expressed concern for all those given no choice at all--Richwoods Title I and non Title I students and all non Title I students in all high schools and now--after reading the article--I can add all the other Title I students not included in the 120 chosen group. Emerge, do you understand that there are seniors at all schools who failed courses this semester. Traditionally, they were the ones who most often went to summer school--because they can receive a diploma right after they pass the class in summer school. (Please, please tell us how you feel about that group of students being left out.) Then they can be ready in the fall to go to college or to get a job, etc. I see no hope for these students in the current plan. I am not in the habit of defending or looking out for Richwoods students--and the Richwoods freshman in my life won't be failing any classes. I just want all of you to acknowledge that this situation has never happened before in District 150--therefore, all the repercussions should have been discussed thoroughly in public. If Elaine Hopkins and I had not stood at the podium to discuss its negatives, all we would have heard from the horseshoe would have been 6 yes votes (Gorenz was absent). The public has a right to know that the administration and board members gave all the "negatives" a fair hearing. For crying out loud, (and only because I asked the question in my speech--and I knew the answer but I wanted to learn if they knew it) the president of the board had to ask last year's high school summer school principal if Title I funds had ever been used to fund high school summer school. What Dr. Lathan said about returning funds requested and unused for Title I summer school is one for which I will seek more information. I have no idea what that's all about--who requested the funds, for how many years, and why they weren't used. Emerge, I'm sorry, but I think your attitude about Richwoods students is clouding your usually sound judgment. I can honestly say that I have for most of my past held the same lack of sympathy, so I can't judge you too harshly on that one. Peace, please!
For the record--my whole speech:
Once again I have a summer school issue. First, I have a question about item #12 on the agenda. It states that Title I students from Manual, Peoria, and Woodruff High Schools will be offered summer school. I believe I am correct in assuming that Title I money can be used only at Title I schools. My question: Is qualification as a Title I school determined by the number of students who are eligible for free lunch? Is that the determining factor?
Tonight you are voting to hold summer school for only Title I students from Peoria High, Woodruff, and Manual. That seems discriminatory and unfair to me. First of all, this method of funding summer school discriminates against all Richwoods students. For summer school 2009, students eligible for free lunch were charged only $30. Richwoods students went to summer school—some at reduced tuition and some at full tuition of $160. In fact, the largest number of students enrolled in summer school came from Richwoods. For English classes alone, Richwoods enrolled 83, Manual 10, Woodruff 15, and Peoria High 45.
Am I correct in stating that District 150 high school summer school has never before been funded through Title I? Now you may be opening a whole new can of worms by using Title I money for summer school. For the first time in 150 history, enrollment in summer school will now discriminate against one whole school and students who are not eligible for free lunch from each of the other high schools.
According to FOIAd information, 119 students failed classes at Richwoods for the first semester of this year and probably as many will fail this semester—so you are discriminating against well over 200 students from the get-go. If you can’t offer summer school to all students, don’t offer it for any. How can you possibly make a decision that will prevent Richwoods students and non Title I students from making up courses in order to graduate and/or graduate on time? Please don’t misunderstand my use of the word discriminatory. I am not speaking at all about racial discrimination. We all know that Title I students are both black and white and that non Title I students are both black and white. (And that students in all categories attend Richwoods) And that students from all groups fail classes. So race has nothing to do with my complaint. You are very unfairly offering an opportunity for one group of students that you are withholding from another group. I certainly hope that some of you recognize this as a terrible disservice to students when you cast your vote tonight. If you don’t, I hope that you are bombarded by complaints from parents and concerned citizens. And I believe those concerned parents and citizens will be able to hear our concerns in spite of your efforts to stifle public comment.
I had originally heard that only Manual students would be offered summer school, so this proposal is a step in the right direction but is still way off the mark for total fairness to the students of District 150.
I do have trouble using Title I money in this manner. I think summer school should be self-funded as it always was until about 2002 (when the district started losing considerable money every year) and that students should not be allowed to make up courses out of sequence during the regular school year and that they should not be allowed to take more than two English classes at a time. And I do believe that the district doesn’t have to offer the same services to all students–but certainly for fair treatment of all students. Some students require services that others don’t. However, many students who need summer school are being left out–it’s discriminatory. The ones being left out need the service just as much as those being offered the service.
Please vote “No” tonight.
Sharon:
I used the term "retired teacher" because I want to talk about the issues you raised without talking about you.
I don't have any particular attitude about Richwoods. What do you mean? Richwoods is a wonderful school. My daughter had a choice of the IB Program or Peoria High Arts Academy. She went to Peoria High and came out with scholarships (notice the plural) to Bradley.
Her friends who went to the IB Program have graduated and are all successful in college and traveling the world.
I have nothing but good things to say for the achievement networks that Richwoods administration and parents have developed for their school. It is working exactly the way it should.
It's unfortunate that all children can't have the same opportunities, but hey, that's kind of life and we learn to deal with what we have.
Peace - most definitely.
By the way. I asked Steve Ptacek on C.J.'s blog--where he did sort of address the issue; however, he has not responded to my question. My guess is that advanced students use the virtual school, but that that program may be far too difficult for many of the students who usually fail classes. I tried to interpret Steve's comment--thought it may have meant that these virtual programs are not so good for earning credit for repeated courses--just guessing.
Emerge--missed your response in between my "too many" responses. I appreciate your new comments. The parents of theRichwoods freshman in my life had to make the same choice your daughter made. Her mother, a PHS grad, and her father, a PHS teacher, did learn toward PHS--probably one of the main things that kept them from making the choice was that the closing of Woodruff was up in the air at the time, and they weren't sure they wanted their daughter thrown into the chaos that might occur. However, their daughter has friends at PHS and at Richwoods. I hope amid all my verbiage, that my main complaint is that the board members did not give this very important decision more than five minutes of discussion--actually, Wolfmeyer asked a couple of questions and Dr. Lathan provided the info about previously unused Title I funds (but I didn't understand any of that). The public just deserves to know that board members are making decisions that required them to think. Maybe they do all that behind closed doors--but certainly not in public.
You quoted me incorrectly.
I stand corrected - Mahkno said:
"At 61.1% of the student body, the African-American students are not a minority."
Great Article. You had me all the way to the part where Richwoods "has tried and true achievement networks that their students are privy to." Do you really believe that?
I had the opportunity to work with minority families from the South end a few years ago, whose low income children attended Richwoods anyway they could, if you get my drift -- kind of an unofficial charter school effect is happening at Richwoods with many of the low income students out there. Another thing, not meaning to take anything away from Mr. P. is that many, many students are focused on doing the right thing out there which eliminates constant chaos and allows staff to address those that need help or need to get back in line.
Anyway, important article. If they have funds for 120 students than 120 should be able to attend summer school. I have to hope and believe that those needing summer school at RHS are some how being advantaged or taken care of in some other way and will have their opportunity, if not today, down the road.
Thanks Frustrated:
The children from RiverWest may not have direct access to those achievement networks, because parental involvement and/or standing in the community is a major part of who is privy.
When I was working downtown a mother I was working with would take her toddler to a day care center (Lil Friends) all the way out on Alta Road, even though she owns a home over by Thomas Jefferson School.
When I asked her why she was driving so far North, there are very good day centers in between here and there - her response was "most of the kids at this day care center live in that area, I went to Richwoods with their parents and these are the kids my child will be going to high school with, it is never to early to have my child to begin networking and building friendships with these kids."
In Peoria who you know and where you didn't matriculate is key to achievement.
Emerge - I understand what you are taking about. I live on the overside of the world from Peoria right now and it is the same.
I have a good friend where I live who has children the same age as mine. She graduated from Brown, MBA from Stanford (husband with a very big job), you get my drift. My friend has endless contacts and connections and is a master at networking. She garners the most fantastic opportunities for her children because of her position in life.
But. . . my children do just as well academically, our family provides opportunities for our children as best we can, and at the end of the day you have to be at peace with the fact that as a parent you are doing everything within your capability. Nothing is ever completely fair in life. And like the example of your friend and the daycare, you have to be creative. I would say your friend is someone with her eye on the ball.
Just joking now--apparently, Dr. Lathan is, also, networking since she went only to the Richwoods graduation--so I've heard.
Sharon:
What did the Super do in the past. How do they manage to go to all of the graduations? Aren't they all held at the same time?
Maybe she should not have gone to any of them and sent a televised message so no one school would think they were better than the other?
I am of the mind that she would have done well to go to the historic graduation--Woodruff--since it is its last. She had no hand in its closing. Probably this particular situation has never arisen before because--to my knowledge--no new superintendent has ever taken on duties at the end of the year. I just don't think anyone would have questioned her reason for choosing Woodruff. I don't know if Dr. Lathan spoke at Richwoods' graduation or if she was just on stage. Traditionally, one school board member participates and/or speaks. I have no memory of what the superintendent generally does. I know they rarely showed up at Manual. One year Hinton was scheduled to come to Manual's graduate--actually, to participate and he was a no-show. Sorry--I was just needling you a bit because you needled me about putting Richwoods on my list of concerns about summer school and because you made comments about the networking that goes on at Richwoods. Who went where for graduation isn't a major concern for me. If the board follows Linda Butler's suggestion (and I think it has merit), maybe next year the high schools will have graduation ceremonies at different times on the same day--and there will not be conflicts or decisions to make.
Oh you were needling me? I totally missed that. Don't be sorry do your thing Ms. Crews.
I really didn't mean to be offensive. I found the whole networking conversation as being way out of my realm of experience. I'm sure a rose by any other name is still a rose--in that people have always taken advantage of relationships for whatever reasons--I just never thought of parents networking (or calling it as such) to get advantages for their school children.
Oh my gosh Sharon, I think you are out of the loop. Saddling up and riding with the right people is part of the development plan for most parents these days. What spin you want to give that I guess depends on your experience. No matter what school you attend, private or public, there are the kids that are headed in the right direction whose parent keep an eye on them and well, those in the other category. For some it may be the parents’ job or stature in the community that is the magnet, but for most it is simply about making sure your child is hanging around with a crowd engaged in positive activities. In this day and age, as the get to high school, it becomes a very serious matter.
Frustrated, that's what I meant by a "rose by any other name." I agree will all that you just listed--I just never applied the "networking" term to such efforts. The word networking carries with it what I view to be a negative connotation--sort of the helicopter parent manipulating and building relationships to give their children maybe even an unfair advantage. It's just the term, not the intent, that conjured up negative images in my mind.
Post a Comment