A press conference has been called for today at 10:30 a.m. at District 150 offices. Superintendent Ken Hinton will be addressing the 45-minute reduction in primary school schedules.

Editor’s note: This is a guest posting from my friend and fellow commissioner on the Heart of Peoria Commission, Beth Akeson. Please note that the comments you leave on this post will be forwarded to Beth.

Tuesday, I attended a District 150 Building Committee meeting. They reviewed the schematic design of the new Harrison Birth through Eighth Grade Community Learning Center.

It was noticed as a “public” meeting since more than two school board members would be in attendance. The meeting was scheduled to last two hours starting at noon and was located in the Superintendent’s conference room at the administration building. I was the only member of the public in attendance except for a couple of people from a local news station and they left early.

Attending the meeting were members of the building committee; Rachael Parker, Jim Stowell and Debbie Wolfmeyer. Ken Hinton, Guy Cahill, Dave Ryon were there representing the administration. David Walvoord, District 150’s attorney, and Julie Cramer, the school board secretary sat in as well. I have no idea why they were there. David Walvord made no comments and was asked no questions. I did not see Julie Cramer taking notes.

Each person at the table was either a paid administrator, outside paid advisor (attorney and architects) or an elected official. What is the purpose of having a public meeting if the public is not in attendance in significant numbers, unable to watch from home and not able to offer suggestions?

The plan for the new Harrison school is definitely suburban in concept. After the meeting I talked with the local LZT architect, David Henebry, and I asked why the suburban design? He said the area is not urban and never will be. Funny, that is not how it appears if you base urban versus suburban on whether there is a grid pattern of streets. Did they ask the PHA what they are planning or have they read the Heart of Peoria Plan? We need to be building for the future with less dependence on automobiles.

The proposed Harrison Birth through Eight Grade Learning Center is a one story building, set back from the street with on-site parking [see artist’s rendering at the top of this post]. The price of gas is now over $4.00 per gallon and it will climb higher. Childhood obesity and limited auto ownership are prevalent in poor neighborhoods and yet there was no discussion about creating a walkable environment; the plans are totally auto centric. There was no mention of sustainability and LEED certification.

District 150 is planning an unremarkable, factory type school building and the only guiding principle given to the architects seems to be building as inexpensively as possible. The building is suburban and uninspiring. As the presentation went on Ken Hinton asked the architect about a tower depicted in the rendering and the architect responded:

…it represents a feature to give some importance to the entrance, since this is a single story and economical building…

Could it be he was trying to say in a diplomatic way that the building’s envelope is just run of the mill?

After the schematic renderings were presented there were few questions. Jim Stowell asked about “water reclamation” which stumped the architect since reclamation is the “reuse” of the building’s water. Eventually, the architect realized Stowell was asking about storm water runoff management. The architect assured him they would be meeting the city’s requirements

Jim’s question made me think: If he is really concerned about conservation maybe he could investigate how District 150 determined it to be more desirable to build new buildings and not restore and modernize the existing buildings? There are many examples in other cities of older buildings restored with well designed new additions. I have attached a PDF for examples [see below]. The problem with Peoria is we have not had good experience with either.

If the building committee had consulted an architect familiar with school restoration or renovation, as I have, they would have been told that as much as twenty-five percent of the cost of building a new building lies in preparing the site, laying the building’s foundation, and installing utilities. Another twenty-five percent goes toward the building structure—its framing, walls, and roof. With an historic building, you already have those components in place. Wouldn’t that translate into cost savings and conservation?

The citizenry needs to weigh in on this design and the building’s siting. Commenting during the obligatory public hearing will be too late. District 150 officials hand picked people to give programming suggestions and they have not given the public any opportunity to discuss how the building meets the street. If they are worried about too much community push-back then maybe the design deserves the scrutiny. However, if the designs are truly impressive why wouldn’t they want to show the public the renderings at every step? I think the answers are obvious.

Additionally, I do not believe they have anyone in house with design expertise to give necessary guidance.

Harrison’s Budget

Next, they presented the building’s confirmed budget, but the cost estimate will not be determined until it is let out for bid. The architects suggested that the board make a list of what they would be willing to give up in the event of cost overruns.

The architects suggested they could eliminate the health clinic, room partitions, adult education space, and outdoor basketball courts if the bid is over budget.

The group made no decisions and someone suggested the school board’s committee of the whole would have to be included in this decision. There was no mention of asking the public for their opinion and since it will be discussed during a committee of the whole meeting it will not be televised and it will most likely be during the middle of the day.

The real kicker came when the board was told the budget would not provide for interior furniture, technology, phone system, community garden, water playground, and outdoor amphitheater. The budget only covers the hard costs of construction and soft costs of design.

For me, witnessing this meeting was frustrating. I ran for the school board, and since I lost, I do not want to appear as if I am being hypercritical of District 150. I do not want to give heartburn to our volunteer school board. Yet, after today’s meeting someone needs to start asking some questions and raise the level of expectation.

Our school board has to be informed in order to make the best decisions. When the architects opened the floor for discussion only a few basic questions were asked and no comments were made, except for the usual thank you. Guy Cahill ran the meeting and Ken Hinton continued to say over and over again something to the effect of “I will keep quiet,” “I will not talk.” I was puzzled why the superintendent would make such a comment and say it more than once.

No one questioned the design, the layout, or asked for comparables. Unfortunately, the public’s window of opportunity to weigh in is shrinking and decisions are being made by individuals with limited appreciation of the urban planning task at hand. They are missing a major opportunity and the city will suffer the consequences.

Yesterday, I attended the building committee meeting where the plans for Glen Oak School were presented. I am working on a post to summarize that meeting too. Let’s say for now I was equally unimpressed.

Resources for further reading:

Great Schools By Design (Akron Report)
Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Education
New Schools for Older Neighborhoods
Planning Schools to Fight Obesity
The Case for Renovation
School Design Guidelines
School Siting Handbook

From a press release:

Parents, teachers and concerned citizens unhappy over the shortening of the school day for most District 150 primary schools have just secured their 1001th signature on a petition requesting the District 150 Board of Education rescind their vote of May 5th. That vote shortened the primary school Day for most District 150 Schools as well as cut specialty teachers in Art Music Science and PE.

The petition Drive continues and the group feels that given time they will easily secure thousands more.

Sharon Crews, a retired Manual teacher, and one of the many that worked on the petition drive had this to say about the experience:

“Our experience today proved one thing–this group’s efforts have definitely made an impact on the public. Almost everyone who signed the petitions today already knew about the 45 minute cut in time for primary schools. Certainly, they didn’t find out from any communications from District #150. The public was aware and very ready and willing to sign against the action. This should give us all encouragement for future efforts to make the district accountable to the public. So many thanked us for putting forth this effort to fight the shortened day.”

Chris Summers, A District 150 Parent, had this to say:

“I only spent about an hour on it, and I didn’t have any trouble getting people to sign. Most of them were already aware of what was going on in D150 and were not only willing, but eager to sign the petition. I heard a lot of positive comments for what we’re trying to do; it’s been a very encouraging experience. More signatures tomorrow!”

All of the signatures are hard copy, with actual signatures. Copies of the petition and signatures will be provided to the media upon request. The group plans to present the petition to the Board of Education at their next board meeting on June 16. The 45 minute issue is expected to be on their agenda as a discussion item.

The Petition is entitled “Petition to Rescind Shortened School Day” and reads “We the undersigned support a full rescission of the shortened school day/specialty teacher reduction plan that the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education approved May 5, 2008”

Last night, over 60 parents, teachers, and other concerned individuals protested the District 150 Board of Education’s decision last month to cut the school day by 45 minutes in 12 primary schools. The picture to the right is courtesy of Diane Vespa who helped organize the demonstration and took plenty of photos.

The issue was not on the school board’s agenda, but Superintendent Ken Hinton did say that he is meeting with several interested groups and will report back to the board. He was vague on exactly when he would be reporting back, but it could be as soon as the next school board meeting on June 16. It doesn’t appear the issue will be on the agenda for reconsideration at that meeting, however. Hinton went on to say that he would not be “pressured, threatened, or intimidated,” but would only do what he feels is best for the children. I’d like to know how restoring 45 minutes of learning time to the primary school day could not be in the best interests of the children.

In addition to the demonstration, opponents of the 45-minute cut in learning time are going door-to-door with petitions to show the school board there is broad public support for the board to reverse their decision. Those petitions will be presented at the next school board meeting.

Also at last night’s meeting, Don Jackson announced that the local chapter of the NAACP opposes the cut in learning time.

If you believe that the primary school day at District 150 should not be cut by 45 minutes, if you believe that the benefits of a common prep period for teachers and integrated curriculum can be implemented without cutting the school day, if you believe there are better ways to balance the school budget than by cutting the learning time of the most vulnerable of the district’s students, then I urge you to come down to the District 150 Administration Office tonight at 5:00 p.m. to join like-minded parents, teachers, and residents in demonstrating your support for rescinding the 45-minute cut in the school day.

The Board of Education suspects that it’s just a small group (a “vocal minority”) that wants the board to reverse their decision. Help us show them that there is broad public support for restoring the learning time they voted to cut last month.

The demonstration starts at 5:00 and goes until 6:30 p.m., which is when the school board meeting begins. I hope you’ll join us.

Let’s be fair. District 150 board members and administrators do not claim that shortening the school day by 45 minutes is an educational benefit to students, per se. Rather, they claim that the benefits of (a) common prep periods for teachers and (b) an integrated curriculum outweigh the detriments of a cut in classroom time. They cited three studies to support this assertion at the May 5 school board meeting. Let’s take a look at them.

“On Common Ground – The Power of Professional Learning Communities” by DuFour, Eaker and DuFour

If there is anything that the research community agrees on, it is this: The right kind of continuous, structured teacher collaboration improves student learning and professional morale in virtually any setting. (p. xii) But, like Fullen and Darling-Hammond, Little (1990) found that when teachers engage regularly in authentic ‘joint work’ focused on explicit, common learning goals, their collaboration pays off richly in the form of higher quality solutions to instructional problems, increased teacher confidence and, not surprisingly, remarkable gains in achievement. (p. xiii)

These quotes are from the forward of a book that advocates for a strategy of teacher collaboration called a Professional Learning Community, or PLC. The principal authors have created a whole website devoted to this process called All Things PLC.

What is a PLC, exactly? It’s defined this way, according to the website: “Educators committed to working collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve.” However, they caution, “Collaboration is a means to an end, not the end itself. In many schools, staff members are willing to collaborate on a variety of topics as long as the focus of the conversation stops at their classroom door. In a PLC, collaboration represents a systematic process in which teachers work together interdependently in order to impact their classroom practice in ways that will lead to better results for their students, for their team, and for their school.”

So, what this research is really telling us is that merely sharing prep time is not sufficient to improve student achievement. In order to really be effective — to become a true PLC — teachers must work interdependently, “engage in collective inquiry into both best practices in teaching and best practices in learning,” apply those best practices in their classrooms (which may require learning new skills), and continually assess their results (more than standardized testing), making changes/improvements as needed. In short, they have to develop a “culture of collaboration.”

Thus, the question is, does the district’s plan to provide shared prep time accomplish the benefits they imply it will by quoting DuFour’s research? Possibly. The teachers of each primary school could form PLC teams and use the new shared prep time for such effective collaboration. However, there are some reasons this might not happen.

First, the teachers’ contract lets the teachers decide how they will use their prep time; they don’t have to use the time for collaboration and the administration can’t force them. There are a number of other legitimate activities that can take place during prep times, including planning, grading papers, tutoring, meeting with parents, preparing materials, etc. Teachers may choose to use their prep time for one of those activities. Second, even if teachers do decide to “collaborate,” unless they are doing so in the way described above (and in more detail on the PLC website), there’s no evidence such cooperation will translate into higher student achievement — at least, not according to the research the school district cited. Third, having the common prep time first thing in the morning makes it a convenient time for parents to drop off their children early or seek an unannounced conference with their child’s teacher. These and other interruptions can disrupt efforts to participate in the kind of intense collaboration DuFour advocates.

The bottom line is, in order to ensure that a shared prep time results in the kind of collaboration the administration is (at least implicitly) advocating, the teachers’ contract would need to be renegotiated first. The current contract expires in 2009.

2. “Extending the School Year and Day,” by Thomas I. Ellis ERIC Digest, Number Seven.

Research data reveal, however, that the correlation between time and achievement is far slighter than expected and suggest that the quality of time spent in learning is more important than the quantity.

You can read the full article (originally published in 1984) online here. The quote used by the administration is a good summary of the article. A similar article written by Evans and Bechtel in 1997 said it best when they concluded: “The research literature indicates that time is a necessary but not sufficient condition for improving achievement.”

What these studies are saying is that just throwing more time into the school day is not in and of itself going to make students learn any more or any better. First of all, the goal should not be to simply increase allocated time (the time a student is physically present at school), but to increase the academic learning time (the time a student is engaged in learning material). Ellis further argues, however, that even increasing academic learning time only yields marginal student improvement. He concludes that “the quality of instructional time is more important than quantity.”

The district administrators contend that, based on this study, decreasing instructional time will have minimal effect on student achievement. But that’s not what this research states. It’s tempting to deduce that, since increasing instructional time does not significantly increase student achievement (what the research affirms), then the inverse must also be true. But that’s not necessarily so.

Since it’s been established that time is a necessary condition for learning, we can safely assume that there is some minimum amount of academic learning time required. Indeed, at the very least, enough time must be allocated for teachers to adequately cover federal (No Child Left Behind) and state learning requirements. Furthermore, there is always going to be some minimum amount of non-instructional time as well; things such as lunch, recess, and transition time between subjects are good and necessary components of the school day.

Research on this is available — in fact, I found it referenced by the author of the very next citation from the district. Hinde (see below) references a study done by R. J. Marzano in 2003 titled, “What works in schools: Translating research into action.” Hinde reports that Marzano “calculates that there is an average of 200 standards and 3,093 benchmarks in fourteen different content areas that teachers are expected to teach in a school year. He further estimates that teachers need approximately 15,465 hours to address the content articulated in the standards adequately.” The hours referenced are total hours spread over 13 years (Kindergarten through 12th grade). Thus, 15,465 divided by 13 years equals an average of 1,190 per year; divide that by 180 days per school year and you get 6.6 hours of instructional time per day that’s needed just to adequately meet all standards and benchmarks.

Even without the cut in the primary school day, District 150 is not providing 6.6 hours of instructional time per day currently. They provide 6.5 hours of allocated time. Take out lunch and recess and you’re already at less than six hours of instructional time per day. Cut the allocated time by 45 minutes and and actual instructional time is at or near the Illinois state minimum of five hours per day.

3. “Revisiting Curriculum Integration: A Fresh Look at an Old Idea,” by Elizabeth R. Hinde from The Social Studies (May/June 2005)

The bottom line on the research concerning the efficacy of an interdisciplinary approach to curriculum is that when skilled, knowledgeable teachers employ integrated methods, student achievement is equal to, or better than, that of students who are taught in the traditional separate-subject approach…It is clear from the research that student achievement hinges on the teacher’s ability to integrate content across disciplines effectively in meaningful ways. (p. 107)

Elizabeth Hinde is an advocate for beefing up social studies education in the elementary grades. In her article cited above, we see that she is trying to solve the dilemma of getting more social studies education into a school day that is already too short. The solution she comes up with is “to integrate social studies content with those areas that the teachers are already teaching — an integrated or interdisciplinary curriculum.”

Although this article is not about integrating music, fine art, computers, or physical education into other disciplines, I assume the district cites it because it makes general references to research on integrated curricula. In addition to the quote the district pulled out, I think it’s important to recognize the rest of the paragraph from which it was taken:

For integration to be effective, teachers must have adequate knowledge about the content areas they are integrating, and they must have adequate training in integrative techniques. Furthermore, even though integration has proven to be effective in engaging students and increasing their achievement on standardized tests and other measures of achievement, there are some caveats that teachers and curriculum developers must consider.

First, we need to assess whether the primary school teachers have “adequate knowledge about the content areas they are integrating,” namely art, music, computers, and physical education in District 150’s case. Next, we have to ask what “training in integrative techniques” the district will be offering to these teachers and what that training will cost. Finally, it must be acknowledged that there are effective and ineffective ways of curriculum integration. Hinde warns against several pitfalls including “distorting the … content in the name of integration,” “watering down the content in order to integrate by including bits of information from numerous content areas without proper depth in any of the disciplines,” and “having students participate in activities that lack educational value in any content area and busy-work exercises.”

What controls are in place or will be instituted to ensure that integration of music, arts, computers, and physical education will be effective learning experiences for the children? The district did retain “two full time equivalent specialists per school.” This will help ensure adequate knowledge of those specialists’ subject matter. Each school will have to choose which subjects for which to retain specialists, and which subjects they will have to rely on the primary school teachers to cover starting next year. No teacher training plans in these new areas or on integration techniques in general are indicated.

Final Thoughts

The premise of District 150’s actions is best stated by Board of Education President David Gorenz. Here’s what he said in an e-mail to Bill Collier, the City of Peoria and District 150 liaison:

I would readily admit that the proposal to shorten the day by 45 minutes and change the schedule originated as a means to reduce cost. However as it was studied more by administration and the Board it was felt that there were considerable benefits to the schedule change of establishing a common prep period and a more integrated curriculum. So the question that had to be answered was were the benefits of the schedule change sufficient to outweigh the loss of 45 minutes.

Judging from the research, I do not see how the schedule change outweighs the loss of 45 minutes from the primary school day. Professional Learning Communities and integrated curriculum, if done properly, can provide numerous benefits that may improve student achievement; but there doesn’t appear to be a well-defined plan to ensure those methods will be implemented consistent with the research on which they’re based. Even if they were, the loss of 45 minutes from the school day arguably would negate the gains they would produce.

Dr. Thom Simpson stated at the May 5 Board of Education meeting that “this proposal does not take time away from the teachers – the student will still spend 315 minutes [5 hours and 15 minutes] each day with the teacher.” This statement is misleading. It is true that students will spend the same amount of time with their home room teacher, but they will be losing 45 minutes of (allocated) time with a specialist in subjects such as art and music.

That is no small loss. According to the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies’ publication “Critical Evidence: How the ARTS Benefit Student Achievement,” “No Child Left Behind reaffirms the arts as a ‘core academic subject’ that all schools should teach. It puts the arts on equal footing with the other designated core subjects: English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, history and geography.” The time spent learning these subjects is critical to meeting federal standards. It’s not dead time.

By eliminating the 45 minutes of specialist time, the home room teacher will have to pick up the slack by integrating as much of those subjects as possible into the 5 hours and 15 minutes of classroom time that remains — time that, as we’ve seen, is already too short for meeting all the standards and benchmarks required by federal and state laws.

A better option would be to implement PLCs and subject matter integration without shortening the school day so that the quality and efficiency of the time currently allotted can be improved. The Board of Education then would need to find another way to cut costs, but there are many other options available that would not impact student achievement.

Diane Vespa, parent of two Kellar Primary School students, would like to meet with representatives of the Peoria Public Schools Board of Education to discuss her concerns about the board’s decision to shorten the school day. Here’s the shocking response she received from Board Member Debbie Wolfmeyer:

Mrs. Vespa – I must respectfully decline your invitation to meet with you. It is not my role as a Board member to meet with individuals or groups. None of us as an individual Board member has any authority. Our authority comes as we work as a body. Also, I am not an educator. Therefore, it is important that any ideas, solutions, etc that are presented go through the administration so that they can assess them and report to us. Now I will say that I ask a lot of questions about anything that is presented to us; more questions probably than the administration would like to answer. And I don’t stop asking questions until I am satisfied that I have all the information I need to make a decision. That is what I have done on the current issue. I have asked every question that has been presented to me. That information helped form my decision. If you have any new information you would like presented to the administration, I would be happy to forward it. I respect everyone’s right to their opinion and their right to voice that opinion. Thank you for the obvious time and passion you have for our District.

Debbie Wolfmeyer
District #150 School Board

Attention District 3 2 voters: Wolfmeyer has just announced that she will not meet or talk with you, her constituents, about your concerns. She believes that your concerns should be submitted to the Superintendent, and then she will make her decisions based on what the Superintendent says — i.e., whether he thinks your concerns are valid or not. Let me repeat: Wolfmeyer has just announced that she makes her decisions without any consideration of her constituents’ views; only the administration’s views are considered. She will, however, out of the goodness of her heart, forward your concerns to the administration. But don’t bother asking to meet her face to face.

Remember that in 2011 when she suddenly decides it might be a good idea to meet with individuals and groups in order to get reelected. Remind her that it’s not her role to meet with her constituents. Then vote for someone who believes it is his or her role to meet with constituents and listen to their concerns, and then represent them on the board.

Four parents representing the District 150 Watch group met today with Peoria Public Schools Superintendent Ken Hinton to present their alternatives to shortening the school day. You can read their recommendations here (6-page PDF file).

The document was put together as the result of a lot of collaboration, but was ultimately written by Chris Setti, a Whittier Primary School parent and Six Sigma Black Belt for the City of Peoria. It’s respectful, well-documented, positive and constructive. It presents several ways that the Board of Education could provide additional common prep time for teachers as well as cut expenses, all without shortening the school day.

Of course, no decisions were made yet as a result of this meeting. Hinton is meeting with PTO presidents and primary school principals right now, presumably to hear their concerns. If you haven’t already, please write to your school board representatives and ask them to reverse their decision to cut the school day; encourage them to take seriously the alternatives presented to Mr. Hinton today.

Here is the contact information for all District 150 Board of Education members:

David Gorenz
President (Dist. 3)
(309) 688-2824
david.gorenz@psd150.org

Martha M. Ross
Vice-President (Dist. 1)
(309) 674-2574
martha.ross@psd150.org

Linda Butler
(Dist. 2)
(309) 688-7912
linda.butler@psd150.org

Rachael A. Parker
(Dist. 2)
(309) 688-5990
rachael.parker@psd150.org

Mary Spangler
(Dist. 3)
(309) 691-1752
mary.spangler@psd150.org

Jim Stowell
(Dist. 3)
(309) 692-4128
jim.stowell@psd150.org

Debbie Wolfmeyer
(Dist. 3)
(309) 681-9567
debbie.wolfmeyer@psd150.org

To e-mail all board members at once, click here.

The District 150 Board of Education again listened to parents express their grievances about the decision to shorten the school day by 45 minutes. The school board should get used to hearing these comments; they can expect to hear them at every meeting until this ill-advised decision is rescinded.

Superintendent Ken Hinton had the first word as he informed the board he would be meeting with parents to talk about alternatives:

[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/05192008-Hinton.mp3]

That meeting will take place Thursday. Ideally, this would be all it takes to get the district to reverse the decision. If this does the trick, I’ll be ecstatic, presuming the shock doesn’t kill me.

Hinton is hanging his hat on the idea of providing a common prep period for teachers. The thing is, he never explains how or why that is tied to shortening the school day. It’s a red herring. I thought it was funny when he talked about the “highest producing countries” (presumably producing well-educated students) having “three important aspects” of their success. He only mentioned one: common prep time. What are the other two? Something tells me one of them is longer academic learning time.

Notable quotes from Hinton’s speech: “My mind is always open.” “I’m more than open.”

Here are some other comments from concerned parents and teachers:

Mimi McDonald:
[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/05192008-McDonald.mp3]

Diane Vespa:
[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/05192008-Vespa.mp3]

Terry Knapp:
[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/05192008-Knapp.mp3]

Bill Luthy:
[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/05192008-Luthy.mp3]

Hedy Elliott-Gardner:
[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/05192008-Elliott-Gardner.mp3]

My favorite quote of the night was from Elliott-Gardner, who is a teacher at Garfield school. After Superintendent Hinton’s big speech about the research-supported importance of common prep time for teachers, Elliott-Gardner reminded the board that Loucks-Edison has had common prep time for teachers for the past ten years, and the school board voted to close it.

As far as research goes, I’d like to submit this 2007 report from the American Educational Research Association for your consideration. Citing peer-reviewed, published studies, it has this to say:

Research on instructional time has consistently found that extended time has the most powerful impact on learning in schools serving low-performing students.

Don’t be fooled. Cutting the day by 45 minutes does not simply remove dead allocated time. It removes academic learning time. It reduces fine arts education. It’s a bad decision and needs to be reversed.