Just a reminder about the school board meeting tonight from an e-mail from Diane Vespa:

Dear Friends,

There will be a meeting of the District 150 School Board [Monday] evening. At this meeting we will make an official request that they place on the agenda for the next board meeting of June 2 a vote to RESCIND the shortened school day and the reduction of specialty teachers.

Please join us and show your support for the parents, teachers and members of the community who have OPPOSED this harmful decision. This board meeting will once again take place at 6:30 pm at the District office located at 3202 N. Wisconsin Ave, Peoria.

We invite you to say a few words to the board, or simply support us through your presence.

We will also be handing out petitions. We invite all parents & concerned members of the community to secure a copy, reproduce it as needed, and start collecting signatures and phone numbers from members of the community that join with us in OPPOSING this decision. The phone numbers will be a great asset should a peaceful demonstration become necessary.

Please forward or cut and paste this e-mail to anyone who can help.

As you know, our children’s primary school education is the cornerstone of their entire educational future. I thank you in advance for your continued support and willingness to take up this cause on behalf of the area’s children.

Sincerely,
Diane Vespa

City-School-Board liaison Bill Collier is an optimist. When he met with parents and educators this past Monday, he gave everyone hope:

Mr. Collier insisted that we “had the Admins attention” and that they were willing to put options on the table.

Things were looking up when it was announced that District 150 Administration was willing to meet with parents and other concerned parties later this month. But that hope was dampened today with the publication of this article from the Journal Star:

“I will tell you up front it is all contingent upon the teachers using that time effectively,” Hinton said, noting there are no plans for the district to backpedal on the issue. Whether Hinton could sway any opponents remains to be seen.

So, this meeting isn’t about any kind of negotiation or placing options on the table. It’s about Hinton trying to persuade opponents of the benefits of cutting 45 minutes off of each school day.

His argument, as explained in the paper, goes like this: Every teacher has to receive a 45-minute “preparation period” because that’s required in their contract. Currently, “during this time, scattered throughout the day, students are shuttled to another classroom, usually for art, science, music or physical education. Those classes could see some minutes shaved.”

More “arts integration” also would take place, meaning different courses would be blended. Schools would have the equivalent of two full-time “specialists” and decide on their own what to maintain and where to cut.

Those specialized teachers – except P.E. – will go to the classroom and all teachers will get their prep time before school begins.

Hinton said that’s where the big gains come, with common planning time in the morning, the professional development and teacher collaboration at all grades – virtually impossible now. Contact time with teachers will not change, he said.

See, this is semantics. He’s distinguishing between “specialists” and “teachers.” The “specialist” time will be cut, but “contact time with teachers will not change.” I’m sorry, but if the “specialist” is teaching my child art, music, and physical education, I call that person a “teacher.” It doesn’t matter to me whether they are contractually or legally considered a “teacher” by District 150 standards. They’re teaching my children, and their contact time is most assuredly being cut.

It shouldn’t be. Art, music, and P. E. are not things that should be relegated to extra-curricular activities. These are an important part of a child’s education. They should be retained.

I think it’s fair to wonder what good this meeting is going to do between Hinton and the newly-formed District 150 Watch group, but it will be good for the group to meet with him anyway so they can say they tried. Call me pessimistic, but I’ve seen this song and dance before. I predict the parents will be rebuffed once again, and then things will really start to get ugly.

Diane Vespa has been getting quite a bit of press lately regarding the effort to reverse District 150’s decision to shorten the school day for 12 primary schools. I’ve heard her interviewed on WMBD radio news and WCBU news. Today, she sent me an audio clip of her interview on the Markley and Luciano Show on 1470 WMBD:

[audio:https://peoriachronicle.com/wp-content/uploads/Audio/diane-vespa.mp3]

The audio clip includes Andy King of the Dream Center and his concerns about the shorter schedule and the problems it will create for children and families. Markley said it best about the shorter day: “This is a bunch of crap!”

Way to go, Diane! Keep up the good work. Staying in the news and keeping this issue high-profile keeps the heat on District 150. The decision must change.

Rev. Harvey Burnett of New Bethel Church of God in Christ objects to District 150 using a training program from The Pacific Institute, based in Seattle, Washington, and used by many large corporations around the world, including Boeing and Caterpillar. He says on his blog:

The focus of the 21 Keys program [from The Pacific Institute] is similar to that of cultic religious indoctrination practices, offering affirmations and assimilation techniques and a targeted deprogramming of traditional values. This is unacceptable at the Public School Level and could potentially be a violation of law.

Rev. Burnett would like “Peoria Public School District 150 to reconsider their relationship with the Pacific Institute and at the very least NOT implement any of their programs with our Public Schools.” He’s a little late on that count. While the founder of The Pacific Institute, Louis Tice, is speaking in Peoria today at 1:00, which is why this program is getting a little more publicity all of a sudden, this is not a new program at District 150. It was approved by the school board about a year and a half ago. Here’s what the December 4, 2006, school board meeting minutes state:

PACIFIC INSTITUTE – Moved by Spangler, seconded by Stowell that the Administration be authorized to enter into a Contract with the Pacific Institute for the use and implementation of the Pacific Institute’s BASIC LEARNING PROGRAM, YOUTH PROGRAM AND SCHOOL SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM.

Dr. Fischer explained that Caterpillar has graciously underwritten the cost of the program for the first year. The first year will implement the Pacific Institute’s Basic Learning Program, Youth Program and School Sponsorship Program. Mr. Hinton explained that phase two financing is still to be determined. Dr. Fischer stated that the program fits well into the Strategic Plan and the District will benefit even if the second phase is not initiated.

On roll call, 7 ayes. Motion carried.

As the September 17, 2007, school board meeting minutes explain, this training was part of, or perhaps became a part of the district’s School Improvement Plans. During the part of the meeting where an update was given on these plans, Associate Superintendent Dr. Cindy Fischer had this to say:

Dr. Fischer reported that all principals have been trained in the Pacific Institute “Investment in Excellence.” The focus of that training is to change the culture in the building. Two buildings have been through the Pacific Institute “21 Keys” training and the District has made a “bold goal” that each teacher will have the opportunity to attend the 21 Keys training.

The October 1, 2007, school board meeting featured further discussion on the training:

5. GOAL 5 – CULTURE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE – CULTURE TO DRIVE INVESTMENT IN EXCELLENCE – Dr. Fischer, Dr. Hannah and Mrs. Sanfilip presented information on driving the culture of an organization to achieve excellence. The District has been working with Pacific Institute to move the style of leadership from passive/defensive or aggressive/defensive to constructive.

Let’s stop here for a second. These terms deserve a little explanation. District 150 published a flyer called “The Pacific Institute: An Overview for Peoria Public Schools” that is available from the district’s website. It explains these different styles of leadership:

A Constructive Culture

• Pursues standard of excellence
• Fosters innovation
• Reinforces personal responsibility and accountability for performance
• Open, candid discussion and decision-making
• Leadership facilitates goal accomplishment rather than manages (monitoring activities)

An Aggressive/Defensive Culture

• Inactive/Reactive
• Creates overhead
• Focus on blame
• Maintain the status quo

A Passive/Defensive Culture

• Reactive
• Hierarchical
• Critical
• Punitive
• Political
• Unrealistic

They then say that Peoria Public Schools’ current culture is an equal mix of all three types of leadership styles, but that they are striving to be completely a “Constructive Culture.” Now, back to the October 1 minutes:

The Central Administrative Team has been through leadership facilitator training to develop a mission statement and values for the District. The building principals have completed Investment in Excellence and are working on Vision and Value Building and will take part in the leadership impact survey and coaching in November. They also will take part in the 21 Keys Facilitator Training in October. Kellar, Irving and Transition to Success teachers have completed the 21 Keys program. Our BOLD GOAL is that all teachers will go through 21 Keys and Achieving Your Potential by September 2008. It is also hoped that community members, volunteers and parents have a chance to participate in the training.

Dr. Fischer stated that to achieve our goals they need from the Board the continued commitment to the vision and values and then work on moving the culture. Also, consensus and support of the Bold Goal that all teachers go through the 21 Keys and Achieving Your Potential.

Dr. Fisher stated that if organizations, businesses or people would like to donate, things needed would be – an offsite location for the training, lunches for the three day training and help with purchasing the materials. We will be using District trainers to hold down the cost.

As was earlier stated, Caterpillar paid for the first year of training, and there was uncertainty at the time as to how “phase two” would be funded. According to the PPS’ Pacific Institute flyer, which was undated, apparently at some point it was decided that no school funds would be expended on the program:

The Peoria Public School District 150 Foundation has agreed to fundraise for the training. Additional community members have and are stepping forward to donate facilities, food, snacks, and payment for curriculum.

As far as it being eastern mysticism in disguise, it might be interesting to ask the staff at St. Mark Catholic School. They adopted the training in early 2006, according to a May 5, 2006, Journal Star article:

First, [St. Mark’s] entire staff of teachers and principal went through an Investment in Excellence program in January. Last weekend, some 40 of its junior high students went home with the new realization that they are in control of their own destinies, through a Pathways to Excellence program.

The teachers will complete another seminar, 21 Steps, this summer in which they will take what they’ve learned from the first program and incorporate it into the kindergarten through eighth-grade curriculum.

The excellence programs were introduced to the school by Caterpillar Inc. employee Steve Pierz, who is on the school’s education commission. He enlisted the help of his friend and colleague Stan Budzinski and information technology supervisor Kim Utzinger, who also presented the Pathways program.

As an aside, it was interesting to me that Caterpillar’s name came up every time this training was mentioned. It appears Cat is the local evangelist for The Pacific Institute. They’re spreading the good news of positive “self-talk” to public and parochial schools alike. But I digress.

Indeed, the mission statement of The Pacific Institute doesn’t betray any eastern or New Age thinking in and of itself:

We affirm the right of all individuals to achieve their God-given potential. The application of our education empowers people to recognize their ability to choose growth, freedom and personal excellence. We commit ourselves to providing this education, all over the world, through all means that are just and appropriate.

But when you actually look at the curriculum, as Rev. Burnett has done, it does show that its methods are New-Age-ish (religious syncretism, mind over matter, etc.), and thus could undermine values that are being taught in the home, especially Christian values. From what I’ve read, it’s basically the old “power of positive thinking” repackaged; only this time their claim is that the methods are based on “the latest research from the cognitive sciences.”

Stripped of the methodology, I don’t see any problem with kids learning that they’re responsible for their own attitudes and learning. However, I see honest self-talk as much more valuable than simply positive self-talk. This may be apocryphal, but I heard once that tests showed U.S. children had some of the lowest achievement scores, but had the highest self-esteem of kids in any nation. The district needs more than positive thinking and psychotherapy to make AYP.

This whole thing leaves me with two questions. First, how much time is being spent on this training per school year, and might that time be better spent on core curriculum? Secondly, how effective can The Pacific Institute’s training be if the central administration has gone through it and is still the antithesis of a “Constructive Culture”?

Eyebrows McGee has written some sound and common sense advice for District 150. It’s advice they’ve heard many times before from many different people. That’s okay. They need to keep hearing it — relentlessly — until they start actually following it.

All in favor, say “aye.”

Monday night there was a big meeting at Godfather’s Pizza to discuss strategies for getting the District 150 School Board to reverse their decision to cut 45 minutes out of the school day for 12 primary schools. The charge was led by Diane Vespa, who reports the outcome of the meeting on her blog:

Ultimately, we were persuaded to “call off the dogs” and place them on a back burner, for now. In the interim, we will meet a few more times to explore options for saving $600K. We don’t anticipate this to be too difficult of an undertaking given the fact that it is less than 1/2 of 1% of their budget. There is a meeting scheduled with the District for May 22. The goal: a full rescission of last Mondays vote.

If negotiations fail, things could get ugly. In the past week, there have been calls for everything from picketing to a city takeover of the school district. Those more extreme measures are on hold for now, in hopes that the board will reverse their decision and find a way to balance the budget that doesn’t rob kindergarten through fourth grade students of teacher contact time.

I think it’s a good idea to try negotiations first, but we must, at the same time, keep the heat up. We won’t let the administration razzle-dazzle us like they did the school board last Monday night.

Hmm, let’s see. $1.14 million for four Edison schools. We’re closing one, so the total number of Edison schools is dropping by 25%. If we take $1.14 million and divide by four (or multiply by .25), we get $285,000.

But according to the Journal Star today, the school district negotiated only “about a $200,000 savings.” That’s about 17.5% of the total contract.

Well, let’s look at percentage of pupils. The 2007 enrollments, according to the Illinois Interactive Report Card, were:

Loucks	374
Rolling Acres	312
Franklin	386
Northmoor	462
TOTAL	1534

So, 374 divided by 1534 is: 24.3%. But the contract was only reduced 17.5%.

Sounds like a great deal… for “New York-based Edison Schools,” that is. I suppose the administration will say that there are certain fixed administrative costs, so one can’t just cut the contract by 25%.

Or maybe they’ll try to tell us that 17.5% savings is just as good as 25%. After all, they’ve already told us that an 11.5% reduction in the school day provides exactly the same amount of teacher contact time, with music and art thrown in.

It’s the new math.

Note to District 150 parents: The next time you feel compelled to express your concerns to District 150 board members, just go find a brick wall somewhere and talk to it. There are a number of benefits: you can hit it and not get arrested, you can do it any time instead of just 6:30 every other Monday, and the most important thing of all — you’ll get the exact same results.

The school board voted 5-1 (Linda Butler was absent) to shorten the school day by 45 minutes next year. Jim Stowell was the lone dissenting vote. Kudos to him.

Feel free to use that brick wall to beat your head against after yet another poor, ill-advised decision from our illustrious school board.

It will be interesting to hear the board discuss the shorter school day recommendation from the administration at tonight’s school board meeting. Here’s the item as it appears on the agenda:

14.
PRIMARY SCHOOL SCHEDULE – Sanfilip
Proposed Action: That the student and teacher schedules for all Primary Schools, except Franklin Edison, Northmoor Edison, Roosevelt Magnet and Valeska Hinton Early Childhood Education Center, for the 2008-2009 school year shall be as follows:

1.	Student Schedule	9:15 A.M. to 3:00 P.M.
2.	Teacher Schedule	8:15 A.M. to 3:15 P.M.

The Superintendent is authorized to make such individual Primary School accommodations/variations to this schedule and any necessary Middle School changes to accommodate this schedule as he may deem necessary. Such changes shall be reported to the Board of Education. This school schedule shall be for the 2008-2009 school year. During the month of April, 2009, the Superintendent shall make a further or permanent Primary School schedule recommendation to the Board of Education.

The conclusion I’ve reached after hearing from board members and administrators is this: The administration chooses research to support whatever proposal they advocate rather than advocating for something based on research. See, I had always thought that they were looking at educational research and then pushing for change based on those principles. But this recent episode has made it clear that it’s really the other way around.

If they want to bring in Edison schools, they select research that “proves” the educational benefits of a longer school day. Ditto for putting a school in a park-like setting or situated on 15 acres. But, if the budget needs trimmed, and they decide they want to shorten the school day, they’ll go out and select research that “proves” the benefits of a shorter school day with block scheduling.

Bottom line: I believe they choose research that supports their ends, and then try to sell it to the school board and their constituents as something that’s been developed through thoughtful reflection and a thorough review of “best practices.”

Does that sound harsh? If so, please explain how the administration can simultaneously justify a longer school day for some schools and cutting the school day for others, and have it all based on best practices and educational research. I mean, they’ve spent years trying to convince the public that a longer school day is vital to improved academic performance, and now, all of a sudden, that’s out the window and a shorter school day is advocated… but only for some schools.

I think parents (and, frankly, school board members) deserve some honest dialog and clarity from the school administration. Because it sure looks like plans are being made solely on the basis of budget issues, and being propped up after the fact with educational “proof” of their effectiveness.

Here’s an interesting report called “The Future of Education in Peoria: Issues and Opportunities for Moving Forward Together in Peoria Public School District 150.” It says it’s a report that came out of “A Community Summit in Open Space, June 3-5, 2002.” This three-evening forum was designed “to bring together concerned people from all across District 150 to create a shared vision for our public schools. The results of our work will provide the foundation for moving forward together.” Two hundred people attended this event.

Here’s a suggestion (p. 10) that came from a group composed of Mary Davis, Bette Johnson, Linda Millen, Herschel Hannah, Sean Matheson, Audrey Galter, and Sandy Farkash:

Longer day (7 55minute periods)

Note that Herschel Hannah is an Associate Superintendent, and Sean Matheson is a former school board member.

This suggestion came up again (pp. 27-28) in a group composed of Beth Koch, Gerry Brookhart, Pam Dolozychi, Sandy Burke, Martha Ross, Scott Russell, Don Johnson, and Herschel Hannah:

NOT ENOUGH TIME – Need to expand academic days to allow full “On Task” time for curriculum demands and Prevention services and programs; after school programs may not reach all children in need

• Longer school day/year
• Use of free periods
• Build prevention programs into existing curriculum ie. High School speech classes
• Saturday school
• Evening school
• Access to Early Childhood Education programs

Note attendees Martha Ross (current board vice president) and, once again, Mr. Hannah.

So, in 2002, one of the problems identified was that there was not enough time. And the solution was to come up with ways to provide more class time for students. What’s changed in six years that all of a sudden less class time is now suddenly a good idea?

Well, Dr. Simpson did say at the meeting last night that children today learn differently than they did ten years ago, so maybe the findings of a forum six years ago are no longer valid. Okay. We’ll forget about the 2002 report. Let’s look instead at the September 18, 2007, minutes of the joint school board/city council meeting — only about seven months ago:

Superintendent Hinton expressed that the District vision is to improve student achievement…. Mr. Hinton also discussed the need fort the District to offer “Choice” to parents, the need for a longer school day and/or longer school year.

He later clarified:

Council Member Nichting asked about the longer school day being for everyone. Superintendent Hinton explained that the longer day would be “need based.” He is still considering the need for a longer school year and noted that many students fall behind during the summer months.

And current board member Mary Spangler weighed in on the issue, too:

Board Member Spangler spoke to the Choice Edison Program and stated that the data she has seen shows that schools with longer days showed student improvement.

How do we reconcile these statements with Hinton’s new proposal to cut 45 minutes off the school day for twelve primary schools, but leave Edison school schedules intact? (And don’t tell me they can’t get out of the contract. Every spring the school board has an opportunity to get out of the contract by its own terms. That contract covers only four schools — three next year since Loucks is closing — and costs the district $1.14 million per year.)

How can the same administration in just seven months do a complete 180 on the issue of school day length? They now say, according to a handout distributed at the meeting last night, “Further study has revealed exciting best practices along with instructional and operational opportunities.” Ah, so perhaps all that data from the past 6+ years was totally bogus, and longer school days aren’t really all they’re cracked up to be. In fact, “further study” shows that the days should actually be shorter!

Well, in that case, all the more reason to cancel the Edison contract. Since their day is already longer than the rest of the district’s, shortening it to five hours and forty-five minutes will surely produce even more academic improvement.

District 150’s logic is like a Penrose triangle.