It’s been all over the news recently: “Test scores send Four District 150 schools into restructuring.” Because four District 150 schools did not make “adequate yearly progress,” or AYP, for the sixth consecutive year, “Sterling, Loucks-Edison, Lincoln and Trewyn middle schools have entered the restructuring process,” reports the Journal Star.
But what exactly is “restructuring”? There’s a very informative memo on the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) website that details this process. According to the memo, restructuring means that the district must undertake “a major reorganization of a school, making fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance.” Whatever plan they develop has to be approved by the school board and the State Superintendent of Education.
What do they mean by “major” reorganization or reforms?
Under federal and state law, each school restructuring plan developed by the district must indicate the district is planning to undertake one or more of the following actions in the affected school:
- Charter School: Reopen the school as a public charter school, consistent with Article 27A of the School Code (105 ILCS 5/27A);
- Staffing: Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are relevant to the school’s inability to make adequate yearly progress;
- Contracting: Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school as a public school; or
- Other Major Restructuring: Implement any other restructuring of the school’s governance that makes fundamental reform in:
i. Governance and management; and/or
ii. Financing and material resources; and/or
iii. Staffing.
So, what option is the district taking? Option #2. But if you’re scratching your head wondering why you haven’t seen a huge turnover in employment, it’s because that option is rather broadly defined. For instance, in the document cited above, the ISBE says that one possible application of option 2 is to “transfer the locus of staffing decisions, start to finish, to a turnaround specialist or to the district level from the principal or vice versa.” Two of the restructuring plans (Lincoln and Trewyn) are utilizing the “turnaround specialist.”
I obtained copies of their restructuring plans via a Freedom of Information Act request, and you can read them here:
Lincoln Middle School
Loucks-Edison Jr. Academy
Sterling Middle School
Trewyn Middle School
Charter Schools
An interesting option that is not being considered is charter schools. There are currently 37 charter schools in Illinois and there can be up to 60, so this is a possibility. Charter schools in Illinois are governed by the Charter Schools Law, 105 ILCS 5/27A.
A charter school in Illinois is a public school that has a contract (or charter) of operation with the local school board or directly with the state. It has to be public (i.e., can’t charge tuition but is eligible for public funding), nonsectarian, nonreligious, non‑home based, and non‑profit. In fact, it’s set up like a non-profit corporation with its own board of directors, and can make decisions independently of the district, but within the bounds of its contract (charter).
However, the charter gives the school considerable flexibility — for instance, they can choose their own curriculum and disciplinary policies, set their own hours of operation and school calendar, hire their own employees/teachers, etc. In return, the charter school has greater accountability for student achievement. And, of course, the school is subject to common-sense regulations required of all public schools (e.g., civil rights mandates; criminal background checks for employees (click here for more info); open meetings act; state goals, standards, and assessments, etc.).
The local school board can choose this course of action, or it can be initiated directly with the state by public referendum. It takes a petition from 5% of the voters in a school district and approval of the proposed charter school contract by the Illinois State Board of Education (i.e., acknowledgment that the proposed contract complies with the Charter Schools Law) to put the question on the ballot.
Peoria actually had a charter school from 1996-1999. It was called the Peoria Alternative Charter School and it met in the old Greeley school building at 919 NE Jefferson. (Incidentally, my grandmother taught 3rd grade at Greeley before she retired in 1975. Back then, it was a K-8 grade school.) However, many felt this was not the original vision for charter schools — District 150 set this school up as a place to put disruptive students (hence the “alternative” part of the name). In fact, they even put expelled students in this charter school and were legally challenged over it.
Charter schools have never been attempted as a restructuring option for an existing primary or middle school to my knowledge. This may be an option worth exploring. It appears to be successful in Chicago.
Other Major Restructuring
Some examples (not an exhaustive list) of “other major restructuring” given by the state are:
- Restructure the school by altering the school’s grade configuration (for example, a K-2 school becomes a K-6 school) or the programs offered (for example, the school becomes a magnet school or a career academy), or both….
- Change to a site-based management school rather than centralized administration, or to centralized administration of the school rather than site-based management (non-applicable to a Title I schoolwide school).
- Align the school with an existing research-based school improvement model of sufficient size and scope such that the model, used as prescribed and intended, can affect needed change.
- Use school consolidation processes to create a new public school or schools….
- Implement a school-within-a-school model or a smaller learning community model.
These options help shed some light on recent District 150 plans to consolidate schools and abandon the primary/middle school model in favor of a return to the old K-8 model.
The Next Step?
Just out of curiosity, I wondered what would happen if the district’s attempts at reorganization failed. The answer is not pretty:
[T]hese interventions could occur in the school year following the restructuring implementation year. Under the School Code, the State Board has the authority to take one of the following actions for the school:
- Authorize the State Superintendent to direct the regional superintendent to remove the board members.
- Direct the State Superintendent to appoint an Independent Authority to exercise such powers and duties as may be necessary to operate a school for purposes of improving pupil performance and school improvement. The Independent Authority serves for a period of time determined by the State Board.
- Change the recognition status of the school to “nonrecognized.†[This is more serious than it sounds at first; the document later explains, “If a district is nonrecognized, it cannot make any claim for General State Aid. …[I]f any school district fails for one year to maintain within the boundaries of the district a recognized school, the district is automatically dissolved and the property and territory is disposed of.”]
- Authorize the State Superintendent of Education to direct the reassignment of pupils or direct the reassignment or replacement of school district personnel who are relevant to the failure to meet AYP.
In other words, the state takes over. Elsewhere, the document says that under NCLB other options include: “abolish or restructure the district,” and “appoint a receiver or trustee to administer district affairs, in place of the superintendent and school board.”
Much as removal of board members or certain district personnel may be viscerally appealing sometimes, losing local control of the school district is really not in our best interests. That’s why school board elections and good school board candidates are so important. I’ll do my best to provide information about the candidates. (Full disclosure: I am supporting Beth Akeson for school board.)
C.J.: Congratulations on your very fine work. This is the most comprehensive discussion of “restructuring” to appear in any of Peoria’s press. I will have more to say but this piece demands a well-thought out response and that will take a little time to prepare.
“losing local control of the school district is really not in our best interests. That’s why school board elections and good school board candidates are so important. I’ll do my best to provide information about the candidates.”
It would seem the electorate has surrendered any meaningful control for years now. I really doubt there will be a whole lot of change after this year’s election. Will there be a huge turnout to ensure our schools are the best they can be? Doubtful. Voting is hard… moving to Dunlap is easy.
by the way… great article CJ.
If the District has chosen Option #2, Staffing, as the prime action upon which their restructuring plans are based, then can we assume they identified the school staff who are relevant to the school’s inability to make adequate yearly progress? To answer that question affirmatively, the district must have in place, and use according to its design, an evaluation instrument to measure the level of staff performance. Assuming such an instrument exists (one was developed during Garrett’s administration, and Hannah has the responsibility for developing/revising evaluation instruments), is it being properly utilized?
Historically, district principals have evaluated between 90%-95% of the teaching staff as either “outstanding†or “excellent†or “exceeds performance expectations.†Common sense challenges these outcomes; how can the overwhelming majority of teachers be at the excellent/outstanding level when the students at three primary schools, eight middle schools, and at least one high school are not making adequate yearly progress? They can’t. This problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the evaluators, who persist in the practice because they don’t want their evaluations challenged, or want anyone to be upset with them, or can’t make the hard decisions, or any number of other reasons known only to them.
The restructuring plans mention that staffing changes will occur as a result of natural attrition. Naturally-occurring attrition is difficult to predict; too many variables are involved – longevity of teaching staff, retirement incentives, leaves of absence, resignations, transfer requests, to cite just a few of the more obvious. To satisfy the expectations of the NCLB/ISBE, the district will have to develop and implement a detailed staffing model based upon the outcome of a credible evaluation process.
Lincoln’s plan states that they experienced several internal personnel changes within the past year, adding 4 new teachers, a new principal and assistant principal, and a reading coach (in 2005). Trewyn’s plan states that administrative turnover and additional staff will also provide replacement of staff as part of their corrective action option. Neither plan discusses what occurred in the school that brought it to restructuring. Absent from both plans is any statement that the remaining staff members were, or were not, relevant to the school’s inability to make adequate yearly progress, or that the staff members who were replaced were relevant to the school‘s inability to make adequate yearly progress. The ISBE/NCLB guidelines are very specific as to what staff members are to be replaced; it does not satisfy the requirements to simply replace staff members who left through naturally-occurring attrition.
As stated above, the ISBE says that one possible application of Option #2 is to “transfer the locus of staffing decisions, start to finish, to a turnaround specialist or to the district level from the principal or vice versa.†Two of the restructuring plans, Lincoln and Trewyn, specifically state they will utilize the services of turnaround specialists. Both restructuring plans are silent as to whether or not the locus of staffing decisions is being transferred to the turnaround specialists. Absent that detail, we infer the district is retaining staffing responsibilities. If that is the case, the building principals will continue making the final selection of teacher candidates to fill instructional vacancies. If the building principals continue hiring to their existing staffing profiles, will the NCLB/ISBE requirements be fulfilled?
Since the district’s Director of Human Resources does not hold administrative certification or teaching credentials (he was a junior general practice associate with Kavanagh, Scully, Sudow, White & Frederick), certified staffing decisions cannot be transferred to the human resource function at the district level. To satisfy the ISBE’s alternative requirements and transfer the locus of staffing decisions to the district level, an administrator(s) other than the Director of Human Resources must assume instructional staffing responsibilities. Under the current administrative configuration, that responsibility could shift to the associate/assistant superintendent level. Issues of confidence in the three incumbents currently occupying those positions have been raised. Do these three individuals possess the competence and skill to select instructional staff that will contribute to the schools’ ability to make adequate yearly progress?
In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that the district’s restructuring plans, as submitted, fail to meet the test of: (1) identifying what occurred in the schools that brought them to restructuring; and (2) identifying and replacing staff who are relevant to the schools inability to make adequate yearly progress.
When will the duplicity end? The water level continues to evaporate to reveal the true (and ever increasing) size of the D150 iceberg.
CJ – Well thought out – I applaud you!
PraireCelt – good points made!
Karrie – I like your analogy to the size of the hidden iceberg. Just like today the PJS revealed that King Hinton and court jester Cahill got caught by the law and the district stands to lose $1.1 mil due to their improper actions. As I have said before the Hinton reign is one of intimidation and deception.
I also have to wonder how many other sly, immoral and illegal plans are in the works that have not yet come to light. These men are not to be trusted.
Karrie and Kat, thanks. This issue is too serious to remain silent. We should be grateful that C.J. took the time and interest to research and write about restructuring.
In this case I suspect much of the “hidden iceberg” is incompetence – they don’t have a clue how to approach or solve the problem. Based on the four restructuring plans, it is apparent they done’t know how to identify what occurred in the schools to cause them to not meet AYP standards. Clearly, they don’t understand (or are in denial about) the concept of identifying and replacing staff who contributed to the problem. Part of the problem started with the building principals; some of the former & present principals are nice people but that doesn’t mean they have the ability to run a successful school. Don’t look for Hinton to move any poor-performing building principals back to the classroom, either.
The report Kat referenced about the District losing several unfair labor practice arbitrations is a perfect example of the “hidden iceberg” phenomenon. This expensive debacle was completely avoidable. The collective bargaining agreements are quite specific about the responsibilities of the insurance committee, and Cahill and Hinton chose to disregard the CBAs. The minute they made that choice, they committed unfair labor practices and the unions had them dead-to-rights.
For Hinton and Cahill to deliberately disregard the terms of the CBAs (agreed to by the BOE) is gross malpractice. If my math is correct, they are facing approximately $1,000,000 in settlements in this situation, and they previously blew $877,500 in premature real estate acquisitions.
To paraphrase the late Sen. Everett McKinley Dirksen – $1M here, $877K there, and pretty soon you are talking about real money. I suspect to most of the taxpayers in District #150, $1,877,500 is real money – their real money.
Hinton and Cahill are guilty of gross incompetence and professional malpractice. To preserve what little credibility they still have, the BOE must fire them – immediately.
The district also can appeal rulings several times over and already has done so for the ruling with the biggest monetary impact. The appeal is pending with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board. PJStar article quote – 2/9/07
So, how much is this costing the taxpayers in additional lawyer’s fees rather than paying the money to the employees?
This is yet another campaign issue — what are the BOE members doing here to rectify this situation?
Where and when does it end? Do you have any wonders why some of the children are disobedient and non-compliant with the teachers and other staff from the example set by administrators … just asking?
Karrie, appeals are very costly, and this one is a long shot for the district. The KSSWF bills are part of the materials presented to the BOE for approval prior to each BOE meeting. They can probably be obtained through a FOIA. The district pays a lot of money each month for legal fees.
Why didn’t the district’s legal counsel exercise due diligence on their client’s behalf and advise them against this foolish action? A major part of their “job” is to keep the administration out of trouble. What went wrong in this case?
You’re right – the administration sets a very poor example for the students and staff. Makes you sick, doesn’t it?
Karrie,
As PrairieCelt so aptly stated – appeals are very costly – and in this case a prudent person has to question the likelihood of success in view of the blatant violation. As for legal costs those are buried along with audit fees plus some other professional services and are part of the aggregate $987,172 under Support Services in the column headed Purchased Services on page 11 of the 06-07 budget. As for what portion is legal fees I can only assume that when the PJS did a story a few years back I recall the firm of KSSWF was receiving something in excess of $330,000. By the way, the Illinois statues permit legal services and auditing fees to be contracted without bidding. Guess you might say legal fees to represent the incompetency of administrators at 150 after constantly shooting themselves in the foot puts KSSWF in an envious position at the public hog trough doesn’t it? ^oo^~
PC and OFK: My point exactly. Pay the employees and be done with it. Cut the taxpayer’s losses.
In the past few days, I have had additional conversations with D150 taxpayers. More houses for sale, however, the market is supposedly flooded with homes in older areas on the market. Nice homes not able to command the prices because of D150 schools is what realtors are telling the sellers. Homebuyers are just not fools when it comes to school choice.
Karrie – the situation with home sales is not good for our city. Realtors have been warning buyers away from #150 for several years. I’m not sure that is their job – it might be more appropriate for them to remain neutral. I’ve also noticed more homes on the east bluff with the orange stickers affixed – those are condemned or occupancy denied warnings, I believe. Where is the City of Peoria in all this? It seems they could develop some incentives to encourage more of the new urban movement into our older neighborhoods. But, then again, District #150 hasn’t exactly treated members of the city council very well.
It all goes back to the same old thing – Hinton and his administrative have to go – they are a detriment to this city.
Scott Donahue’s letter to the editor in today’s PJS brought an idea to mind: the BOE might wish to consider linking administrative pay raises to school performance.
For example, a principal whose school is not making AYP does not receive a raise until he/she turns the school around. Principals whose schools are making AYP receive a raise. This should extend to Ass’t./Assoc. Superintendents, the Superintendent and perhaps, those Directors whose positions are directly connected to school performance, i.e. Director of Curriculum & Instruction, Director of Title I, etc.
In other words, raises should be based on something other than the administrators showed up for work! Novel thought . . .
Perhaps one of the candidates in the District 2 BOE race might want to incorporate something like this into their platform.
Here’s a little satire to warm you on a cold Peoria day.
No Child Left Behind – Football Version
1. All teams must make the state playoffs and all MUST win
the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be
on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held
accountable. If after two years they have not won the championship their
footballs and equipment will be taken away UNTIL they do win the
championship.
2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the
same time, even if they do not have the same conditions or opportunities
to practice on their own. NO exceptions will be made for lack of
interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic
abilities or disabilities of themselves or their parents. ALL KIDS WILL
PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL!
3. Talented players will be asked to workout on their own, without
instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their
instructional time with the athletes who aren’t interested in football,
have limited athletic ability or whose parents don’t like football.
4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in
the 4th, 8th, and 11th game.
This will create a New Age of Sports where every school is expected to
have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same
minimum goals. If no child gets ahead, then no child gets left
behind. If parents do not like this new law, they are encouraged to
vote for vouchers and support private schools that can screen out the
non-athletes and prevent their children from having to go to school with
bad football players.
Stay warm! ^oo^~