More Thoughts on City and School District Officials' Backward Anti-Student Plans to Close Schools

Instead of devising clearly anti-student, money-grubbing schemes (at the expense of a Constitutionally-guaranteed "sound, basic, education") --- Rochester City School District and City of Rochester officials, and especially Board of Education members should be in the forefront relative to development of a mass-based, sociopolitical movement aimed at producing widespread, permanent, progressive change and improvement for those whom many libelously claim are the Community's first priority, i.e. all of our children. <!--break--> <div align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">It has been pointed out that while many people are very excited and disturbed about Rochester City School District's plans to close up to several elementary schools at the end of the current school year --- there are larger issues that are not being addressed --- such as massive academic failure by huge numbers of CSD students. I believe that it is very important for us, not only to continue pointing out and explaining the contradictions, lies and flaws relative to the CSD's and the City of Rochester's anti-student, money grubbing scheme and agenda relative to planned school closings, but also to explain the concrete relationships and connections between plans to close schools and inability to significantly improve  academic achievement. Some of those connections, relationships, contradictions and flaws are as follows. </font></font></div><div align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#0000ff"></font></font><font size="2"> </font></div><div align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">The very first, important issue is the so-called &quot;declining enrollment&quot; argument --- upon which school district officials are being literally threatened and dictated to by the Mayor, other City officials, and more than likely big-business magnates, to base their rationale for school closings. Their so-called rationale contains at least two fundamental flaws. With regard to alleged decline in enrollment, RCSD officials base their assertion partially on decreased birth rates, which is in turn based on 10-year old census data. It’s common knowledge that people of color in particular (whom incidentally compose the vast majority of CSD students) --- are drastically undercounted in the U.S. census. Secondly, there is a well established, decades-old pattern of drastic increases and then drops (decreases) in CSD student population. School Board president Darryl Porter and the CSD’s Chief Financial Officer Henry Marini were asked about this well established pattern during an appearance on Bob Smith’s (WXXI) radio Show, Thursday  (1/27/05). Mr. Smith framed the question as follows: &quot;City School District enrollment has fluctuated up and down. It went precipitously downward in the 70’s and 80’s; bumped up again in the 90’s; tailing off somewhat now, but demographic Eco could jump it up again in another 10 or 15 years. Is there any thought being given to sort-of holding some buildings in reserve --- as aces in the hole, in case you get unexpected spikes or demographic shifts or changes in enrollment over time --- that you could be able to respond to it and reopen a building that you close down?&quot; In response, Mr. Marini gave a long, rambling answer that centered on an explanation of the Superintendent and Mayor’s so-called &quot;facilities modernization plan.&quot; The question never got answered. However, if the past is any indication, the answer is clearly and definitely ‘no’. This is all dejavu. When enrolment dropped during the 80’s, the city closed at least two (possibly more) elementary schools (one off of South Avenue, on Hickory or Gregory Street; one off of Central Park, on one of the numbered streets, e.g. 1^st or 2^nd, or 3^rd etc.) --- both of which are now apartment complexes, and which (unlike schools) generate tax revenue for the City of Rochester. Just as Mr. Smith pointed out --- 10 or 15 years later (when the student population increased again) the school district &quot;discovered&quot; that there was not enough space for all of the students, and therefore had to build two or three new elementary schools (in addition to buying and renting so-called &quot;portable&quot; classrooms). This also happened (during the same time period) in the case of one high school, which some people maintain until this very day --- was one of the most structurally sound and most (aesthetically) beautiful buildings in the entire District, i.e. the old James Madison High School, which stood just a short distance from the new Madison building that was constructed about seven years ago – the latter of which (according to many alumni, parents, teachers and administrators) does not come close to comparison relative to the space and grandeur of the old building. Also, the closing of Josh Lofton at the end of last school year (after the CSD pumped millions of dollars into renovating the building, represents (in my mind, and I believe in the minds of others) additional proof of the fact that this whole school-closings’ fiasco is nothing more or less than a political, money-game. Not to mention that the latter referenced school’s Late name-sake and his Late wife probably did more for the children of the CSD than all of those six-figure earning Central Office and City Hall decision-makers combined. Now, a fitting memorial in his name (an alternative education center that catered to young people who tend not to do well in traditional settings) is nonexistent. I can’t understand for the life of me why our community is not raising holy-hell. The best interests of the majority of our students are clearly not being taken into consideration. </font></font></div><font color="#ff0000" size="3"><font color="#ff0000" size="3"><p align="justify"><font size="2"><font color="#0000ff">Even CSD officials’ acceptance of millions of dollars from the Gates family, and their so-called acceptance of &quot;the argument for small high schools&quot; is flawed. On the one hand they talk about creating smaller high school settings --- while some of the CSD’s high schools are filled beyond reasonable capacity. This is especially true as it relates to former middle schools that are being gradually converted into high schools. Thus, there is no comprehensive, overall strategy for creating smaller high schools. It’s really more of an effort to create a relatively few (possibly elite), pockets of small, high school groupings.</font> </font></p><p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">Some people in our community are (understandably) under the impression that &quot;a majority of Rochester's city school children drop out before attending high school.&quot; While this is not a fact, it is not an exaggeration that we may well be fast approaching this type of dilemma. As it relates to possessing adequate skills, general state-of-readiness and motivation to learn (for all practical intents and purposes --- many students do &quot;drop out&quot; or tune out prior to reaching high school). We are currently at a point where the vast majority of CSD students who enter high school --- definitely do not graduate 4 years later. Nor is it likely that the majority will graduate 6 years later (under the &quot;new&quot; 7-12 high school scheme). In fact the CSD's dropout rate is somewhere between 50 and 70% --- depending on whose statistics we choose to believe.</font></p><p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">There is an abundance of undisputable, conclusive research that supports the importance, not only of small, personalized school settings, but also small class sizes, particularly where urban students are concerned. Considering the complex academic, social, emotional, and often physical issues and problems, which large numbers of our students are displaying from the very beginning of their formal educational experiences, i.e., as early as Pre-Kindergarten, establishment of small school settings and small class sizes is more critical than ever before. In addition, huge amounts of empirical evidence (not to mention just plain old common sense) supports the proposition that smallness has become a critically important aspect of effective educational practice, especially for many urban students. It is important to think very carefully and critically about CSD officials' current plans to close some elementary schools --- based on so-called declining enrollment. This translates into the reality that some elementary schools are already (from the perspective of CSD officials) so-called under-populated or underutilized. That is to say, some school buildings do not have the maximum number of students that they were designed to serve. Thus, relative to numbers of students, it logically follows that some classes are already small. </font></p><p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">Based on the arguments above, unless people are really familiar with the overall reality of present - day urban education, they might conclude that currently, students in classes that are small in number, are, or should be doing well academically, or making great strides. This is not necessarily the case. While establishing small class sizes is often a prerequisite relative to effectively educating many of our students, it is obviously not a panacea. Yet, since the vital importance of small class and school sizes is borne out by probably, literally, tons of research --- for CSD officials to move in the opposite direction, which is what school closings would inevitably result in --- would be a clear disservice to huge numbers (perhaps the majority) of our students.  Obviously, the issues are quite complex. In order to understand them more clearly, we can utilize at least three of the 5 &quot;w's&quot;, i.e. who, what and why. That is, as it relates to classes that are currently small in number, who (specifically) are the students; what are the developmental (social, emotional, academic) issues, problems, inadequacies, challenges that each one brings with them to the classroom, and depending on the answer to the latter question, specifically what services do they need / receive; what is the overall approach that is being utilized to teach them, and why is the particular, chosen approach  being used? </font></p><p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2"> The latter questions above really raise larger, but directly related issues --- with two of the most important being --- the need for immediate development and implementation of SENSIBLE, RELEVANT CURRICULA CHANGES AND INCREASED LOCAL CONTROL. As it relates to New York State curricula, that is, the specific information which is suppose to be taught at each grade level (in accordance with stipulations from the New York State Board of Regents and State Education Department) --- I am thoroughly convinced that, with regard to breadth of content in particular, expectations are unrealistic. This is why there is a general understanding among teachers at all grade levels regarding the necessity of &quot;sifting&quot; through curricula in the process of deciding what to cover and what to omit. Conscious efforts are always made to cover topics that are most likely to appear on State-issued Regents Examinations. In many cases, material that is covered or omitted by classroom teachers is totally driven by expected content on Regents Exams. </font></p><p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">As it relates to curricula, especially at the elementary level, there is a need for a fundamental shift away from attempting to teach overwhelmingly large amounts of (often trivial) information. Instead, vastly increased emphasis needs to be placed on how well students have learned that which they are expected to know. This is called mastery or mastering knowledge. The most important and critical factor relative to this dichotomy is that much greater emphasis needs to be placed on development of basic skills, i.e., reading, writing, listening, following directions, adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, as opposed to attempting to cover unmanageable amounts of information and an unreasonably wide variety of concepts or ideas. It can't be stressed enough that our youngest students in particular, need to be thoroughly grounded relative to development of strong basic skills versus exposure to vast amounts of content or information --- much of which is irrelevant (to the lives of students) and abstract. With regard to acquiring useful knowledge, development of basic skills is more important today than at any time in human history. The precise reason why the 21st century is often referred to as the &quot;information age&quot; is because (more than ever before) peoples' chances of becoming successful in life are largely dependent upon their ability to access, analyze and effectively utilize information. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that such ability depends to a large degree and extent on a person's basic and higher order skills, especially reading, writing, critical and analytical thinking skills. The great push to prepare our students to meet New York State's academic Standards, which really means that students are genuinely prepared to and/or lucky enough to attain passing scores on State-generated, standardized, Regents Exams at the 4th and 8th through 12th grade levels, is definitely a major contributing factor relative to lack of necessary time required to ensure proper basic skills development. With regard to basic skills, when considering that large numbers of our students are seriously underdeveloped (behind) when they first enter school --- the time factor becomes even more significant and important. This reality, along with the widespread practice of social promotion, represent key reasons why so many of our elementary students arrive at the high school level with grossly underdeveloped basic skills, and therefore often have great difficulty understanding information contained in high school curricula. The fact that many such students are often so far behind relative to basic skills development (not to mention higher order skills such as critical and analytical thinking, reasoning and logic), often leads to increased demoralization and decreased interest and motivation, and therefore mentally or psychologically &quot;dropping out&quot; or tuning out, as well as (often) becoming disruptive. This shameful, unacceptable cycle of underdevelopment contributes significantly to the high school dropout rate and large numbers of inadequately prepared high school graduates. Furthermore, it has been well documented that students who fit this profile are very often the same youth and young adults who end up with criminal records as well as imprisoned. The bottom line and critical issue is one of local versus state control relative to deciding the basic areas of emphasis regarding academic / intellectual development. Like the issue of school funding, which is absolutely critical to widespread development of small school and classroom settings --- fundamental change and improvement relative to the issues of sensible, relevant, curricula changes and increased local control --- will likely occur only as a result of  substantial numbers of parents and community members joining with progressive educators, community leaders, activists and organizations throughout the city (and on a larger scale, throughout the state) for the purpose of persuading (via a sustained sociopolitical movement) the New York State Legislature, (controllers of the purse strings) and New York State Board of Regents and State Education Department beaureacrats (curricula dictators)  of the need, importance and right of local communities to exercise greater autonomy and control over what their children learn. Instead of initiating, developing and implementing clearly, anti-student, money-grubbing schemes (at the expense of a Constitutionally-guaranteed &quot;sound, basic education&quot;)  --- CSD and City officials, and especially Board of Education members should be in the forefront relative to efforts aimed at facilitating the type of mass-based, sociopolitical movement referenced above, which is unarguably necessary in order to produce widespread, permanent, progressive change and improvement for those whom many libelously claim are the Community's first priority, i.e., all of our children!  </font></p></font></font>

<p>Instead of devising clearly anti-student, money-grubbing schemes (at the expense of a Constitutionally-guaranteed "sound, basic, education") --- Rochester City School District and City of Rochester officials, and especially Board of Education members should be in the forefront relative to development of a mass-based, sociopolitical movement aimed at producing widespread, permanent, progressive change and improvement for those whom many libelously claim are the Community's first priority, i.e. all of our children.</p> <!--break--><div align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">It has been pointed out that while many people are very excited and disturbed about Rochester City School District's plans to close up to several elementary schools at the end of the current school year --- there are larger issues that are not being addressed --- such as massive academic failure by huge numbers of CSD students. I believe that it is very important for us, not only to continue pointing out and explaining the contradictions, lies and flaws relative to the CSD's and the City of Rochester's anti-student, money grubbing scheme and agenda relative to planned school closings, but also to explain the concrete relationships and connections between plans to close schools and inability to significantly improve  academic achievement. Some of those connections, relationships, contradictions and flaws are as follows. </font></font></div> <div align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#0000ff"></font></font><font size="2"> </font></div> <div align="justify"><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">The very first, important issue is the so-called "declining enrollment" argument --- upon which school district officials are being literally threatened and dictated to by the Mayor, other City officials, and more than likely big-business magnates, to base their rationale for school closings. Their so-called rationale contains at least two fundamental flaws. With regard to alleged decline in enrollment, RCSD officials base their assertion partially on decreased birth rates, which is in turn based on 10-year old census data. It’s common knowledge that people of color in particular (whom incidentally compose the vast majority of CSD students) --- are drastically undercounted in the U.S. census. Secondly, there is a well established, decades-old pattern of drastic increases and then drops (decreases) in CSD student population. School Board president Darryl Porter and the CSD’s Chief Financial Officer Henry Marini were asked about this well established pattern during an appearance on Bob Smith’s (WXXI) radio Show, Thursday  (1/27/05). Mr. Smith framed the question as follows: "City School District enrollment has fluctuated up and down. It went precipitously downward in the 70’s and 80’s; bumped up again in the 90’s; tailing off somewhat now, but demographic Eco could jump it up again in another 10 or 15 years. Is there any thought being given to sort-of holding some buildings in reserve --- as aces in the hole, in case you get unexpected spikes or demographic shifts or changes in enrollment over time --- that you could be able to respond to it and reopen a building that you close down?" In response, Mr. Marini gave a long, rambling answer that centered on an explanation of the Superintendent and Mayor’s so-called "facilities modernization plan." The question never got answered. However, if the past is any indication, the answer is clearly and definitely ‘no’. This is all dejavu. When enrolment dropped during the 80’s, the city closed at least two (possibly more) elementary schools (one off of South Avenue, on Hickory or Gregory Street; one off of Central Park, on one of the numbered streets, e.g. 1^st or 2^nd, or 3^rd etc.) --- both of which are now apartment complexes, and which (unlike schools) generate tax revenue for the City of Rochester. Just as Mr. Smith pointed out --- 10 or 15 years later (when the student population increased again) the school district "discovered" that there was not enough space for all of the students, and therefore had to build two or three new elementary schools (in addition to buying and renting so-called "portable" classrooms). This also happened (during the same time period) in the case of one high school, which some people maintain until this very day --- was one of the most structurally sound and most (aesthetically) beautiful buildings in the entire District, i.e. the old James Madison High School, which stood just a short distance from the new Madison building that was constructed about seven years ago – the latter of which (according to many alumni, parents, teachers and administrators) does not come close to comparison relative to the space and grandeur of the old building. Also, the closing of Josh Lofton at the end of last school year (after the CSD pumped millions of dollars into renovating the building, represents (in my mind, and I believe in the minds of others) additional proof of the fact that this whole school-closings’ fiasco is nothing more or less than a political, money-game. Not to mention that the latter referenced school’s Late name-sake and his Late wife probably did more for the children of the CSD than all of those six-figure earning Central Office and City Hall decision-makers combined. Now, a fitting memorial in his name (an alternative education center that catered to young people who tend not to do well in traditional settings) is nonexistent. I can’t understand for the life of me why our community is not raising holy-hell. The best interests of the majority of our students are clearly not being taken into consideration. </font></font></div> <p><font color="#ff0000" size="3"><font color="#ff0000" size="3"><br /> <p align="justify"><font size="2"><font color="#0000ff">Even CSD officials’ acceptance of millions of dollars from the Gates family, and their so-called acceptance of "the argument for small high schools" is flawed. On the one hand they talk about creating smaller high school settings --- while some of the CSD’s high schools are filled beyond reasonable capacity. This is especially true as it relates to former middle schools that are being gradually converted into high schools. Thus, there is no comprehensive, overall strategy for creating smaller high schools. It’s really more of an effort to create a relatively few (possibly elite), pockets of small, high school groupings.</font> </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">Some people in our community are (understandably) under the impression that "a majority of Rochester's city school children drop out before attending high school." While this is not a fact, it is not an exaggeration that we may well be fast approaching this type of dilemma. As it relates to possessing adequate skills, general state-of-readiness and motivation to learn (for all practical intents and purposes --- many students do "drop out" or tune out prior to reaching high school). We are currently at a point where the vast majority of CSD students who enter high school --- definitely do not graduate 4 years later. Nor is it likely that the majority will graduate 6 years later (under the "new" 7-12 high school scheme). In fact the CSD's dropout rate is somewhere between 50 and 70% --- depending on whose statistics we choose to believe.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">There is an abundance of undisputable, conclusive research that supports the importance, not only of small, personalized school settings, but also small class sizes, particularly where urban students are concerned. Considering the complex academic, social, emotional, and often physical issues and problems, which large numbers of our students are displaying from the very beginning of their formal educational experiences, i.e., as early as Pre-Kindergarten, establishment of small school settings and small class sizes is more critical than ever before. In addition, huge amounts of empirical evidence (not to mention just plain old common sense) supports the proposition that smallness has become a critically important aspect of effective educational practice, especially for many urban students. It is important to think very carefully and critically about CSD officials' current plans to close some elementary schools --- based on so-called declining enrollment. This translates into the reality that some elementary schools are already (from the perspective of CSD officials) so-called under-populated or underutilized. That is to say, some school buildings do not have the maximum number of students that they were designed to serve. Thus, relative to numbers of students, it logically follows that some classes are already small. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">Based on the arguments above, unless people are really familiar with the overall reality of present - day urban education, they might conclude that currently, students in classes that are small in number, are, or should be doing well academically, or making great strides. This is not necessarily the case. While establishing small class sizes is often a prerequisite relative to effectively educating many of our students, it is obviously not a panacea. Yet, since the vital importance of small class and school sizes is borne out by probably, literally, tons of research --- for CSD officials to move in the opposite direction, which is what school closings would inevitably result in --- would be a clear disservice to huge numbers (perhaps the majority) of our students.  Obviously, the issues are quite complex. In order to understand them more clearly, we can utilize at least three of the 5 "w's", i.e. who, what and why. That is, as it relates to classes that are currently small in number, who (specifically) are the students; what are the developmental (social, emotional, academic) issues, problems, inadequacies, challenges that each one brings with them to the classroom, and depending on the answer to the latter question, specifically what services do they need / receive; what is the overall approach that is being utilized to teach them, and why is the particular, chosen approach  being used? </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2"> The latter questions above really raise larger, but directly related issues --- with two of the most important being --- the need for immediate development and implementation of SENSIBLE, RELEVANT CURRICULA CHANGES AND INCREASED LOCAL CONTROL. As it relates to New York State curricula, that is, the specific information which is suppose to be taught at each grade level (in accordance with stipulations from the New York State Board of Regents and State Education Department) --- I am thoroughly convinced that, with regard to breadth of content in particular, expectations are unrealistic. This is why there is a general understanding among teachers at all grade levels regarding the necessity of "sifting" through curricula in the process of deciding what to cover and what to omit. Conscious efforts are always made to cover topics that are most likely to appear on State-issued Regents Examinations. In many cases, material that is covered or omitted by classroom teachers is totally driven by expected content on Regents Exams. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font color="#0000ff" size="2">As it relates to curricula, especially at the elementary level, there is a need for a fundamental shift away from attempting to teach overwhelmingly large amounts of (often trivial) information. Instead, vastly increased emphasis needs to be placed on how well students have learned that which they are expected to know. This is called mastery or mastering knowledge. The most important and critical factor relative to this dichotomy is that much greater emphasis needs to be placed on development of basic skills, i.e., reading, writing, listening, following directions, adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing, as opposed to attempting to cover unmanageable amounts of information and an unreasonably wide variety of concepts or ideas. It can't be stressed enough that our youngest students in particular, need to be thoroughly grounded relative to development of strong basic skills versus exposure to vast amounts of content or information --- much of which is irrelevant (to the lives of students) and abstract. With regard to acquiring useful knowledge, development of basic skills is more important today than at any time in human history. The precise reason why the 21st century is often referred to as the "information age" is because (more than ever before) peoples' chances of becoming successful in life are largely dependent upon their ability to access, analyze and effectively utilize information. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that such ability depends to a large degree and extent on a person's basic and higher order skills, especially reading, writing, critical and analytical thinking skills. The great push to prepare our students to meet New York State's academic Standards, which really means that students are genuinely prepared to and/or lucky enough to attain passing scores on State-generated, standardized, Regents Exams at the 4th and 8th through 12th grade levels, is definitely a major contributing factor relative to lack of necessary time required to ensure proper basic skills development. With regard to basic skills, when considering that large numbers of our students are seriously underdeveloped (behind) when they first enter school --- the time factor becomes even more significant and important. This reality, along with the widespread practice of social promotion, represent key reasons why so many of our elementary students arrive at the high school level with grossly underdeveloped basic skills, and therefore often have great difficulty understanding information contained in high school curricula. The fact that many such students are often so far behind relative to basic skills development (not to mention higher order skills such as critical and analytical thinking, reasoning and logic), often leads to increased demoralization and decreased interest and motivation, and therefore mentally or psychologically "dropping out" or tuning out, as well as (often) becoming disruptive. This shameful, unacceptable cycle of underdevelopment contributes significantly to the high school dropout rate and large numbers of inadequately prepared high school graduates. Furthermore, it has been well documented that students who fit this profile are very often the same youth and young adults who end up with criminal records as well as imprisoned. The bottom line and critical issue is one of local versus state control relative to deciding the basic areas of emphasis regarding academic / intellectual development. Like the issue of school funding, which is absolutely critical to widespread development of small school and classroom settings --- fundamental change and improvement relative to the issues of sensible, relevant, curricula changes and increased local control --- will likely occur only as a result of  substantial numbers of parents and community members joining with progressive educators, community leaders, activists and organizations throughout the city (and on a larger scale, throughout the state) for the purpose of persuading (via a sustained sociopolitical movement) the New York State Legislature, (controllers of the purse strings) and New York State Board of Regents and State Education Department beaureacrats (curricula dictators)  of the need, importance and right of local communities to exercise greater autonomy and control over what their children learn. Instead of initiating, developing and implementing clearly, anti-student, money-grubbing schemes (at the expense of a Constitutionally-guaranteed "sound, basic education")  --- CSD and City officials, and especially Board of Education members should be in the forefront relative to efforts aimed at facilitating the type of mass-based, sociopolitical movement referenced above, which is unarguably necessary in order to produce widespread, permanent, progressive change and improvement for those whom many libelously claim are the Community's first priority, i.e., all of our children!  </font></p> <p></p></font></font></p>