Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Broad drawing criticism

On another post, Mark Rauterkus wrote:

"In other news:

Broad and critics. Get out."


Questioner said...

From the link, critics say

"Broad-trained superintendents use corporate-management techniques to consolidate power, weaken teachers’ job protections, cut parents out of decisionmaking, and introduce unproven reform measures."

- This does sound familiar.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Does this link work?

Anonymous said...

I have a question then, and I apologize in advance for my ignorance, but "Did Roosevelt go through this Broad training??

Anonymous said...

PPS Board/Broad of education has received "training" from the Broad foundation. That combined with Lane and about 7 other employees are Broad alumni gives me very little hope they are going anywhere soon.

Questioner said...

Yes Mark Roosevelt is a Broad Superintendent Academy graduate, but many people didn't know anything about the Broad connection until a year or more after he arrived.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Mark Roosevelt and Linda Lane were trained at the BROAD Academy for Superintendents, which provided them with seven (7) weekends of training that allowed waivers from PDE to be Superintendents in PA. There are at least eight other Broad residents who are in highly paid "Director" or "Manager" positions in PPS

Anonymous said...

Good information on this link.

Anonymous said...

Linda Lane also went through the Superintendent's program.

This program was the basis for the state letting MR be superintendent of a PA district, despite not having any of the qualifications which are otherwise required.

Lane at least has a background in education.

Anonymous said...

The Edweek story has the same problem as so many others noting changes in scores. The changes in one district really don't mean anything until you compare them to the state as a whole.

To say that a superintendent's actions made the change, the change would have to be different from the changes in the rest of the state.

However, while PPS has shown slightly larger gains than the state overall in 3rd grade, it has done worse than the state in 11th grade changes and about the same (math) and worse (reading) in 8th grade.

The statewide 8th grade reading % proficient/advanced was 46.9 in 2005 and 81.9 in 2010. The article states as a positive that PPS went from 49.4 (higher than state average!) in 2005 to 72.2 in 2010.

So really, 8th graders in the PPS were ahead and are now LAGGING the state average.
(These numbers are from )

The 2010 scores reported in the edweek article are all slightly higher than those reported on the website -- although the 2005 scores match up perfectly.

Anonymous said...

Thought since Derek Lopez resign to
head up HCZ would he have to go through Broad TRAINING,the MILLION
DOLLAR question my point was do
Gates/Broad have a vision for HCZ
the reason Derek got position is
because he went through Broad Academy can someone verify that?
i got a idea let's OUTSOURCE
Gates/Broad than PPS return back to
normal board,teachers,administration,etc.
like they say IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM JOIN THEM later

Anonymous said...

2:02 - If you continue the research, you will find that overall PPS grade levels, schools and district declined over the 8 years that PSSA scores were held by PA as the measure of accountability. In the early years PPS schools which should have , according to state targets, risen at least 9 pts every three years. The data reveals however, that instead of improving PPS scores have declined. Allderdice is one example. In 2003, Reading "proficiency" was at 75% with the PA target at 45%. In 2010, the Reading “proficiency’ was at 62%. So, Instead of improving by 20 to 25% or meeting the PA target of 64%, Allderdice regressed over the last seven years by 13% points. Enough said?

Anonymous said...

School district salvages piece of teacher academy concept

Read more:

Anonymous said...

Burning more money.

Anonymous said...

It's the same money -- only less since they aren't hiring 38 NEW teachers.

Seems as though the teachers hired to staff the academy were perhaps a little more savvy than the not yet certified, hadn't yet dealt with the administration new teachers. They had contracts.

I think this is a much better idea though -- the district doesn't need some unending stream of new teachers. Who believed that they had the psychic powers to determine through an interview who would be good teachers in 4 months?!

If there are trainers in place, they can help new, already certified teachers who are going to be in classrooms teaching kids already.

Anonymous said...

In the teachers academy that got scraped, and essentially displaced 38 candidates, some may have thought we were trying to be for teachers what Broad was to superintendents.

Anonymous said...

the idea of teacher academy, especially one from this regime, is a bad idea. I don't trust them, period.

i pitty those teachers suckered into evaluating fellow teachers using the 'extremely subjective' rise system.

what a joke!

Questioner said...

Yes, and what PELA is for principals. Basically, replace the existing superintendents, principals and teachers with Broad-trained individuals.

Questioner said...

It would have been nice to have clear proof that Broad training produces better superintendents, principals and teachers before this widespread replacement took place.

Anonymous said...

It would be more accurate to refer to it as Broad "training."

18 days of training on "extended weekends" (or even the full 6 months, if instead of working at their jobs they were reading and thinking on their own the whole time) is NOT training to be a superintendent.