Yesterday evening I missed a thoughtful delegation from a Tech high school senior. I always have mixed emotions when a student comes before the board. My heart swells with pride for their courage, yet sadness usually multiplies with each word they speak. Why? Because I know why they’ve come. They come when their school is being closed, or when they feel disenfranchised by the very institution that is supposed to enrich their lives. I also worry whenever a student says something that might be cause for retribution. Since this delegation is now public record, I feel compelled to share it with you:
Hello my name is Chris. I am a Student at Arsenal
Technical High school. I am here before you to express my Frustration with the changes that came to Arsenal Technical High School this year.
The first thing I would like to bring up is the new administration. This
by itself has caused many conflicts between the students and teachers
because of the lack of effort and discipline in and on the school’s campus.
From the start of school on August 3, 2015 to today I have only seen the new administrative principal three times. This is a cause for concern because I distinctly remember the new principal said that we would be seeing more of the new administration on campus to:
1. Try and establish relations with the student body.
2. Also to grow more acquainted with the campus.
The second is the new disciplinary guidelines that were implemented in the k-12 system for IPS applied to Arsenal Technical High School does not seem to be effective. The students are taking advantage of it. There have been more fights at Arsenal Technical High School this year alone than in the three years I’ve been at this school. That being said the classroom is no better. Teachers spend more time redirecting kids than teaching. This has lead teachers to become almost unresponsive to what any student really needs in their education.
The Third thing is that some decisions have been made around the
school that have made a lot of students not even want to attend Arsenal Technical High School. These changes consist of pushing back the time students get off the bus. Approximately 2,000 students accumulate into the cafeteria which only leaves the students ten minutes to get food, eat, and then go to first period. It also creates a situation for a fire hazard. Also having teachers patrol the halls on their prep. I say this because in the past teachers used this time to allow students to make up tests, turn in work, and get extra help for the grades that we need. I myself can’t stress enough how much we need these grades.
Another thing is that the new principal made the decision to close the
library to the students. Making this decision has puzzled many people for this reason: It is the one place where kid actually go for studying, lunch, and to check out books. The library is the most calm environment on campus, but now that it’s closed the student that use this resource are now deprived of it usefulness. Its also the one place where student know they won’t get hit by a flying milk.
This last statement might be the most concerning of all. At the end of
the day during the 11th period, the administration has all of the buildings on campus locked up. This means that any student that was requested to either see a counselor or any other adult figure on campus can’t go back to class.
So inevitably it causes those students to then be on campus where they are most vulnerable. I only say this because the only cameras that are recording the campus are unreliable, and are a false sense of security. For not just the students, but also the staff that you yourselves employ.
I would like the board to think about what I had to say and hopefully make changes needed for the success of all at Arsenal Technical High School. I wish to see the teachers and students leave this school at the best it could be for they have made my experience at Arsenal Technical High school most successful and exciting.
First of all, thank you for your comments to the board. I admire your courage. I believe that you are setting an excellent example for your fellow students. Maybe if the entire district was filled with students a little more like you, who made their voices heard, IPS would be a better place. You see, a lot of adults who run things around IPS think that adults know best, and they go around talking about how to give those adults more autonomy to do what they think is best. I happen to know that if you believe in your students, and you give them autonomy, they end up doing some freaking amazing things…like actually regulating themselves in very responsible ways. I’ve been in a high school where there were no bells, and where students were allowed to get up and leave class if they needed to visit a counselor or administrator. Guess what? Contrary to what many adults might believe, those students did not abuse their privileges. They changed classes when it was time and excused themselves from class as necessary to go visit adults that they needed to see. I think this is an example that could be applied to your ability to go and eat breakfast, and to go visit the library. Some isolated incidents that might have prompted these changes should not be applied to the ENTIRE STUDENT BODY. I am a Tech alum, and I happen to know that library has been open to students for decades. The actions of a few should not have such an impact, especially in an academic environment where we should be promoting literacy and appropriate technology usage to students who may not have access outside of school.
Secondly, Chris – the manner in which you were called into the office to discuss your delegation to the board is really inappropriate. I am appalled at the response that you have received from your principal and district officials. Any self-respecting educator would have appreciated your advocacy – not only for yourself but for your fellow Titans. Instead, you were met with hostility. You were not allowed to speak your truth. You were constantly interrupted and they attempted to make you feel shame for going to the board, and silence you. When you asked to leave, they would not allow you to leave, but forced you to sit and take even more verbal abuse from them. Chris, do not let that dissuade you. Know that your comments to the board STRUCK A NERVE and let that light your fire for continued advocacy. Continue speaking your truth and encourage other students to do the same.
Where are our student governments? I’m afraid they no longer exist at any of our high schools. For the past three years, I have asked time and again as a board member to have student representatives be a part of what we do…student government or otherwise. Obviously, that has never happened.
Where are my Tech alumni?
Where is our esteemed Cannon?
Here is what I am asking you, the reader, to do. Teachers, students, administrators that are reading this blog: UNDERSTAND that students are just like us in this respect – they want things to be done in conjunction WITH THEM, not TO THEM. If anyone’s listening, I’m ready to do my part to elevate student voice. Send me student submissions, comments or concerns, and I will provide the platform. Help me to make this a student-centered school district.
My thoughts are my own and don’t reflect that of any other body or entity. You can contact me at email@example.com
A national perspective of how charter schools make money – I had no idea that tax breaks were such a huge appeal, or that it was contingent upon locating in a certain area. No wonder we see so many in the IPS district.
…even though they would never send their children to one.
As a result of this change to the tax code, banks and equity funds that invest in charter schools in underserved areas can take advantage of a very generous tax credit. They are permitted to combine this tax credit with other tax breaks while they also collect interest on any money they lend out. According to one analyst, the credit allows them to double the money they invested in seven years. Another interesting side note is that foreign investors who put a minimum of $500,000 in charter school companies are eligible to purchase immigration visas for themselves and family members under a federal program called EB-5.
By Alan Singer
Obscure laws can have a very big impact on social policy, including obscure changes in the United States federal tax code. The 2001 Consolidated…
View original post 637 more words
I wanted to post the article in it’s entirety since the Indy Star made some edits – I didn’t realize until I read it very carefully.
Also, upcoming events of interest:
Here is the letter to the Indy Star, originally published 10/31/2015, before the edits:
Ordinary Indianapolis citizens no longer run IPS schools
Local democratic control of IPS schools by ordinary folks no longer exists. First, big outsider money has united with big insider money to make the cost of school board member elections far beyond the reach of ordinary folks. Second, a linked group of “local” “reform” organizations, funded largely by the same outsider-insider big money, are controlling IPS.
Third, while these “reformers” act as if local control and community input are important to them, they are basically running a top-down “reform” model whose key ideas were not designed in Indianapolis or Indiana. Fourth, the reform effort has NOT led to a major increase in academic success for all IPS students.
FACT: In 2010, those who could raise $5,000 among friends and supporters could run a successful school board campaign. Starting in 2012, the cost of a successful campaign shot up over to $50-70,000, far beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. Where did this money come from? Some came from wealthy donors like Michael Bloomberg (the billionaire ex-mayor of NYC, donated $30k in 2012) and Sheryl Sandberg (COO, Facebook, $5.5k, 2014). Local big money donors included Alan Hubbard (lawyer, $20k over 2012 & 2014), Christel DeHaan (local businesswoman, $2k), and Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors, $10k, 2014). Thus, the big outsider-insider money has put being on the school board completely out of the reach of ordinary Indy citizens, which severely reduces local democracy.
FACT: There is a group of “reform” organizations that act as if they are local and independent from each other. However, their reform model has significantly been imported from out of state. And they are in deep collaboration with each other. Also, they tend to be funded by the same big outsider-insider money. The Mind Trust is at the center of this, but the network of “reformers” also includes Stand for Children, Democrats for Education Reform, Eli Lilly (+ its foundation), Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, Center on Reinventing Public Education, the local Teach for America, and Teach Plus.
For example, the Eli Lilly Foundation website explicitly states, “Our philanthropic support is primarily directed to the Mind Trust and its affiliate organizations.” Additionally, the Chamber of Commerce routinely chooses their preferred school board candidates before the filing deadline, thereby excluding candidates not supported by big money. However, these organizations don’t telegraph their deep connections, though they are the ones largely orchestrating the reform.
This national model for the takeover of IPS is also being applied in New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, Denver, Chicago, and New York, among other cities. These takeovers are being driven largely by national big money businessmen who want to turn schools into corporate operations and treat children like commodities. That the “reform” model being applied in IPS is locally created is thus a charade.
FACT: These “reform” organizations act as if they care about local control and community input, but a more careful examination shows they do not. The operations of the school board, elected through big money funding, is a good illustration of this. The Board has given control of the decentralization of schools into independent, single, Innovation Network schools to the Mind Trust. The Board is not even voting on this, claiming it was embedded in the prior strategic plan vote. This is smoke and mirrors. Shouldn’t a change this big be publicly discussed, vetted, and voted on? Thus, the top down, big money “reformer” board does not really want community transparency or participation.
FACT: While the Mind Trust, etc. will quickly cite data or “research” that shows the success of the reform effort, in general independent local data and national research has shown the reform model being applied here and in other cities is no more successful than traditional schools. Yes, there are some successful “reform” schools, but there are also some successful traditional schools. Yes, many local schools were failing before the reform, but our point is that we are getting lots of so-called reform but no significant overall gain for children.
The problem is that the “reformers” only are interested in research that shows their success. Though they often tout accountability for others, they have little interest in independent research that does not support their success claims, and there is plenty of national research done by independent researchers that does not support their claims. Indeed, following the corporate model, they use research like a PR firm rather than as an honest investigation and real accountability.
We ordinary citizens of Indy are being sold a bill of goods. We call on all media to carefully examine what is going on and to quit being fooled by the PR hype and the big money. You media folks should be responsible to your community, get behind the curtain, and carefully look at who is the real wizard of Oz in local school “reform.”
What can ordinary folks do? Stop voting for “local” folks who are willing to have their election purchased by big outsider/insider money. Resist and complain about a reform model designed and funded from outside Indy and designed to decrease community participation. Let’s take back the democratic control of local schools by ordinary Indy folk. And, finally, we know they will come after us because they can’t stand open critique and transparency, so defend us when they attack.
Gayle Cosby, current IPS Board Member
Dr. Nathaniel Williams, professor, Knox College, Illinois
Dr. Jim Scheurich, professor, IUPUI School of Education
These thoughts are my (our) own and do not reflect that of any other entity, institution, or organization.
Feedback? Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
The outcome may not have been perfect, but I think that the community’s involvement in the current agenda before the board has had some positive effect. Following the forcible removal of Larry Vaughn, a well-known community activist, the board heard several other thoughtful delegations from community members on both sides of the issue. There was a sizeable crowd present. All seats appeared to be taken, and there were a few folks standing in the back and out in the lobby. There was some media coverage of the issues before and after the meeting via WRTV6, Chalkbeat, and WFYI.
- The board agreed to postpone voting on the move of school 70 to locate CFI #4 in Meridian Kessler. That vote will take place FOLLOWING community conversations with schools scheduled November 2, 3, and 4. However, voting on the closure of the Key School will continue as planned for Thursday.
- The board also agreed to retain some critically important policy language that speaks to diversity and inclusion:
“The Board believes that a high quality education is most effective in a diverse setting. Therefore, a major purpose of this policy is to promote diversity and avoid the isolation of students of both genders and different racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, limited English proficient, and other special needs backgrounds. Diversity for purposes of this policy refers to the inclusion of students of both genders and different racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, limited English proficient, and other special needs backgrounds. IPS must respond to the needs of all children in a setting that does not isolate, stereotype, or fail to educate them effectively. Diverse and integrated schooling has inherent educational value from the standpoint of education’s role in a democratic society. The survival and vigor of democracy depends upon an educated citizenry with shared concerns about the welfare of society, its members, and the democratic principles that govern it. Diversity brings different viewpoints and experiences to classrooms discussions and thereby enhances the educational process. It also fosters racial and cultural understanding, which is particularly important in a racially and culturally diverse society. In addition, research shows that integrated education expands postsecondary opportunities for diverse populations. A policy that supports quality education in a diverse and integrated setting for all students will positively affect students who will live and work together in a culturally diverse society and enhance their educational success.”
The same policy language also directs the Superintendent to enact targeted recruitment if there is under-representation of any student groups in magnet enrollment.
Rather than do away with all of the policies addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion, the board agreed to have a revision drafted for consideration on Thursday which will include the language above. (YAY!!)
Here are my commissioner comments in their entirety:
“Tonight’s agenda is problematic on a number of levels. It’s problematic because 1) it marginalizes children of color in order to accommodate a small select group of white, middle to upper class children and families – 2) the process by which we assign students to magnet schools in this district does not alleviate DOCUMENTED disproportionate numbers of white students in our most desirable magnet programs and 3) it’s a huge problem for me that no input was sought from school communities and families on this important decision to close a school, move a school, and locate a new CFI about a mile away from an already existing CFI school.
So, to my first point, the proposal from the administration that was just introduced to the board last Monday will close the Key School (80% minority pop), move school 70 (90% minority pop), in order to be able to locate another CFI school on the north side. Despite the claims from the IPS administration that the students on the waiting list primarily live on the north side, only about ¼ to 1/3 of the 310 kids waiting live in Meridian Kessler, Butler Tarkington, or Broad Ripple areas. Besides, the north side already has several high performing school options including CFI 84 (which is 82% white) and the Butler Lab School, (58%) white. Keep in mind that the entire district is 20% white – which speaks to a high concentration, or disproportionality, in relation to the overall enrollment of students in the district.
This move is continuing a pattern of “building grabs” that was initiated last year when Gambold, the CFI-feeder high school, was moved from out on west 38th Street to displace an existing program at Shortridge High School.
My second point is that we need to examine the root cause of this inequity. How did we get to this point? It lies in the way in which students who apply to magnet schools get placed into the schools. This week we will be asked to vote to remove language from an existing policy on assignment to magnet schools- board policy 5120 – this language reads, “5. The Superintendent shall evaluate the extent to which the applicant pool for each magnet and option program reflects the diversity of the District as a whole. If an identifiable group of students is substantially under-represented in the applicant pool for any magnet or option program, the Superintendent shall direct targeted recruiting of applicants from the under-represented group before the random selection process begins.” I see a huge problem in removing language from this policy which serves to protect the kinds of demographics that we see now.
Further, the tiered system of preference that determines who gets seats in our magnet programs perpetuates inequity. The first seats go to siblings of currently enrolled students. After they are placed, then seats go to kids living within the proximity boundary, which right now is a mile. After that a larger geographical boundary is considered, and finally preference is given to IPS employees children. Only then are remaining seats available to the broader magnet school applicant pool. This current tiered system of preference does nothing but perpetuate huge gaps in access for students of color, and all but ensures that our magnets do not become more racially integrated. One of the intended purposes of magnet schools nationwide was to integrate urban school systems, and other cities have achieved some success. That is not the case in Indianapolis – and it will not be if we are eliminating language from our policies to address under-representation.
Third, in the age of ‘IPS transparency’, I am very disappointed in the fact that the IPS board (or, at least, I) was unaware of this plan until last Monday. Even more disconcerting is the fact that families at all of the affected schools are not scheduled to have any discussion until the week after the vote is already done.
Look, I am just one voice up here. When I am done speaking, the audience will be inundated with plenty of reasoning as to why this is a good idea. A lot of that commentary will choose to focus on grade level configurations on the setup of different buildings. Comments may also include data about the high number of minority children enrolled in other schools or magnet programs – WHICH – is NOT disproportionate BECAUSE IT CLOSELY REFLECTS THE OVERALL ENROLLMENT OF IPS AT 75% MINORITY. But it’s past time for us to confront the real, underlying issues at hand here. Are we going to continue to marginalize and disenfranchise our 75% black and brown kids for the comfort and convenience of a few?
I WILL NOT.”
Thanks, community, for your support and attention to what is happening with IPS. Stay engaged!! The vote on the fate of school 70 and the new CFI will be taken at 6pm on November 9th. It is also a public meeting allowing for comment. I hope that you all will continue to make your voices heard.
(My views are my own and do not reflect those of the IPS board as a governing entity.)
Comments or Questions? Email me at email@example.com
As I outlined in my previous post Black Lives Matter, based on data taken directly from the Indiana Department of Education’s website, the IPS district has an overall black enrollment of 50%, a white enrollment of 20%, Hispanic enrollment of 23% (although that is technically not a race, but an ethnicity).
However, certain magnet programs in certain neighborhoods seem to have enrollments of white students that are disproportionate in relation to the numbers above – in particular, the highly popular Center for Inquiry (CFI) magnet programs.
There are currently three CFI schools:
CFI downtown at 725 N New Jersey……67% WHITE, 14% BLACK
CFI Meridian Kessler at 440 E. 57th…….82% WHITE, 7% BLACK
CFI in King Park/Fall Creek 545 E. 19th…….35% WHITE, 46% BLACK
(All data obtained from Indiana Dept. of Ed. Compass website)
Keeping the above demographic information in mind, why is the IPS administration proposing the addition of a fourth CFI school to be located at school 70, currently a performing arts magnet school at 510 E. 46th Street, about a mile away from the CFI school already existing in the Meridian Kessler area? School 70’s student body is currently comprised of 75% BLACK students. The entire school/student body of the existing school 70 will be moved to the Key School located at 777 S. White River Pkwy West Dr. In order to make all of this possible, the students that are attending the Key school currently (69% BLACK) will have to find a new school – because the Key School program, a longstanding (20+ years) program based on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, will be CLOSED.
The most damning part about ALL of this?? The parents at all of the affected schools will not have a chance to discuss until AFTER the board votes. The parents at each school are not scheduled to be officially informed by the IPS administration until the first week of November. The vote will be taken on October 29th at the Action Session, 6pm, 120 E. Walnut St.
On the Amos Brown show on Friday, October 23, IPS Superintendent stated that the reason that the school 70 location was chosen was because most of the kids on the CFI waiting list live nearer to school 70. However, a map made public by IPS showing the distribution of all kids on the CFI waiting list simply does not corroborate that statement:
To quote Amos Brown’s assessment of the distribution shown by the map, “Of the students on CFI’s waiting list who live in IPS, but 25% live in the Butler-Tarkington, Meridian/kessler or Broad Ripple neighborhoods. Some 37% live south of 10th and 16th Street. A figure that rises to… 64% when you include students wanting to attend a CFI who live between 38th and 10th and 16th Streets. Just a quarter of the so-called demand for CFI lives in the so called priority northside areas IPS seems to be catering to. In fact looking at the a chart of where School 70 and where CFIs waiting list students live, it make a strong case for putting a fourth CFI school at the Key School location just south of downtown.” (Excerpt from Amos Brown – 1310 Podcast)
In fact, before Amos aired this particular show, I made that exact same suggestion – why not put the new CFI at the Key School location? My suggestion was summarily dismissed.
Why does it appear that the black community of Indianapolis is getting the short end of the educational stick…time and time again?? Even though black students comprise 50% (the majority) of the total student body of the IPS district?
About a year ago in 2014, we saw a similar “building grab” when Gambold (the IB High school which these CFI programs feed into) displaced a program and its student body at the prestigious and historical Shortridge High School. The reason? The principal stated that he was not getting good parental involvement out on the far west side. He needed a building that was more “centrally located”.
In my opinion, there appears to be a pattern developing here. School buildings that are located in middle to upper class (especially north side or gentrifying neighborhoods such as Fall Creek) can be given the boot at any time to make way for a school that serves predominantly white students.
Another significant root to this problem lies in the way that applications for admission to magnet programs are honored. There is a tiered system of preference in place that dictates how students are placed into the magnet schools they’ve applied for:
As you can see, the siblings of already existing students get first dibs on the available seats. Second dibs go to those families that live with a mile radius of the school (although there is an argument about whether to draw that circle in even closer to the school). Proposed for a vote next week is a third tier which would give preference to families who have been on a waiting list for multiple years and never gotten into their school of choice. The fourth tier of preference refers to the school’s geographic boundaries (different from the smaller proximity circle). The fifth and final tier of preference goes to children of IPS employees – and in the case of the Butler Lab School and Shortridge High School – preference to children of Butler University employees. Only after all of these preferences are met will the magnet lottery consider admitting students from the wider, general pool of applications.
After reviewing the current board policy on student assignment to magnet programs, I found an interesting point that needs to be brought to light:
|5.||The Superintendent shall evaluate the extent to which the applicant pool for each magnet and option program reflects the diversity of the District as a whole. If an identifiable group of students is substantially under-represented in the applicant pool for any magnet or option program, the Superintendent shall direct targeted recruiting of applicants from the under-represented group before the random selection process begins.|
As demonstrated above, the student bodies of CFI are not in proportion with the overall demographics of the district. This board member wonders the extent to which this policy directive has been carried out, or will be carried out, in order to seek more integration in our magnet programs. However, it is worth noting that this would only apply prior to the random selection process, which I assume would mean AFTER the application of all of the tiers outlined above.
Would you like to weigh in on this topic at the meeting next week? The board is scheduled to have a briefing session on Tuesday, October 27th at 6pm, in which discussion will take place on the agenda items. On Thursday, October 29th at 6pm, the board will vote on (but not really discuss) the agenda items. The public has the right to sign up to delegate (speak for 3 minutes) on any topic on the agenda, or offer general comments. Worth noting is the fact that Thursday’s action meeting is televised, but Tuesday’s briefing is not. You can sign up by filling out the form at this link:
Alternatively, you can sign up by calling 226-4418.
Do you have questions or comments for me directly? Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
In an attempt to end on a good note:
In other (national) news, it appears that we will soon be seeing an end to the era of “high-stakes” testing, with Obama’s goal being established that no more than 2% of classroom time be used in taking tests : http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/24/obama-schools-test/74536886/
Have you subscribed to my blog yet? You will be notified by email when a new blog comes out. You can do so by clicking the tab in the lower right hand corner of your screen. Watch for my next blog – it’s gonna be a doozy!!
This is a three-tiered system:
Schools will be able to move from Traditional > Autonomous > Innovation status in the following manner:
Before I get started, let me first say that it was a pleasure to hear from three candidates this evening who interviewed for the board vacancy. They were all smart, intelligent, capable people – well suited for a role in IPS governance. I’d really be fine with any one of them joining the board. That decision will be made tomorrow, and I’m already at peace with that decision, however the votes may go down.
There were four applicants, though. Only three of the four were selected to interview tonight. And in my humble opinion, the one candidate who was cut prior to the interview process was single-handedly the most uniquely qualified person in terms of sheer experience.
Annie Roof, who just ended a four year term on the board, and who served as the board president last year, was the fourth applicant, and she was denied an interview.
We did get emails in support of Annie. Several, in fact. We could have gotten hundreds, but I don’t think it would have mattered… No consideration was given to constituent support demonstrated in the emails, just as no consideration was given to the fact that Annie’s recent board experience would have allowed her to hit the ground running.
Some of you might think that I am advocating for a friend. That this is personal on my behalf. While I do indeed consider Annie a friend now, that friendship was not built with sugar and spice. Annie and I had our share of disagreements in the time we served on the board together. Annie’s IPS voting record speaks to her independent streak – we certainly did not see eye to eye on every issue. I find her ability to respectfully disagree and not hold grudges to be a rare, and refreshing quality. If anything, her independence might have restored some balance to a board that is, at times, divided – without compromising the fact that there is a clear majority.
The meeting tonight in which we interviewed the candidates was sparsely attended. Really, I think there was one single attendee besides the media. Granted, there was a simultaneous meeting regarding teacher pay that probably trumped in order of importance for people who would regularly attend these types of things…but the 2016 election is quickly approaching. Four seats (out of a seven member board) will be up for election in November 2016. If you don’t know the politics of your public school board, now would probably be a good time to start acquainting yourself.
My thoughts are my own and do not reflect those of the IPS board in its entirety or any other organization.
If you’d like to contact me, I can be reached at:
Disclaimer: if the thought of having bold conversations about race issues is a turn-off, then read no further. If you are sensitive or thin skinned, then this article may not be for you…because my intent is not to be offensive. The Indianapolis community needs to have broad, fearless conversations about race…and in order to figure out where to go – we first need to understand where we’ve been. Here’s my attempt at an easily digestible history lesson, and food for thought about what is happening now.
1877 law stated that if no local school facility existed for black students, they could attend a school designated for whites.
An unintended consequence: by 1920, there were about 800 black students enrolled at Shortridge, Tech, and Manual High School – because there was no high school for black students at that time. Apparently the 1877 law was based on the assumption that black students would attend to the 8th grade and then leave school. When blacks sought a high school education and began to significantly populate these white institutions, some community members began to raise a fuss. This fuss raising ultimately led to the creation of Crispus Attucks High School – where black children, for decades, attended…until desegregation.
At its peak, IPS enrollment reached over 100,000 students in the late 1960’s, with 11 high schools. A federal court order mandated that desegregation of IPS schools be achieved by busing black students to townships to attend school. After several years of appeals, busing finally began in the 1981-82 school year with 5,600 students being sent out of IPS to attend school in the townships. It is notable that no students from the townships were bused into IPS to attend school. It is also notable that the busing of black students to the townships likely spurred many disenfranchised black parents, with no means of engaging in their child’s school – inaccessible, way across town. The loss of students caused the closure of Shortridge and the conversion of Crispus Attucks to a middle school. Desegregation of Indianapolis schools also undeniably caused a mass exodus of white folks who had the means and desire to flee the city to do so. They left as fast and as far as their money would carry them – to places where the schools remained homogeneous. The combination of busing and white flight over the decades has arrived at our current enrollment of around 30,000 students.
Why is this history important? What is on my mind?
The fact that my husband came home shaken at the news of a former student murdered this past March. He did not graduate.
The multitude of stories that have been confided in me by students over the years – the pre-teens who have mothered their younger siblings, the boys whose entire futures have hung, heavily suspended, in the split-second space of a trigger pull, the 12 year old girl, robbed of her innocence, telling me about the miscarriage she had two years ago.
The 15 year old boy that the police killed over the weekend. No dash cam. No body cam.
Are our educational opportunities in Indianapolis still segregated, many decades after were we ordered to change?
In every school, do we not only see faces of every race represented – but do children with varying degrees of social capital and resources attend school together? Do they not only learn from the same teachers, but maybe more importantly, learn from each other?
To take it a step further, what are the adults and the decision makers doing to create the conditions for this to take place? Where are schools being intentionally designed to serve children of all races and economic means? Give them equitable sets of “tools”?
If you see it, please let me know. Give me some examples.
Sidener (gifted and talented school) is 49% white, 26% black
CFI (school 2) downtown is 67% white, 14% black
CFI (school 84) Meridian-Kessler is 82% white, 7% black
CFI (school 27) King Park/Fall Creek is 35% white, 46% black
The entire district is 20% white, 50% black, 23% Hispanic
Source: IDOE Compass
Above I have illustrated the demographics of some of IPS’s more “in-demand” magnet programs. If we were truly desegregated, ALL of IPS schools would roughly be microcosms of our overall demographics in the district. Instead, we see pockets of white students concentrated in certain schools. District policies, such as the sibling preference policy and the neighborhood/proximity boundary preference policy ensure that these demographics don’t change much.
All I see are the conditions being created for: the expansion of gentrification, and the perpetuation of a system which continues to impoverish and further disadvantage some… and we all know that those invisible lines of socioeconomic status – are usually marked with black and brown pens.
This society was built on oppression. The U.S. was founded on inequity and inequality. Need proof? Women not being allowed to vote. Blacks being considered three-fifths of a person. It’s systemic. Does our educational system continue to foster this oppression? I think many of us would like to turn our cheeks and say, “No, this is just a part of our sordid past. This is not happening – not here, not today.”
But it IS here, and IT IS TODAY.
What are we going to do??
Maybe my anguish won’t let me see the positive right now…too many traumatic endings for me to process.
My thoughts are my own and do not reflect any entity or any other person or sets of people.
Thoughts? Email me:
I have come to hate the word autonomy when it is used in the context of education. Why?
Quite simply, because it is the most overplayed word in the world of “ed reformers”. Maybe Indianapolis ed reformers, especially.
Everyone reading this blog probably knows how language can be carefully massaged and crafted until it means something entirely agenda-specific. This is precisely what has happened to the word, and the concept, of school autonomy.
Let me explain.
On the face of it, the concept of school autonomy is a very promising one. So promising, in fact, that I used the word quite a bit in my 2012 campaign to describe a utopian ideal where teachers, principals, students, parents (AKA the school community) had a great deal more influence over…everything. Staffing, Curriculum, Title I Funding – to name a few. To me, the word autonomy connoted a school community freed from many of the top-down processes of the bloated IPS central office. Sounds pretty good, right? I thought so.
As time has passed and I’ve gained experience in my role as a commissioner, I’ve come to learn that autonomy is really a code word for something much darker and more sinister. The word has gradually been co-opted. Instead of reflecting a wide variety of options that could be weighed carefully and selected based on what suits our city’s needs, the ed-reformers in this city use the word ‘autonomy’ to refer to anything associated with the PORTFOLIO SCHOOL MODEL, which is the true agenda of the current IPS board majority.
Since the current board majority and administration have been doing the bidding of the powers-that-be in Indianapolis, the Portfolio School Model has already begun to be implemented here in IPS, despite the fact that true discussions on “autonomy” have not taken place yet (The first meeting of the ad-hoc committee takes place Friday, July 3rd at 1:00pm at the Ed Center. Yes, it is an IPS holiday. I know, crazy, right?) Here is proof from the CRPE website that the portfolio model is already being implemented in our city, without any input from IPS stakeholders whatsoever:
And this, from a CRPE white paper:
Dear constituent (taxpayer, parent, teacher, student, resident of Indy)…do you see this as a problem? The utter foundation of public schooling as you know it is being shifted without your knowledge, let alone your input. Remember in my last blog post when I shared with you that “the citizens of the District are to be viewed as the ownership and clients of IPS, to whom the Board is primarily responsible and for whom the Board acts”? This comes directly from IPS policy, and I am giving you a direct example of a violation of that policy.
Kenneth Saltman of the National Education Policy Center (2010) has conducted research on the portfolio school model and this is his conclusion:
some large urban districts, and promoted by the education reforms proposed as
part of the Obama administrations Race to the Top initiative, no peer-reviewed
studies of portfolio districts exist, meaning that no reliable empirical evidence
about portfolio effects is available that supports either the implementation or rejection
Nor is such evidence likely to be forthcoming.
Even advocates acknowledge the enormous difficulty of designing credible
empirical studies to determine how the portfolio approach affects
student achievement and other outcomes. There are anecdotal reports
of achievement gains in one portfolio district, New Orleans. The New Orleans results,
however, have been subjected to serious challenge. Extrapolation of research on the
of these elements within the portfolio model.
Moreover, even when the constituent elements are considered as a way to predict the
it will produce gains in either achievement or fiscal efficiency. Finally, the policy writing
In light of these considerations, it is recommended that policymakers and administrators
recommended that before adopting such a strategy, decision makers ask the following questions:
portfolio model offers advantages compared to other reform models?
based accountability) have not produced advantages outside of portfolio systems, what
is the rationale for expecting improved outcomes as part of a portfolio system?