School board candidate says “read the contract”
A look into the process of review and approval of the Patrick Henry School contract and the evidence of undemocratic behavior that has recently come to light.
The following is a guest article by 6th District School Board candidate Art Burton. Make sure you read our previous coverage on the topic.
I would like to explain my concerns about the process of review and approval of the Patrick Henry School contract and the evidence of undemocratic behavior that has recently come to light. The August 27th issue of Style Weekly features a pretty controversial article written by Chris Dovi, titled “Critics Question Process Behind City’s First Charter School.” While I appreciate the spirit in which he wrote the article, the article features mischaracterizations and a superficial view of the issues that should concern Richmonders.
First, I must say that I do not oppose charter schools in concept, and no one can say that I have represented the desire to keep the community of Woodland Heights from having the school of its choice. As the legislative chair of the Richmond City Council of PTAs, I helped to put forth a political agenda called “BUILD SCHOOLS NOW” that called for breaking ground on eight new or rehabbed school buildings. Included in this effort was a charter Montessori school for Fulton Hill’s families.
My interest has always been to include the charter school concept as part of the larger building plan and get the middle class community of Richmond to support the idea of building schools in every community to the benefit of all of Richmond’s children. Do I have a specific concern for the 17,000 poor children in the Richmond public school system? Yes. However my hope has always been that we could gather around a BIG IDEA that would move the entire educational system forward. I also recognized that in my experience of addressing educational inequality issues in this city, the only time black people seem to be taken seriously is when white people are with them.
So the idea that I was looking at the charter school proposal as “an end run for affluent families intent on keeping their children out of the majority black, overwhelmingly poor, Richmond Public Schools” is wrongheaded. As part of the Build Schools Now initiative, I was looking for affluent families that wanted to create a new school system with brand new school buildings to the benefit of all of the children and families in Richmond. I have always stated that we need to fight together for better schools.
At this point I see the Charter school as one of the eight schools we need to break ground on immediately. It will probably be the first to go on line in 2010, and thus, it is in no one’s interest to see it fail. At the end of the last public debate we were promised openness and inclusion, so imagine my surprise when I receive an e-mail that lays out a political strategy to get a contract approved that speaks to anything but openness and inclusion. In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Style Weekly, Patrick Henry Initiative contract lawyer, Darrel Mason, advised her clients that the school system’s attorney and acting-Superintendent Yvonne Brandon will recommend the contract for approval.
“NO ONE on the School Board has yet seen the contract document,” Mason writes. “Only the Board Chairman will probably review it prior to its being presented to the Board on Sept. 2.”
The e-mail goes on to state that the contract will be introduced in closed session at 4:00pm on September 2nd and reviewed for two hours with the intention being the board be prepared to vote in public session by 6pm. Granted my grandfather was a peanut farmer from Chesterfield, but what I want to know is: When does the school board get to read the contract?
This vote will change public education in the city of Richmond for the foreseeable future, and the idea that only one school board member will get to see this document, and the other eight members are so brilliant that they can read and review this legal document in two hours and vote, strikes me as strange. The public can not see the document, therefore there can be no public discussion of the contract. That makes a public vote a moot issue, because only a few people in the city will know what is going on.
I may be wrong but this just does not seem a wise way to conduct the public’s business. I have been told that this is the school board’s process. It seems to be a process that does not require the all board members to read and study the contract. I hate to be constantly portrayed as a wild black activist trying to burn down the chuck wagon of affluent white Richmond. I just want my school board member to get the contract ahead of the vote and read it. If it isn’t right, fix it. The Chartwell food contract cost us 1 million dollars to get out of after they failed to live up to the contract. The CCP contract requires us to build a 15 million dollar school or pay the company 5 million dollars to leave the city. If it takes a little more time to get this contract right then cool. Let’s build this charter school in such a way that maybe the idea of community groups working along side of school administrators and elected officials to build the schools of community choice can be used elsewhere in Richmond as well.
Finally, I do not believe that how we proceed on this matter should be left up to the prerogative of the school board Chair or any one person. This is a community issue. The issue of building a new school system comes with great promise and concern. Let’s see the contract; or better still, let our representatives see and read the contract. That is their job, to represent my community, to build new schools and move us all forward.
So, for the record; I will publicly state again; I am for building eight to ten new school throughout all Richmond’s communities. I am for a process that includes all communities. I want inclusion and openness and yes, debate. I want the 17,000 children included in so that maybe we can reduce poverty and save this city. I want all of my elected leadership to READ THE CONTRACT and on September 2nd be prepared to debate and vote. Hopefully at the end of the day we will be settled on one new school and can turn our attention to the other eight we need to build for the rest of the city.
Art Burton is a community activist and candidate for School Board in the 6th District.
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
Since Art’s campaign website is, um… two years out of date (but still on target). It should probably be noted that his campaign wants YOUR help. There is a meeting tonight at Sandy’s Restuarant on North Ave, from 6:30-8:30 and they’ll likely stick around afterwards to watch the Obama speech. Anyone is welcome.
(end announcement – start discussion)
This is a community issue…
Mr Art Burton,
Why haven’t all the School Board members been given a chance to review this contract? Operating behind closed doors and not sharing information with all seems to be the way RPS does business.
side note (and I’m going way off the subject here because you brought up CCP) – I say pay CCP $5 million to leave town. RPS has no business paying $13,000 dollars per student to a For Profit school. And they want RPS to build them a $15 million dollar school? How many students are they asking RPS to give them? I guess they are counting on the untrained, unsupported teachers and administrators to use the “Zero Tolerance Disciplinary Policy” to land children guilty of childhood behaviors or those unwilling to bend to the onslaught of multiple choice testing and worksheets in prison schools. Only families with means can escape this situation.
Check out what is said about Zero Tolerance Policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance):
“Zero tolerance is the concept of compelling persons in positions of authority, who might otherwise exercise their discretion in making subjective judgments regarding the severity of a given offense, to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability or ‘extenuating circumstances’.”
and
“According to scholars, zero tolerance is the concept of giving carte blanche to the police for the inflexible repression of minor offences, homeless people and the disorders associated with them.A well known criticism to this approach is that it redefines social problems in terms of security, it considers the poor as criminals, and it reduces crimes to only “street crimes”, those committed by lower social classes, excluding white-collar crimes.”
How did our educational systems fall into the hands of the neocons -our public education leaders repeating the slogans of Nixon?
Is “Zero Tolerance” anyway to educate a child? What happened to patience?
I want that $15 million to go towards building a Montessori School in Fulton.
Art Burton, Great article and thank you for sharing real information. We need someone like you on School Board.
It would be good to hear reactions from other candidates and School Board members on the issues Burton has raised.
As usual what is most endearing about Mr. Burton is his willingness to address issues that many of us would shy away from. I share his concerns about the contract for the charter school. RPS can not afford to continually operate under a “shroud of secrecy.” The public must demand and hold RPS to transparency and accountability! I would like to make a small correction regarding the BUILD SCHOOLS NOW initiative – at no time was it considered as a political agenda. At its foundation BUILD SCHOOLS NOW was an attempt to send a message to teachers, parents, and students that there was a leadership in place that cared about and understood their needs as it related to the equity and quality of public education in this City. It was the demand of the RCPTA Board to ensure that the School Board continue in its efforts to provide buildings that were environmently safe, ADA compliant, technologically capable, and aesthetically appealing for all teachers and students.
Paging Richard Day…
Let me say this first – I agree with Mr. Burton that we need the Patrick Henry school to be a success. I have made it clear to the group that when they start to get into the details of the construction to make the building compliant, I will gladly help them, and I will honor that commitment.
I think the fundamental issue here is why the Chairman Braxton and Interim Superintendant Brandon would seek to deny the public inspection of a document that will be subject to public scrutiny once it is executed.
I haven’t seen the document, so I cannot comment on it.
I would probably abstain from voting on the adoption of any multi-year contract if I had less that 2 hours to familiarize myself with the instrument to be executed. The way to avoid this situation is for the administration to tackle these issues in a proactive rather than a reactive fashion.
Mr. Burton has it right: the community needs this school to be successful. The community needs to be engaged in the process. The community needs to be approached by the system as a potential partner, not as a funding source that has no claim on the system for accountability.
I was concerned when I realized the conservative think tank the “Lexington Institute” was involved in the beginnings of the charter school project, but was assured they were used merely as a resource and were no longer involved in the process.
Now, this is a new concern.
Mr. Bopst, Please don’t hesitate to actually page me next time. 855-4421.
Many good points that Art makes need to be addressed. But two points that I stand by are these:
1. The Patrick Henry Initiative is not part of any percieved conspiracy of secrecy. We would like as many folks at the table and involved in the sucess of the charter school as are possible. We did not choose the process for which the contract was written. That said, we went through many stressful and burdensome revisions in the contract paying very close attention to the concerns that were raised BY ALL THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS on the night of the vote, May 19th 2008. Would a more public format have changed the outcome of the contract and final application revisions? In my opinion, no. [OK, that was probably more than one point]
2. Art says that the charter school needs to succeed, and that is absolutely true. This opportunity to have “a jewel in the crown of RPS”, is historic for the Richmond and our children, and that is the best argument for moving forward. The opening of and the success of the charter school are essential to paving the way for other innovative approaches to learning, and engaging families, and demonstrating that old school buildings still have lots of life left in them, other than that of yuppy condo projects (sorry to all offended yuppies).
In closing, the School Board meets on 9/2 to sign the contract. We fully anticipate that will happen. They will have reveiwed the contract, and application by then. If Art Burton truly believes that the charter school must succeed, I ask him as a fellow citizen to be there in support, and not in opossition.
I find it interesting that despite multiple efforts to reach out to many civic leaders involved in education that until recently, few had ever attended a PHI meeting, which have always been open to the public.
Again, we want to succeed. We need to succeed. But making waves at this late time could make it very hard to open sooner rather than later, if at all. If you want to see the charter school succeed, and if we get the contract, please go to our website, come to a meeting, and be part of something bigger than any piece of paper.
Give us education or give us death, is not exactly what Patrick Henry said, but we are saying it now.
Why not just make the contract public and solve some of the issues?
Richmond has a bad habit of engaging the public and then not making the process public and not giving the public a voice in the final decision-making. I see this over and over again in local nonprofits and boards. Sure, there are some areas that demand discretion and privacy (dealing with personnel, for example), but I don’t understand why this is the case here.
Agreed. Take it up with your representatives. Please.
That is, if the people care to do so. Sometimes, I wonder…
Maybe it would be helpful to remind everyone what areas of the initial application needed to be addressed with a revision. According to the Hills and Heights community blog, the Board “cited 6 items of concern, including curriculum, enrollment, accontability, budget, facilty and exceptional education issues.”
As a taxpayer and a parent (and a political junkie), I was kinda hoping to hear about the details of the updated PHSI contract. Maybe the online discussions have spoiled me with loads of info prior to the past vote. Will there be updates about these changes before, or after the Board neglects to read the contract?
Isn’t the Superintendent the one in charge? The amount of time the SB members are given to review the contract and whether or not it is made public is the decision of the Superintendent. This process was not chosen by the PHI.
I read Burton’s piece as a criticism of how RPS downtown operates.
I concerns of the SB were addressed both in the contract and in application revisions.
Did you know that three of the four charter schools operating in Virginia, have no contract?
It is my opinion (not PHI) that the application really could be the contract, but that is not the case. The contract puts in place accountability deadlines and the like, which is fine. But rest assured, PHI has set the bar high for itself, and wants the school to be outstanding. We want it to be a place that Richmond parents will gravitate to.
Why not publish the contract?
Why not publish all contracts including the one with CCP?
I’m worried that RPS administration and the School Board are setting the Patrick Henry people up for failure by making the terms of the “contract” damn near impossible to satisfy.
The PHI people want so much to have the chance to make their dream come into being, I worry that they will sign this contract not fully realizing that the terms are unrealistic.
Let me give you an example of how RPS is working against the PHI concerns Westover Hills School. At a time when RPS has more qualified applicants for the middle years IB program at Brown than it has spaces and is currently turning upwards of 100-150 students away each year, RPS administration is considering placng a elementary IB program at Westover Hills.
Now, I would love to see more IB schools throughout the city –north, south east and west — but I find this effort to be working counter to the success of the PHI. Why not expand the middle years program at Henderson Middle [there is PLENTY of room there and it is the only middle school building that has sufficient space] instead of contemplating opening an elementary IB? And what I really don’t get is why this School Board and administration seem to love secrecy so much.
That said, I do not believe for one minute that this lack of disclosure has the the best interests of the PHI at heart. This is just more of the same from a School Board and an administration content to be satisfied with the status-quo.
And, Gray ….. according to the Viginia Code, the Superintendent is SUPPOSED to answer to the SCHOOL Board, not the other way around. Although, it is easy to see why a reasonable person might think otherwise based on the way this board behaves.
Art Burton is right– this process stinks.
*An example of how RPS is working against the PHI concerns Westover Hills School.
If the superintendent is not responsible for the contract process, then who is? Did the School Board members choose not to read the contract? Who came up with this stinking process? We know the PHI people wouldn’t do something so stupid to impede progress.
Most likely George Braxton, Lisa Dawson & the lawyers.
I predict this contract is a set-up for failure. Not publicizing the terms of the contract only benefits RPS and is an vivid example of why RPS continues to lose students. The public is sick of the secrecy and back-door politricks.
Who do these board members think they are? Why can’t reform such that the PHI people want happen within the construct of RPS?
The only reason Braxton (4th), Dawson (2nd), Bridges (1st) and Carr (5th) voted for it is because it is an election year. And, yes, I know Braxton isn’t running again (thank God!). But, we all know who he wants to take his seat.
West (7th) voted for it — and at least he is consistent with saying the system is so broken something has to happen.
Smith(6th)and Wilson(9th)voted against it.
Mimms(8th)was absent.
Wolf(3rd)abstained citing a conflict of interest. Her husband’s law firm did some pro bono work for the PHI people.
Pity, the only one we could count on to to tell us the truth of what is happening — can’t. She had to abstain.
It appears the attorney for PHI reccomended that the contract only be reviewed by Braxton. Or that the attorney has previously discussed this with someone and was told only Braxton will review. Do we know which is the case?
At any rate, as it is September 2, so I guess we will soon see how the rest of board reacts to this issue. Maybe they’ll even publish the contract.
Here is the Contract and Lease Agreement (PDF).
Pingback: Patrick Henry Charter School contract | RVANews
Pingback: PHI president responds | RVANews
Maybe your right I shouldn’t be concerned except for the fact you promised openness and inclusion and then to get your contract went along with everything that we know is bad about the way RPS does business with communities including the willingness to except a bad contract. A contract that was going to have your opponents biting at your heels for the next three years and force the school board to constantly defend you or close you possibly. that aint cool.
One other point; you say ” education or death.” I have seen hundreds of children die from my community over the last ten years. I can asure you there is nothing pretty about dieing. It was a slaughter really because many didn’t even know what was killing them. I cant come home hollering “education or death” because believe it or not we are trying to live; we’re kinda tired of dieing and see better education and health care as our way out too. I know, its about your Charter school and I should really let you tend to your housekeeping matters because supporting you is not enough; we must support you blindly and be willing to die some more. i see that as the big disconnect between us. You think we like our conditions and are willing to sit and wait; NOW means NOW for everyone.
anyway- open, inclusive and diverse; you promised-Just do It.
Burton is right.
dying not dieing
yes, I’ve been told. thanks, i felt like we were D.I.E.I.N.G
I need to respond to GetRealRichmond:
As a candidate for the school board from the fourth district I have promised to add funding to the RPS budget for four IB primary years programs (2 north of the river, 2 south). I expect that one of those programs will be at a school in the Fourth District.
Starting IB primary years programs have nothing to do with the PHI or with any existing or future IB middle years programs. The IB programs I envision will be whole-school programs open to all children in the school’s zone. It will NOT be an honors program, the way the current program at Lucille Brown is run–no applications, no competion. All children in the school will be IB students.
Since admission to these IB programs will be non-competitive, I do not see how they could possibly hurt the PHI (of which I am a supporter). I also don’t see how they effect whether or not another IB middle years program is opened north of the river. If parents in the north want IB at Henderson, I will support that.
If anyone wants to talk more about my plans for IB, call me at 233-3738.
Would the IB elementary program south of the river be open to students citywide? This is exactly the type program my youngest needs yet we live in the eastend.
Just to be sure everyone knows why they didn’t publish the contract:
1.) It gives contradictory status on voting for three PH Board members and,
2.) It explicitly requires one RPS board member to engage in activities that can only be described as conflicts of interest.
Maybe some of the current board members can enlighten the public on how these provisions made it past the lawyers and then the Legal Committee. I’m curious as to the justification given. I’m hoping these points were discussed.
http://jonathanmallard.com/an-error-in-the-patrick-henry-contract/
Gray,
The IB primary years programs would not be magnet or application programs. They will be neighborhood school programs. Every child in the school will be an IB student. If, there were not enough in-zone children to fill the school, it could be available under open enrollment.
Clearly, these programs will benefit the children in the chosen schools. Also, they may serve as models for other programs in the future.
As I said, I will seek funding for four IB primary years schools. I see no reason why one of them shouldn’t be in the east end.
Bert
If there is funding for IB programs, the east end will definitely want such a program in one of our elementary schools. Not a single progressive program exists in the east end. All other ends of town have atleast one advanced placement or hands-on type program. The east end is due.
It appears Mallard is the only 4th District School Board candidate who (1) has CONSISTENTLY supported the Patrick Henry Initiative, (2) actually took the time to read the FIRST Contract and (3) had the critical thinking skills to be able to see the flaws in it.
It would be interesting to hear from him and (others) what they think of the SECOND contract.
BTW, I found Bert Berlin’s attack on Mallard at the forum recently to be mean-spirited and Berlin’s blind-to-the-flaws defense of the FIRST contract (written to please RPS administrators, of course) to be ill-informed and evidence of his willingness to go along with whatever RPS administrators say. Berlin has already demonstrated his ability to flip-flop and say anything he thinks will get him elected.
We definitely do NOT NEED another rubber-stamper on that board! IMHO, of course. Mallard clearly doesn’t make as much NOISE as Berlin, but I appreciate Mallard’s quiet and steady intellect.
Pingback: Patrick Henry School: Looking back (and forward) | RVANews