The biggest danger of the per-pupil method is principals making questionable decisions. However this danger can be mitigated by oversight of tangible results. If principals are making decisions that harm the students it should appear in their test scores and we can identify who's not doing their job well and take action. As always the system needs more funding as it's difficult to properly run a school without the necessary money. This is a problem in either model though.

The biggest danger with the staffing-based model is the lack of freedom for principals and inequitable funding. I don't see a clear way to mitigate this danger.

It's no wonder that Alonso's supporting charter schools since they can acquire additional funding through their operating board/foundation. This way they can maintain small class sizes without the severe budget constraints of a school dependent solely on the money assigned to them.

Sara do you know what percent of Baltimore City Public Schools currently have Art, Music, and Physical Education programs?

I agree with Corey, that if there is oversight for the principals the per-pupil method should lead to better results. But I think we need to keep on emphasizing that principals will be judged on more than just test scores (as shown by BCPSS's Essential Indicators here). As a parent, I care about MSA scores, but I also care about acceptances into college, availability of AP courses, retention of quality teachers, class size, etc.

I really want successful, qualified principals being given the power to make meaningful decisions about their schools. I just want us to think hard about how we judge a principals success.

A quick question - On what do you base the idea that Alonso is supporting charter schools? He lets the funding go through, but that is a state issue and not in his power to change anyway. It seems to me that he more tolerates charter schools and also holds them up as examples of how principals can have more power. Neither of those actions seem like support.

A parent, I agree with your expanded criteria for judging a principal, I didn't mean to sound like we should use MSA scores alone. In fact that's what I hate the most about NCLB.

Maybe Sara can help me find some relevant quotes but I've seen Alonso support charter and innovation high schools over and over again. I think the best example of support can be seen in Alonso's choice for the operators of the new 6-12 transformation schools that are opening.

Of the first 6 opening this year one is The Baltimore Freedom Academy, a charter school where I just began working. Two will be operated by The Friendship Academy, an extremely successful national charter program. Civitas and Reach! are both charters aided and developed by JHU. I don't know anything about KAPPA Baltimore Secondary but at least 5 of the 6 new schools Alonso chose to be operated by charters.

One thing I've begun to catch is that there is a strong temptation for principals to staff more paras in support / clerical positions in order to lighten their own paperwork / management load at the expense of classroom programs.

One thing our principal does is list teachers who don't teach any classes, and instead do administrative work. For example, a department might have 17 teachers, but only 13 of them teach any classes - the rest are business managers, assistant principals, etc.

Dana is quite correct. Teachers who do not teach are only one example of how principals cover other jobs that should be done by staff. It may cut down on paras and the like but, in the end, the students are the ones who suffer. We have one teacher listed who is really the social secretary for the principal. What a crock!

Ummmm.... I am SORRY -- it is very, very clear what can be done: these CEOs, both Rhee and Alonso, need to SLOW DOWN and involve the stakeholders in a change process that is implemented gradually and with grassroots involvement.

THAT's the answer. Forget these big CEO egos -- good leadership would develop a committee with teachers, parents, principals, secretaries, etc., and evaluate problems and solutions TOGETHER, with thoughtful, feedback and reflection-based implementation.

But NOOOOO, we have big people with big egos and big salaries making sweeping changes at extreme ends of the spectrum, as if there's a one-size-fits-all solution to the problems of urban public education.

All I know is that, as a result of all these extreme changes made at a lightning pace this year, teachers feel more disenfranchised than ever (at least in the last 12 years I've been a teacher), and more mistakes have been made with fewer apologies, responsibility-taking, or movement towards dialogue.

No ONE PERSON can fix our problems -- a wise leader would enlist the troops, so to speak, and take more time trying to understand the problems before making huge changes, some of which just aren't appropriate.

For example, all librarians next year have NO central professional development for the first time in recent memory. BUT, there will be a new online catalog system in the fall, and the BCPSS Blackboard system is receiving a major upgrade. No professional development on how to USE these resources so that librarians can turn around and train the staff at their schools! Oh, I'm sorry -- there might be a few hours here and there after school, forcing the payment of a stipend for training that could be done more effectively during regular professional development time. Last year, librarians had NO time to run professional development in the schools. Now, they get NO TIME for centrally-based professional development. Here's a WILD THOUGHT: how about a BALANCED approach with some time at the schools and some time centrally based?!?! Too risky??? Just a thought: working at extremes is just plain idiotic... and it DOESN'T SERVE KIDS WELL!!!!!

In the meantime, here's yet another example: we prepare for potential loss of information databases purchased by the district at huge savings -- if schools pay for our databases individually, they cost $7000 per school. If the district continues paying via a statewide consortium, it's an average cost of $700 per school -- do the friggin' MATH! But oh no -- we have to buy everything on a school level -- well, I am SORRY but that doesn't work for everything, especially for things like databases which MUST be purchased centrally by North Ave to save TAXPAYERS thousands of dollars! Or don't we care about tax payers anymore?!?!

So, will the BCPSS have online databases for research? Or will we continue policies returning us to an information ghetto?!?! Do you really care about minority achievement, Alonso?!?!

"Ummm..." - chill out. It'll be ok. Also, everything isn't purchased by individual schools. There were a difference between locked and unlocked budget items (schools couldn't make choices about locked items). Complaining in hyperboles doesn't effectively get the point across. Further, in the budget process, it seemed like many schools tried to drop librarians. I think there's a disconnect between the usefulness of librarians (as they currently exist in schools) and the potential of having effective media specialists in all school buildings. Librarians (for good or for ill) are not being perceived as useful by schools. That's a serious problem that the librarian community should address. I know there are some absolutely fantastic librarians out there who are making a huge difference in children's lives. So why did school communities not fund them in their budgets adequately? On the aggregate, it seems like they're perceived as dispensable. I think this is something that librarians should really, honestly consider.

"As with so many issues in urban education, it seems there are no clear solutions."

Don't tell that to Alonso and Rhee. Both of them are convinced that they know all the answers. God forbid they would ever experience a moment of self-doubt.