This is going to be interesting when some of the principals inform their troubled students that they no longer have to come to school after they are 16.So now they have to call some of these same students and ask them to come back.

I know full well that there are no throwaway kids in this system or in any system for that matter, but my concerns are these about Alonso's new mandate:(given that I come from one of the comprehensive schools that is bound to have a lot of kids on that list of 925)

1. Our school is bulging at the seams with students-almost 300 above the projected enrollment amount that was stated at the end of last school year. Our classrooms are HUGE this year. I have loads of over 30 in each of my three classes. This school, without the advent of new staff, cannot hold what would be an anticipated influx of students. I know we can hire more staff, but given how green those staff are invariably going to be, how are they going to acommodate the learning challenges of kids who have already dropped out once? I suspect that most if not all of those who have dropped out are far behind their peers, academically and socially.

2. One of the biggest concerns here at a comprehensive school is to make sure the ones who are here are getting the best education possible. And more directly, to make sure that the ones here who are teetering on the brink of dropping out are receiving specialized services and interventions. Since we are taxed already to provide services to the ones who are here, my concern is that this new mandate is going to potentally divert needed resources and interventions for them to send an already limited staff on a goose chase all over the city for kids who ARE NOT here in the first place.

3. I have particular concern about the home visit component of the mandate. I know from sitting in the office at random moments and sending letters home myself, more than half come back as "No forwarding address" or "Vacant". We teach an incredibly transient population. Is it an effective or efficient use of a limited staff to send them out to these locations looking for kids and families that no longer exist? What becomes the mandate when we reach that step?

4. It is not clear how this is going to shake out from a budgetary standpoint. I know that September 30th is the day that numbers are re-assessed and corrections to individual school budgets are going to be determined. How are these two linked? Does a school have to have a certain percentage of kids brought back to get additional staff and resources?

Those are my thoughts.....Thats all

What a daunting task! Yes, it is imperative that we retain students and reach out to dropouts. However, this requires a well-funded, well-thought out plan. I fear that, once again, principals/schools are being given an impossible task. Alonso seems to have a track record of proposing new initiatives without a lot of thought regarding the practical applications and implications. The Kool-Aid drinkers will argue that we can't afford to wait to make changes. I would argue that it's better to make changes that will truly benefit our students and our schools rather than running headlong into one quagmire after another where no one benefits.

This is a critical and needed step in our City. The connections between the dropout crisis and youth violence are intrinsically linked. Reducing dropout rates now will contribute significantly to lowering public expenditure in the future on the criminal justice system, public assistance programs, and entitlement program allocations. To really see what I believe (particularly with regard to increasing the age of compulsory school attendance), click here. I fully empathize with schools that are worried about time constraints, and I hope this is an opportunity for all government agencies to recognize the impact of such an effort. I sincerely hope that principals call the Mayor's office, the Police Commissioner, the Fire Chief, etc. to seek assistance. Schools need to empower themselves to think differently, and this poses a perfect opportunity to stimulate such collaboration. Idea #1: Principals & school leaders, call every politician that represents your district and ask them for (a) volunteer contact lists from their campaigns, (b) their time to assist in bringing forth volunteers, and (c) their recognition of this important issue.

PS - Sorry I've been away so long, things have been crazy with the start of school and this continual work/school lifestyle is starting to catch up with me.

I posted earlier and forgot to include this as my fifth concern:

There is a real problem related to equity here. Some principals of city-wides and smaller schools are not affected by this at all. I suspect there are not many students at Poly or Western who are dropping out in droves, while at the zoned neighborhood schools, this mandate becomes a full-time job onto itself.

I think what might be a more equitable solution (given the amount of time Alonso spends talking about notions of justice) is to divide up this task among all principals across the city-irrespective of grade level or student population. This way, the problem can have a solution in a much more expeditious fashion and resentment is not further stoked between schools that are "haves" and schools that are "have nots".

This is yet another "Great Idea, Great workload" initiative by AAA. So I get to pound the streets and find kids who left or never came to school. Fine but there is no help from North ave, just a lame document Principals were given yesterday with only a few days to get it done. Hate to tell you all, this is a publicity stunt, there is no real plan to actually work with these students. David called it right with several points. The comprehensive schools are getting killed again. I don't care what you all may think this isn't a simple task. We can't track most of our attending students homes, now we're going to find dropouts? 50 plus kids on a list, some kids took us an hour to track down and even then it was only to leave a message. Visit homes? Leave the school and drag a team all over town looking for missing kids. Where do we get this time? Sara, you're really getting the snow job from AAA and the system, dig deeper and report. You follow AAA around and get feed BS instead of really reporting reality. I think your access and desire for him to be the solution clouds your ability to critically examine what's going on with the schools. That said AAA has made some positive changes but a lot is surface level. Avalon is correct, these initiatives are not clearly thought through. Readers, unless you're dealing with this mess you have no real idea how weak this system really is.

PS prediction, suspension rates will fall this year, since the new code prohibits suspension for almost everything. Principal's hands are tied, bring a bottle of Gin to school and you're in class same day.

David and Stu are absolutely right when they say how hard it is to find students - even those who are currently enrolled. Teachers are charged with making phone calls and sending letters when students are absent/failing/disruptive. More often than not, the information the office has is wrong and the information the students give their teachers is wrong (either outdated or intentionally wrong). Anyone who believes that it will be easy to track down students who have dropped out clearly doesn't understand how hard it is to track down enrolled students. As I said before - a "plan" that's not thought out. It really smacks of a PR stunt, kind of like the teacher forum on violence and all of the new schools that are overshadowing the problems in the comprehensive schools. Alonso is simply using misdirection like any good magician. I doubt he'll be pulling rabbits out of hats.

I think it's interesting that Grasmick publicly expressed concern over the wisdom of this latest initiative. Maybe the possibility that Alonso might be doing more harm than good with his series of well-intended but badly planned adventures is beginning to percolate upwards. I wonder if Martin has gotten a whiff?

Let's hope that O'Malley doesn't get involved. Everything he does is for political gain.

Stu & Avalon: I made my opinion known above, but I think your concerns are extremely worthy and well-intended. You're absolutely right. The support system needs to be in place from the highest levels. Furthermore, I think it's imperative that you continually demand better. As teachers, you know the realities better than pretty much anyone else. Your consistent feedback and desire for better are critical to improving the system.

The bottom line here is that it will take outrageous amounts of work to improve our City's schools. You both know that, and you both embrace it I'm sure on a daily basis. The issue is that everyone needs to embrace it. There's still a great deal of hesitancy on an aggregate level that's hampering systemwide advancement. To truly change the City Schools, your efforts and passion about the system need to be replicated on all levels of the bureaucracy.

However, I challenge you to hold off on the immediate jump to the negativity side. The process will be difficult, and it will be very easy to blame things on "publicity stunts" or meaningless gestures. I know that it's frustrating, but we have to keep pushing through to affect real outcomes for students. Clearly, I've "drank the kool-aid," and I will fully admit that I may give the benefit of the doubt to the long-term efforts too quickly. But, if we try to find an excuse for every action or a characterization of reforms as only surface level, we'll too quickly dismiss meaningful programs that will take a bit of time reach an "economy of scale."

Additionally, while returning dropouts is beneficial for individual students and the City in general, there's significant amounts of money attached to those students. The City Schools will lose out on 925 students' reimbursements from the State funds. These dollars are critical in a year when we're facing another $70 million shortfall.

Ultimately, please continue to challenge the reforms and demanding better, but try to see the good in the proposals. We cannot afford to maintain a school system that only graduates 30% of its students and doesn't equip students with the skills they need to succeed. Lastly, reach out and write Dr. Alonso, tell him your concerns, and offer proposals to improve the process.

Go Ravens!

Bill,
It's not about being negative, it's the reality that those of us working in the system face. I'm slightly well informed when I say it was a publicity stunt and a crazy amount of work for an already overtaxed system. It's not about the money, it's about serving the students. We're not doing anyone justice right now, and adding to the numbers doesn't help. These are kids that left, and need even more intensive support that school leaders are supposed to pull out of their tail.

I think most people agree that this is a good idea, but that without the proper support and funding, it is a shallow attempt to address a serious problem. To get serious, Alonso might need to hire (or expand - how many people at North Ave. are tasked solely to drop out prevention right now - Sara?) a team of dropout specialists to provide support to schools.

The funding is tricky. Right now, schools don't get any money for kids who aren't there - which makes sense until you ask them to start expending resources looking for students they are not being paid for. Maybe AAA could give schools partial funding for the kids on the lists who they were looking for so that schools would have money to hire site-based people to find kids. So if a school had 50 kids on their list, he'd give them another $500 per kid for total of $25000 to hire one person part-time to be solely responsible for tracking kids down. This could take the burden off already over-burdened administrators?

These are just random ideas and maybe not workable, but someone at North Ave. needs to be putting out concrete suggestions in addition to their unfunded mandates to show that we are all in this together.