A call for accountability in Alonso's new central reorganization plan
Baltimore city school board members have requested a full presentation on how schools will benefit from city schools CEO Andres Alonso's recent central reorganization plan, which will expand the number of staff in school "network" teams and add 15 new administrators.
In Alonso's most recent central office shakeup, he eliminated 89 filled positions in order to triple the number of staff in 'networks--teams of staff Alonso created in 2009 to support principals by serving as liaisons to the central office. The district also will hire 15 new executive directors to fill $125,000 grant-funded positions. They will evaluate principals, and coach them through reforms.
School board members voiced the concern that, while the reorganization is tied to the next year's budget that was adopted last week, they needed more explanation about how the central changes will help schools.
"When you look at the changes that are proposed, they're supposed to have the greatest import at the schools... we can't articulate it to our constituents," said school board Commissioner Maxine Wood, who requested a full presentation.
Commissioner David Stone said during reorg discussions that he would like to see the district evaluate how effective the networks have been. He also said that if network staff--who currently make between $75,000 and $118,000--are considered an important part of schools' success, they should also be among the school leaders who are held accountable for student achievement.
City schools spokesman Michael Sarbanes said that, "the network ought to be making the schools succeed," and that their "evaluations will be tied to student outcomes, the same way [achievement] is tied to everything else." He said the district was in the process of figuring out the best way to do such an evaluation.
City schools CEO Andres Alonso said that the networks, "have touched everything," citing examples like dropout prevention initiatives, schools' budget processes, and compliance for students with disabilities.
"They have been all hands on deck for every initiative in the past two years," Alonso said. "We cannot possibly move forward with our new initiatives without increased support from the networks and the increased support and accountability that will come with the executive directors.
He pointed to a survey the district conducted, where the majority of principals (added: appeared to be a mixed bag, vets and new) surveyed said that their networks met or exceeded their expectations. The district compiled excerpts of surveys taken in 2009 and 2010, where the principals who responded said that they had a lot of interaction with network staff, though mostly in meetings.
But, more importantly, the survey said that, "the biggest need expressed by principals was for more direct attention to classroom instruction."
In the new, 8-person-networks, there will be specialists in the following areas: data, family and community engagement, special education, human capital, and operations (facilities). There will also be a student support liaison and two academic liaisons.
While the teams will be led by experienced principals, school officials said, they will include specialists from different fields and from outside the system. The two on each team who work in academic support roles will be from educational background.
At least one principal, who said they generally found their network team useful, sent me a one-word response when I asked how they felt about the expansion: "OVERKILL," they wrote.
Urban education experts lauded the board for asking tough questions about the expansion of school networks, particularly because similar structures in other districts, like New York City, have been criticized for being ineffective.
Jessica Shiller, education policy director for Advocates for Children and Youth, said that in her research as a teacher, researcher and higher ed professor of urban education in New York City she found that networks failed at providing the support they were designed for. She said their effectiveness varied depending on who staffed them and whether principals had the wherewithal to figure out who did what.
“The schools I was doing research in, they weren’t getting the support they were needed,"Shiller said. “The networks are well-intentioned, but it was like giving somebody a piece of furniture that they had to put together with no instruction manual, calling the support line, and no one answers the phone."
Shiller also said she advocated holding networks accountable for student achievement. “Accountability measures don’t allow you to count for support that the principals receive or not," she said. "If anyone is going to be accountable, let’s hold the networks accountable. Because it's not fair.”
Alonso said that student achievement has continued to rise in districts (Added:Boston, Charlotte and Atlanta) that have similar structures, and that the district is attempting to shape and implement its own best practices.
"What we know is that central offices are notoriously inefficient across the country," Alonso said. "And the districts that are showing improvement...tend to organize their work around integrated supports, with lots of attention to supporting schools."
"We are having our stab at it," he said.
Baltimoresun.com's 
Comments
There needs tio be two follow-up questions for this to make sense.
#1 - Was years of service asked in the principal survey? It is important to know if that "majority" is made up of the new hires who came from non-traditional career paths.
#2 - The CEO should name the cities/districts were this is working. Are the demographics of those systems similiar to Baltimore?
Posted by: OverTheTop | June 1, 2011 6:30 AM
I would have much more confidence in this plan if I thought there were actually 15 high quality people who could do this job well? It seems like what is going to end up happening is that if they truly choose the highest quality folks (and not go the political route of giving positions to people who might not be the best), the best principals are going to be poached from schools, leaving gaps at the school level.
Finally, I hope that if they don't find 15 great people, they don't hire marginal people just to fill the spots. $125,000 is a lot of money to pay someone who is marginal.
Posted by: Michelle | June 1, 2011 7:16 AM
What goes around, comes around...
Does anyone remember the old area offices? Same idea different name? This is what happens when we remove all persons who have any recall of institutional history?
So we are now in year three of the dismantle the school system and rebuild in the image of the latest CEO cycle? Is this really progress or just a waste of money? My bet is that Alonso will not sign his contract if he doesn't get his way and the cycle will start all over again and in three years we will talking about how the centralization of the school system has been necessary to move students forward. As the pendulum swings...
Posted by: A Former Teacher | June 1, 2011 8:21 AM
Thank You Erica for the updates.
Thank You Commissioners Stone and Wood for not just rolling over to the CEO.
A little late but welcome to the party.
Posted by: OverTheTop | June 1, 2011 10:43 PM
Why would we hold anyone at North Avenue accountable for student test scores? I'm sorry...do they teach students? How about we try holding them accountable for their everyday job responsibilities, which should have some related measurable outcomes? If we can't identify any outcomes related to what they are being paid to do, maybe we should question the validity of their positions or roles. I think schools would receive better service from central office if anyone paid attention to the outcomes related to central office employees' job-related outcomes, which might actually make those coveted test scores go up. People who work in HR, facilities, or ITD should be held accountable for customer service and efficiency data (and more than once a year), while someone in the CAO's office should be held accountable for the quality of PD offered or how happy schools are with the curriculum or the timeliness with which it is provided. Yet no one pays attention to these metrics which might actually help schools do a better job with students.
People need to read a series of articles by Frederick Hess on why educators need to stop focusing solely on test scores and start looking at data related to people's actual jobs. (here's one: http://www.aei.org/docLib/Hess.pdf) We might find that if people in non-instructional roles did their jobs well, it would have an impact on student achievement because it would make life easier in a school. Then we might need fewer 'connector' or liaison-type positions as we have in the networks because the people actually responsible for doing the work in the support units would be doing a better job in their work directly with schools. Or we might learn that we need more worker bees in departments like HR, facilities, or ITD and fewer connectors/liaisons, which again helps schools get better service.
Posted by: procommonsense | June 8, 2011 10:27 AM
"We cannot possibly move forward with our new initiatives without increased support from the networks"
What new initiatives? He rolled out FSF, which was a major shift, with basically zero support for principals, saying it wasn't a problem because he didn't mind if things were "a little messy". Whatzamatta, doesn't he like things a little messy any more? What exactly is it about the new initiatives the require, for example, an HR specialist and an operations specialist for every 12 schools?
Posted by: Nemesis | June 8, 2011 11:37 PM
One might wonder if, "central offices are notoriously inefficient across the country" why we are expanding ours especially at a time when school budgets are being slashed.
As for accountability of the network staff, I am reminded of a quote from the head of the union in Philly a number of years back (during a story on MPT/PBS) who, when asked about who gets credit for a rise in student test scores replied, "The teacher" and when asked who gets the blame for a drop in student test scores replied that there were many factors but that good teachers might get poor results. The networks are supposed to support schools. If a school fails are the networks held accountable or does it all fall on the site based staff including of course the principal? When a school is successful the same question applies. I know of one school where the principal was asked to resign over a specific issue which was supposed to be supported by both the networks AND central office. If the amount of support given was adequate how did the school fail in this area? If a teacher, for example, has a student who was in class every day, tried to complete the work provided AND was given tutoring twice a week targeted to their weakness, how then does that student receive a failing grade? I know that answer is complicated, so to are the questions raised about the impact of the networks.
Two additional notes about networks - for many school leaders these offer only an added layer of people since these leaders have direct relationships with the department heads at 200 E N Ave and can solve their own issues without calling on someone else to contact the department heads. If I want something done I will, generally speaking, do it my self (or my own self as many of my students might say). Second, what I view as the place where most teachers need support is in the area of pedagogy and management, not in content knowledge. What good is an expert in stats going to be when the teacher cannot figure out how to "hook" the students? I do see the value of changing the nature of that paradigm so that we begin to have the conversations about content knowledge and, for lack of a better word, rigor. What I do not get is how we balance the twin pulls of "rigor" (man I hate that word) and the need to keep graduation rates (artificially) high.
Posted by: Who am I now BC? | June 11, 2011 10:23 AM
What about the Principal Selection Process? John Eager Howard Elementary School's principal was removed in October. It was based on "hiring practices." The school was assigned a "managing principal." This "manager" now wants to be appointed. Consequently, she constructed a panel of people that she established relationships with! How is this possible! This needs to be looked into! There should have been a random pick of staff members. This "managing principal" has done nothing to improve the school. She isn't seen at dismissal, our suspension rate is up, and we have attendance issues. Mind you we have no in-house suspension or an attendance monitior! Dr. Alonso has been alerted and hopefully something will be done.
Posted by: Principal Process? | June 14, 2011 5:41 AM
BS Paper @ Title II Grant Apporpreation Funding the Networks (15) Alonso's Marco-Central reorganization
Waiting for breaking information regarding the BS Paper follow up to outline the structure of the Title II Grant funding apporpreation being used for the Networks (15) Alonso's Marco-Central reorganization plan. Reply to advise and update the InSide Ed readers.
Posted by: Interested & Engaged Parent of City Schools | June 17, 2011 9:45 AM
That is crazy what is happening at John Eager HowardElementary School. How can you work with people for months and then pick and choose your friends to give you the job? I can't believe Alonso would go for that! The ENTIRE school should get a vote, so that "old boy system" is broken down! Furthermore, if she picked the board first, she tampered with the process! That second vote was to make things look correct. What is her punishment for getting involved with this process? If this lady does get the position the ones on that panel will be her "picks" forever! I hope North Ave. realizes that!
Posted by: Shameful! | June 19, 2011 2:03 PM
That is crazy what is happening at John Eager HowardElementary School. How can you work with people for months and then pick and choose your friends to give you the job? I can't believe Alonso would go for that! The ENTIRE school should get a vote, so that "old boy system" is broken down! Furthermore, if she picked the board first, she tampered with the process! That second vote was to make things look correct. What is her punishment for getting involved with this process? If this lady does get the position the ones on that panel will be her "picks" forever! I hope North Ave. realizes that!
Posted by: Shameful! | June 19, 2011 2:06 PM