by Erin James and Nikelle Snader
York Dispatch
October 9, 2014
York City teachers and school officials are digesting the surprise alternative to complete charter conversion announced by the district’s state-appointed financial recovery officer Wednesday.
The concept is interesting, said Carol Hill-Evans, a member of the Community Education Council and president of the York City Council.
But it also came with “no warning or notice or anything,” she said.
Recovery officer David Meckley has also attached a mid-November deadline for the new plan to be developed and approved.
“I’m wondering, is there enough time for them to work out all the details?” Hill-Evans said.
Blended approach: On Wednesday, Meckley announced at an education council meeting that he is willing to consider a blended approach to academic and financial reform that would include both charter schools and traditional district schools — though he, personally, would prefer to see the district’s eight buildings converted by July 2015 to charter schools.
However, in the interest of building consensus among skeptical school board members and other stakeholders, Meckley said he is willing to consider a compromise.
Meckley said he envisions a district of three schools operated by Charter Schools USA and five schools operated by the district under a revised transformation plan starting next year.
Charter Schools USA has agreed to the concept of a five-year contract. During that time, performance evaluations would determine whether a school remains charter- or district-operated.
‘Blindsided’: Teacher and education council member Janice Laird said she was “blindsided” by the proposal.
“It was unexpected,” Laird said. “And I was very surprised that he didn’t in any way ask for the opinions of the council he set up.”
Meckley said the new concept will work only if the teachers union agrees to a new contract — which has not happened despite a year of negotiations already.
Also, the district has a little more than a month to revise the strategies of its academic recovery plan for the next five years.
That deadline doesn’t seem realistic to Kim Schwarz, secretary and past president of the teachers union.
“There’s so many unknowns,” she said. “It’s just a very difficult thing to sign away your livelihood over many years’ time when there’s so many uncertainties.”
Parents, teachers and school board members Schwarz spoke with after Wednesday’s meeting don’t view Meckley’s proposal as a “happy medium,” she said.
“There’s obviously a lack of trust,” Schwarz said.
The union has continued to meet with the school district about contract negotiations, said union president-elect Ira Schneider.
“We continue to bargain in good faith and we will work toward a collective-bargaining agreement,” Schneider said. “That’s always been our goal and that will continue to be our goal.”
Concerns: Contract issues aside, Laird said she has additional concerns about the consequences of a hybrid model.
“There’s no equal footing when a $200 million company comes in to take over three schools,” she said. “If they manage to perform well, they get the whole district.”
Aside from each school in the district having its own distinct community, the transiency of students could create larger education gaps if students move and are caught in two different curriculums between the district and Charter Schools USA, Laird said.
“We have kids who are sometimes in six different places in a single school year,” she said.
Hill-Evans said she likes the idea of competition between district-operated schools and charter schools.
“Competition is good. It’s healthy. And it’s reality,” she said.
Agreeing on a new union contract is the largest concern for school board president Margie Orr.
“Until that portion of it is solved, I really can’t go into the other details right now,” she said.