March 12, 2008
Debate Over Open Enrollment Hits Richmond
Style Weekly’s cover story this week is carefully timed to come out just a few weeks before the long awaited and stressful process of the open enrollment lottery for Richmond City Schools on March 31st.
In the article, Richmond Council of PTAs President, Tichi Pinkney-Eppes, takes issue with the open enrollment policy, saying that it is rooted in segregationist policy.
Below, School Board member (and Munford parent) Kim Bridges, explanation of why Pinkney-Eppes may have approached the issue in a way that caused controversy:
Bridges says she takes no personal issue with the sort of advocacy in which Pinkney-Eppes has engaged — to a point. Bridges took umbrage when Pinkney-Eppes lashed out in Style Weekly in February that the city’s much-heralded “open enrollment” — which allows parents to send their children to schools outside their designated school zones — was rooted in segregationist policy. Bridges started working the phones, calling fellow PTA chapter presidents to express concern about their leader.
Pinkney-Eppes says she believes “wholeheartedly” that Bridges has acted against her because she called for change during the January selection of the School Board chairman and opposed the school system’s open-enrollment policy.
“We can’t get [school PTAs] to the table because [Bridges] caused the division on an issue that doesn’t even necessarily impact them,” Pinkney-Eppes says.
Bridges says her calls to local PTA chapter presidents were aimed at reconciling concerned parents at Mary Munford Elementary and other, more active PTAs that benefit from the open-enrollment process with Pinkney-Eppes and her core leadership group.
“The concerns that I have heard from the PTA in my district is just wanting to be part of the process — not about the content of what’s being said — just being part of the process,” Bridges says. “I tried to put those folks in touch with Council of PTA members — with Tichi and other board members.”
Bridges says she was concerned that Pinkney-Eppes chose a newspaper as her first outlet for voicing her concerns about open enrollment. She says she wishes Pinkney-Eppes have waited for the School Board to conclude its re-examination of the program.
That re-examination began when School Board member Keith West, a critic of a system that he says intentionally makes some schools better than others, asked last year that open enrollment be eliminated.
Bridges says Pinkney-Eppes’ public statements were the first she heard of the PTA board’s apparent concern.
“I guess everyone has a right to feel the way they want to about the process,” Bridges says. “But my big suggestion was just to be part of the process.”
By speaking out, Pinkney-Eppes believes she’s angered the constituencies of the school system’s most prominent PTAs that represent schools where parents don’t want the boat rocked. As a result, she says she’s a marked woman politically, a leader with a fast-approaching expiration date. In June, she fully expects forces within the citywide PTA to vote her out.
But more than that, she’s rocked the boat at the School Board, which, Pinkney-Eppes says, is sowing seeds of distrust with the PTA boards at Munford and William Fox elementary schools.
She says the School Board and superintendent “are purporting that it’s us against them amongst us to cause that division,” she says, stressing that PTA advocacy — parent advocacy — is the right of parents.
“If you follow the model that PTA has designed,” she says, “Mary Munford parents could get more. Parents over at Blackwell could get more. By a lot of parents not turning up at the table, you’re dismissed that way. Ultimately, it is your child being victimized by this.”
Rather than taking away from West End schools, she says, any advocacy for less-affluent schools would serve to raise the entire district.
The article continues with Pinkney-Eppes criticizing Richmond’s “zero-tolerance” discipline policies, after her own son was suspended for insubordination.
Suspensions were frequent for “insubordination,” a charge Pinkney-Eppes says amounted to teachers being intimidated by her son’s size and occasional obstinacy and refusal to sit at his desk.
Personally, I think if he is in high school and he won’t sit down when a teacher asks him too, then he should be asked to leave the classroom. Teachers in Richmond have a hard enough time teaching the kids who want to be there and who do listen. I’m not sure why Pinkney-Eppes thinks standing up for her son for this behavor is noble. If my son was insubordinate to a teacher, especially at the high school level, and was suspended, I can’t say that I’d parade it around as a flawed policy. How can you take away what little power the teachers have? The article continues with her saying that keeping her son home alone for 3 days (while she can’t supervise him) is not a fair punishment. Perhaps she’s right. He should be forced into an in-school suspension, not one at home where he can do as he pleases. I wouldn’t call that a “trigger-happy suspension rate”, as Style does. I’d call that fair.
What’s not fair is comparing Henrico and Chesterfield statistics when the school systems populations are so different. Also, what’s not fair is quoting statistic for absences over 6 days in each of the school systems and somehow connecting that to a suspension rate. Plenty of kids don’t come to school in the city for many other reasons, including health issues, custody issues, parent’s substance abuse or incarceration issues and survival (rather than school) being the number one priority.
The article tackles many other issues — it’s worth a read in its entirety.
As a public-school teacher in Henrico County, I think we have reason to be concerned about open enrollment. Well, to be honest, more with “illegal immigration” in school systems. I have discovered that a number of my students live in the city while feigning a Henrico address. It comes about two ways: they either use a relative’s address or, more commonly, once lived at apartments in the county but moved back to the city or switched residences based on changing parental custody.
It’s an ethical bind to be in: I know the students shouldn’t be there, but I think it’s a better environment for some of them. One is a conscientious student who wants to study medicine in college. I wouldn’t want to compromise her education by sending her back to the city.
http://chpn.net/news/2008/03/15/style-profiles-pinkney-eppes/#comment-16094
I agree, Jonah. Disruptive students can destroy the learning environment for an entire class. While I have battled some behavior issues with my 11 year old son, he has not ever been suspended. And, I guarantee, if he ever were suspend, it would only happen ONCE. I will not tolerate disrespect for the teachers.
What life lessons are we teaching our children when we make excuses for them to defy authority and disrespect the classroom?
As a parent of an RPS student, I believe my child should have a chance at a good education, and that may means removing a student that is acting out.
But, at the same time, what resources are available for children with chronic and uncontrollable behavior problems? What do other areas do to handle such children?
I agree that disruptive behavior in class needs to be dealt with, however, there is a normal amount of disruptive behavior that should be expected from elementary school children and they should not be criminalized for it. Children talk and fidget, and want to play, daydream and clown around. Given the right environment combined with creative teaching and an engaging curriculum including learning centers and hands-on projects, many disruptive behaviors will disappear. And the ones that don’t, can be addressed accordingly, however, suspending children will lead to more suspensions. Children want to be at home. We cannot expect elementary students to have the inner controls of an adolescent in high school.
I’ve also noticed an extreme difference in the way children are treated in wealthy public and private schools compared to the children attending poorer schools. In the wealthier private schools children freely express themselves in the lunchroom and hallways and feel comfortable approaching adults and expressing their views. They have been taught to use their indoor voices. In poor public schools, they don’t want to hear a peep and students are lined up in a militant style. I’ve seen students yelled at for wanting to have some input.
If students are taught that acting like a child is a criminal offense, what will become of them when they enter middle school?
Gray,
I continue to disagree with you. Children can be children and still obey the rules. I am sorry you have had such a bad experience, but I am pleased with the school my children attend. I continue commenting so readers will see that there is a difference of opinion. I so wish we would spend as much “blog-time” celebrating the great teachers and the success RPS has had. And, RPS has had successes. This doesn’t mean I want to stop progress, only that I do know that there are good schools, good teachers, and good administrators in at least a few of the schools.
RPS must stop this zero-tolerance policy. Check out what former Juvenile and Domestic Court Judge Kim O’Donnell had to say on this topic in the StyleWeekly story about Tichi Pinkney Eppes:Richmond Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Chief Judge Kim O’Donnell watched Richmond’s school system fail for 20 years before retiring last year, she says. Most of the failure she witnessed related directly to the school system’s unwillingness to confront its inadequacies.
“I’m not an educator, obviously, but from the perspective of the court and what I saw of kids in trouble, I would go so far as to say that 90 percent of those [Richmond] kids had dismal relations with Richmond Public Schools,” O’Donnell says.
“It could be because their parents don’t care about schools and there may be some truth to that,” she says, “but the thing that disturbed me most over the years was the way that RPS continually dropped the ball with these kids.”
O’Donnell says she frequently saw children coming directly from the schoolhouse to the courthouse for discipline matters that should have been handled at the school. She blames the district’s zero-tolerance policy for misbehavior.
“Kids misbehave,” she says. “But in RPS, too often the people who were trying to interact with them and discipline them were not equipped, so they responded in a way that escalated very quickly the emotional response of the student. You bring a law-and-order mentality to a situation with them and it’s not productive.”
With suspensions, O’Donnell says she witnessed — with alarming frequency — a disregard for legal process on the part of Richmond Schools.
“Kids who interacted with the court were suspended for all kinds of things it wasn’t appropriate that they should be suspended for,” she says. “It was a common occurrence that kids were told they were suspended, there was no documentation of it, and they were just told go home and there was no reason given for the suspension. You can’t refuse to re-enroll a student for whom there was no reason given.”
Even when suspension didn’t directly result in an appearance in her courtroom, O’Donnell says she’s certain statistics would support her belief that kicking kids out of school for days at a time also indirectly resulted in more students in her courtroom.
“My point would be, OK, if you’re going to take a hard line like that — if you’re going to have the highest suspension rate in the entire history of the U.S., show me that it works,” O’Donnell says. “Show me that you’re going to have the calmest, most peaceful classroom environment as a result. The zero-tolerance policy in my opinion is just not effective.”
Getrealrichmond. -Get Real.
Having gone to Thomas Jefferson when it was at its very worst- I can assure you that the brunt of the blame rested on whatever insane family structure many of the kids came from, and the lack of ability (of many ‘parents’) to raise children, and elect a city council or school board that was anything but apathetic.
Those kids in my day weren’t throwing desks out the second story windows because the school board needed to look inward!
O’Donnel seems shortsighted for a judge if she truly thinks that the schools should have been able to keep suspended kids out of her courtroom!
I saw teachers break down and cry-and the entire class would just laugh at them! Most of the class would work a teacher so bad day in and day out (and intentionally make them desperate for anyone to just act like a willing student) The teacher couldnt even get someone to answer a question like ‘did the sun rise today?’, unless some kid felt sorry for them-thats why teachers needed the ability to throw a kid out of their class. -Its a school, not a juvenile rehabilitation center!
Anyone (including the judge) who thinks that the no tolerance policy wasnt needed to salvage some of these schools, is grossly out of touch with the situation.
You know more than someone who has been a sitting judge for more than 17 years? What years were you a student at TJ?
Judge O’Donnell is saying that by putting out these large numbers of kids — some suspended for being chronically TARDY — that the School Board and RPS administration is actually putting the public AT RISK. Simply booting the kid out the front door helps no one — not the kid, not the community and certainly not the taxpayer who ends up footing an even larger bill for incarcerating the kid. Why not turn the kid around? Why not offer the kids a chance to learn a skill that will help them get a job?
As long as Richmond continues to enforce a discipline program that DOES NOT work, we will all continue to pay the HIGH PRICE. Some will pay the ULTIMATE PRICE.
Richmond continues to create situations that will result in arrest records for their students. Instead of turning kids out onto the street, RPS needs to turn these kids around. Since taxpayers will end up paying either way, the better bargain is to educate instead of incarcerate.
Tiny,
Why are you so willing to settle for “less” for your children and other RPS students than raise your expectations of principals and administrators. I think it is great that you would not tolerate any disrespect from your child to a teacher. Why do you seem willing to tolerate disrespect from principals to teachers? from central administrators to principals, teachers, parents, children and taxpayers. After reading Dovi’s story, it sounds as if Deborah Jewell-Sherman and her administrators used suspensions a a means to jack up the SOL scores? Doesn’t that bother you? Sounds like she is “gaming the system” to me.
Tiny,
Why are you so willing to settle for “less” for your children and other RPS students than to raise your expectations of principals and administrators? I think it is great that you would not tolerate any disrespect from your child to a teacher. Why do you seem willing to tolerate disrespect from principals to teachers? From central administrators to principals, teachers, parents, children and taxpayers. After reading Dovi’s story, it sounds as if Deborah Jewell-Sherman and her administrators used suspensions as a means to jack up the SOL scores? Doesn’t that bother you? Sounds like she is “gaming the system” to me.
I also attended T.J. and yes it was wild. My concern is the way elementary students are treated. There is a huge difference between a high school student not sitting at his desk and a first grader. I’ve witnessed elementary kids repeatedly yelled at, miss lunch, or miss part of recess for merely talking in the cafeteria. Mary Munford doesn’t have a barking cafeteria monitor like other RPS. If I’m not mistaken, Munford’s cafeteria is quite loud.
I met one family on a tour of a private school because the administration at Cary was concerned about their child in pre-k fidgeting at his desk. Imagine a four to five year old not sitting still.
Regarding RPS staff/employess yelling at elementary students: I was told “that is what they understand…it is a cultural thing.” Now these students were being barked at for not lining up so perfectly or for talking and all this did not occur during a lesson. Why can’t students in poor schools be treated with the same dignity and respect as the students at Munford? I do not believe Mr. Muzik would tolerate the yelling and inappropriate phrases come out the mouths of his staff.
M. York, I have sat in classes in two poor elementary schools and the students are not like the ones you decribed at T.J., however, I’ve seen kids out of control with an unqualified teacher where as the same children behaved well with a good teacher. But most the teachers I’ve known have been very good and sometimes they just need support from a wise administration.
I’ve also witnessed first hand the administration at Cary escalate situations and cause further discord between students, parents, and teachers due to inept leadership and poor communication. And boy could that principal yell!
Does anyone know which RPS have the accelerated reading program (AR)?
I, too, have witnessed teachers, principals, cafeteria workers AND parents yelling at children and calling them names you would be ashamed to hear anyone call their dog.
I have quietly spoken out on this when the situations have happened. In most cases, I have found the offending adult willing to hear a quiet and respectful suggestion to lower the decibel level and increase the respect quotient.
If the adults instructing our elementary students don’t know how to “do right” how can we ever realistically expect the children to “do right?”
A smidgen of kindness and respect goes a long way.
In post #11 I should have said “seat” not “desk” regarding the fidgeting pre-schooler.
Frankly, I simply do not believe suspension is being used in the way that story implied. I feel like we are missing some of the facts. As I have repeated in many other posts, just because I think we need to fairly analyze the situation, that does not mean I am against progress.
Get Real: I am pleased to hear that you value courtesy so much. I hope this will be apparent in subsequent postings in CHPN, because honestly, it looks as if you are on attack sometimes and are not willing to even consider other’s points of view.
I can tell you that Munford has AR and FOX does not. I’m pretty sure Chimborazo has it (they did before) and Carver does not. I guess it is up to the principal.
I think we can all agree that the way one talks to students does need to reflect their cultural background. At the same time, each child should be respected. Personally, I feel you can “fuss” at a child in a loud way (if and only if they need that) and still show them respect.
How about calling a girl “Nasty” or telling children you’re “going to mop the floor up with them and their parents” or “shut up?”
And to what culture or group is it okay to “fuss” at in a loud way?
I believe RPS staff need to model good behavior.
Now I can understand a raising of a voice –that happens and sometimes is necessary. But I do not want my children or anyone’s children to be called names or threatened. I’ve seen children mistreated for talking in the lunchroom.
Chimborazo doesn’t have AR. AR is very expensive.
Jonah writes: ” …..I think we can all agree that the way one talks to students does need to reflect their cultural background. At the same time, each child should be respected. Personally, I feel you can “fuss” at a child in a loud way (if and only if they need that) and still show them respect.”
Jonah, help me please to understand EXACTLY what you mean when you say that one should speak to children in a manner that reflects their “cultural background”? Could you pls. give me an example (or two) …
It is NEVER ok to call children names. The examples that Gray gave are pretty awful. Of course it goes without saying you should never threaten or name call to a child….especially if you are a teacher.
What I mean is that in different cultures parents speak to their children differently.
This could be a family culture (ie I speak to my kids differently than my neighbor)….or culture that reflects a larger group. A teacher who is good, will get to know the child and where they are coming from, what their history is, get to know their parents and get to know what works with that particular child.
I am not standing up for those people who you quote saying those horrible things. What I am trying to say is that sometimes, occassionaly raising your voice is (unfortunately) necessary, as a parent and as a teacher.
The teacher should take into account all of the children’s backgrounds (and also the parents wishes). What works with one child may not work with another. And what works in one school, may not work in another.
What works well with students at Munford would work well at all RPS.
Regarding suspensions: Jonah you made a good suggestion of in-school suspension for the high school student mentioned in the article, however, I don’t know if all schools have an in-school suspension program. I would be very interested in knowing which schools in what areas have it.
Tiny ~ I am ALWAYS willing to hear another’s viewpoint. One need not be disagreeable when respectfully disagreeing.
Jonah ~ I am glad to see you finally understanding Gray’s circumstances. You are absolutely righht: Name-calling, raised voices and arguments should never be allowed to continue unabated in our schools. Truly effective teachers know how to control their classrooms without yelling their heads off and frightening young children. Lisa Delpit, author of “Other People’s Children” makes a convincing case that children don’t really learn as they should if they do not feel SAFE. By yelling at children and teachers, principals may think they are doing the right thing, but in reality, they are harming the educational process and compromising young children’s hopes and possibilities. Kid don’t learn well if they don’t feel safe.
P.s. Please know that if I ever do decide to “attack,” I will be as subtle as a Mack Truck riding your bumper on I-95. Our city doesn’t need good people with common goals to attack one another. We must come together as a City and demand the kind of education we know they will need in the future.