An Update From Kim Bridges, Richmond City School Board Representative

Kim Bridges Richmond Public Schools 1st District School Board Representative, has an update for citizens of Richmond’s 1st District and parents:

Yes, it’s a new school year, and some of us are very happy about it.

Today was the first day back for teachers and I was privileged to sit in on the opening morning activities at our 1st District schools. At Hill, TJ, and Munford, the staff meetings were informative and energizing as teachers did everything from setting personal goals for the year to reviewing a detailed PowerPoint that broke down every SOL score by class, subject, and teacher. At the meetings, the principals discussed the importance of increasing rigor and making subjects relevant to the children to better prepare them for careers and lifelong learning. They highlighted the “soft skills” that make adults marketable and ways that they could teach–as early as elementary school–those skills along with academics.

Of course I knew going into today’s meetings that our teachers have can-do, team-oriented attitudes about educating our children, but this morning was a great reminder of these attributes and the level of professionalism these staff members have. I wish everyone in the “outside” world could see the strong service- and results-oriented approach of our schools’ staffs. And even though any of today’s presentations could have taken place in the corporate world, these meetings also involved cheering and encouragement for the success of every teacher because they know that it takes working together to reach each student who will walk through the doors next week.

Of course, students and parents are also part of the picture. Last week, TJ began welcoming students with activities for new students and seniors. This Thursday, Hill will treat new students & 6th graders to its annual ice cream social (where I enjoy being one of the speediest scoopers.) This Friday at 2:30 p.m., Munford parents and children can meet the teacher and visit the classroom for a sneak preview of day one.

It’s an exciting time of year. I’ll send another update soon with the chock-full-of-events-first month that will bring opportunities for involvement at the school level and for the whole system.

What’s going on with the Alternative Program?

If today’s article in the RTD left you with questions, I wanted to shed some additional light on the Capital City Program (CCP) and the board’s oversight of the program and contract. First, you should know what the program was brought in to do. Second, I wanted to share some key factors not discussed in today’s story but which are critical to evaluating the program’s efficiency and effectiveness. Among these are the fixed costs of staffing and the rolling admission structure that relies on having seats available to fill throughout the school year. Third, please know that building funds come to RPS from the city, and the school district has not received funding for a new CCP building.

What are the expected outcomes of CCP? Are the goals being met?

When the school district contracted to have CCP it wanted to improve 1) both middle and high school safety and classroom environment and 2) the individual student performance and long-term outcomes of students who face challenges of disruptive behavior, low academic performance, low attendance, and/or grade-repetition.

In 2009, when the School Board looked at CCP program results, the Board saw that in the first four years of the program, RPS disciplinary incidents of fighting dropped by 71% and disorderly conduct by 58%. In the most recent school year, nuisance infractions for the district have dropped by more than 15% over the previous year. Our system-wide approach to discipline now includes proactive training of staff members on anti-bullying, positive reinforcement, and other de-escalation approaches that have also contributed to the decline in negative behaviors.
So, fewer disciplinary violations (and fewer referrals to CCP) is good news. But are we paying too much for those who are there?

You can’t answer that question by looking only at per pupil costs. Whether a classroom at CCP–or any other school–has 15 students or 20 students, we pay the same salary and benefits for the teacher who leads the class. To say that we are paying for empty seats when a class has a lower pupil teacher ratio doesn’t account for this significant fixed cost, which is typically in the 80% range of total operational costs.

In addition, we’ve got to consider the nature of the CCP program. Students get assigned to CCP throughout the year. For example, a student who commits a disciplinary violation in March joins the program in the spring and completes a full year (180 days) before being eligible for reassignment the following spring. Having spaces available to assign students throughout the year is a critical feature of this program. In fact, if we filled all the seats in September, the program would not serve its intended purpose. Over the past 4 years the average program capacity has been 76% in September, which rises to 88% in January and 91% by June.

For alternative education programs which serve some of our most challenged students, the School Board has to assess factors beyond per pupil costs. We must also look at goals, student and district needs, and program results, as well as fixed, variable, and comparative costs for the services provided. Then we can determine whether we can get the same (or better) results for some of our most challenged students at a lower cost than we’re currently paying. You can join us at the Board’s September 7 work session at 4:00 for our next update on this program and other disciplinary alternatives we’re using to make our schools safer and to provide our students with opportunities to succeed.

Happy New (School) Year,

Kim Bridges, 1st District School Board representative