Providence Public School District: A Review June 2019, Lecture notes of Algebra

Download Providence Public School District: A Review June 2019 and more Lecture notes Algebra in PDF only on Docsity! Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 1 Providence Public School District: A Review June 2019 Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................. 5 Assessment of Academic Outcomes ........................................................... 9 PPSD School Site Visits ............................................................................ 27 Community and Parental Voices ............................................................. 53 PPSD District Site Visit (Operations and Community Partnerships) .. 58 PPSD District Site Visit (Leadership) ...................................................... 72 Appendices ................................................................................................. 89 Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 2 Executive Summary In May 2019, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy led a review of the Providence Public School District (PPSD). We did so at the invitation of the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) Commissioner, Ms. Angélica Infante-Green, with the support of Governor Gina Raimondo and Mayor Jorge Elorza. The Partnership for Rhode Island funded the review. We know from existing data that student achievement in Providence has been low for decades. Despite the hard work of countless teachers, administrators, and city employees, the latest RICAS scores show that, across the grade levels, a full 90 percent of students are not proficient in math, and a full 86 percent are not proficient in English Language Arts. Creating strong academic outcomes for urban students, many of whom are economically challenged and speak English as a second language, is a challenge across the United States – not only in Providence. That said, as our report lays out, our team found unusually deep, systemic dysfunctions in PPSD’s education system that clearly, and very negatively, impact the opportunities of children in Providence. Based on our direct observations and interviews, we found that: o The great majority of students are not learning on, or even near, grade level. o With rare exception, teachers are demoralized and feel unsupported. o Most parents feel shut out of their children’s education. o Principals find it very difficult to demonstrate leadership. o Many school buildings are deteriorating across the city, and some are even dangerous to students’ and teachers’ wellbeing. Our review work included: interviews and focus groups with parents, school leaders, teachers, and leaders at all levels; visits to schools across the city; input from a team of independent local and national education experts; and a review of a broad range of documents and data provided by PPSD and the Rhode Island Department of Education. Primary Findings As you will note in the full report, there are many interrelated challenges across PPSD. All of them point back to a central, structural deficiency: Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 5 Introduction In May 2019, the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy led a review of the Providence Public School District (PPSD). We did so at the invitation of the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) Commissioner, Ms. Angélica Infante-Green, with the support of Mayor Elorza and Governor Gina Raimondo. The Partnership for Rhode Island funded the review. Our task was three-fold:  To review the academic outcomes of the students enrolled in PPSD, with some comparison to other districts (See Appendix A for full report).  To visit and observe classrooms in multiple schools, and meet and converse with students, teachers, administrators, and members of the community (See Appendix B for the schedule).  To hear the views of individuals and groups who hold or have held leadership positions within the PPSD governance structure, including the Mayor (and former Mayor), the Superintendent (and former Superintendent), members of the PPSD School Board, members of the City Council, and a wide variety of professionals involved in the district offices of PPSD. Most discussions took place face to face, with a few reserved for phone conversations. For details of the on-site discussions, please see “Final District Site Schedule,” (Appendix C). While we scrupulously report what our team heard and observed, it is very important to note that it was not within our purview to confirm, through further research, the veracity of what we were told by different leaders and district stakeholders. In some cases, inevitably, they reported on the same matter very differently (for example, on the success or lack of success of new disciplinary procedures). Readers may find themselves saying at one point or another, “That’s not what I think is correct” – but it is what we were told by the identified groups or individuals. There were multiple cases of near universal agreement across all stakeholders or amongst members of certain groups; readers may wish to take note of such cases as having a special weight. Our review was designed to be based upon publicly available academic data and the judgements of individuals with whom we met. We did not, and do not, intend to make value judgments about what we found or what we heard; that is up to those who read the relevant sections of this report.1 We did seek consensus from each review team, each member of which has been given the opportunity to 1 On a few subjects, such as per-pupil funding, we included public data to provide context. It is not, however, our role to comment upon the adequacy of the funding. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 6 review the relevant sections of this document.2 Where the review teams encountered divergent views amongst the interviewees, we have noted them as such.3 There are important limitations to this report.  Some members of leadership groups and individual stakeholders were not interviewed. For instance, not all members of the City Council were available to meet during the allocated times. To maximize our availability, we arranged for post-review conference calls for a number of individuals – especially teachers – who had expressed the wish to be heard but had not had the opportunity.  We did not visit every school. The school-visit schedule was designed by RIDE. A larger sample may have produced slightly different findings. This is true of any sampling from a larger group. We did review the academic results from the selected schools and were satisfied that there had been no “cherry picking” to guide the team into unrepresentative schools.  We did not include every statement made. The review process must synthesize rather than transcribe. Consensus thus holds a special weight. However, the review team made twelve school visits (30% of regular district public schools) and engaged in multiple, standards-normed classroom observations in each school. Additionally, the review team conducted interviews and focus groups with parents, almost two hundred teachers (10% of district teachers), and dozens of students. The number of schools visited and teachers interviewed was well above the level of sampling required for statistical significance, and gives us confidence that what we saw and heard was not materially different than if we had enlarged the sample. No personal identification is used in this report; individual comments are identified only with their public positions (as in “member of the School Board” or “school principals”). While our visits to schools and classrooms were a matter of public record, we have taken care not to link any comments, particular classrooms, and description of facilities, with any particular school, except when there was particular praise for a certain school. The exception on identification applies to individuals who could speak only for themselves, and who were thus told that their comments would be on the record unless specifically withheld from the record. Those individuals were the Mayor, the Superintendent, the School Board President, the former Mayor, and the former Superintendent. In the case of the Superintendent, a brief, off-the- record conversation was held prior to the formal interview, but nothing from that conversation is included in this document. 2 The review team members were invited to comment upon the relevant sections and, if they disagreed substantively with its consensus findings, to compose a minority viewpoint under their own name which would be inserted in the document. All members of the public have, of course, the ability to respond publicly to the final report. 3 Because we interviewed key stakeholders in groups, one group did not hear what another group had said. Where strong consensus on a given topic is indicated, it is because similar views were expressed across groups. This does not indicate that everyone would have endorsed the precise wording. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 7 The review team conducted classroom observations with the use of the Instructional Practice Guide (IPG) in math and English Language Arts (ELA), and with the Massachusetts Observation Protocol in other subjects. The IPG is explicitly aligned to the CCSS (Common Core State Standards) that form the core of RI’s own standards in math and ELA. (For an overview of the IPG, see here.) The Institute found a strong level of agreement about the strengths and challenges associated with the Providence Public School District. Different parties naturally emphasized different elements of the system, but we did not find fundamental disagreement. One success consistently emerged across all constituencies:  Praise for certain principals, teachers, and district leaders. Every group noted the presence of devoted teachers and principals who go above and beyond to support student success. Several groups noted the effectiveness of specific offices within the district, most notably the Teaching and Learning office. Four challenges were articulated and observed again and again, across a majority of interviews and observations:  There is an exceptionally low bar for instruction and low expectations for students. Very little visible student learning was going on in the majority of classrooms and schools we visited – most especially in the middle and high schools. Multiple stakeholders emphasized that the state, district, and business community have very low expectations for student learning. Many district team members and community partners broke down in tears when describing this reality, which classroom observations verified.  School culture is broken – particularly in secondary schools. Our review teams encountered many teachers and students who do not feel safe in school. There is widespread agreement that bullying, demeaning, and even physical violence are occurring within the school walls at very high levels. Many participants cited the pressure to reduce suspensions as a causal factor.  Student support is insufficient. The review teams encountered meaningful gaps in student support. These gaps ranged from too few English Language Learner (ELL) -certified teachers and special education staff, to widespread difficulties recruiting substitute teachers that leaves students without subject-matter experts. The consequences for student learning are evidenced in publicly available academic outcomes.  Governance comes from multiple individuals and institutions, with overlapping responsibilities. Vision suffers as a result. Very few participants thought the system worked well or posed a coherent vision. They differed only in their explanations and remedies. While there was some finger pointing at individuals, by far the most frequently Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 10 Source for both tables: https://www.providenceschools.org/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=237&dataid=22534&FileNa me=2018-2019%20Budget%20Book.pdf Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 11 Providence Public School District: Analysis of Academic Outcomes Lead Researcher: Dr. Jay Plasman, Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy The Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy (the Institute) analyzed test score data for students in Providence, Rhode Island and two other comparison districts (Newark City, New Jersey and Worcester, Massachusetts). The Institute also examined comparative data for the state of Rhode Island as a whole to place Providence into context within the state. The analyses presented here focus on students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in English Language Arts and grades 3, 5, 8, and algebra in mathematics during the school years of 2014-15 through 2017-18. There are a few pieces of information that should be noted here and kept in mind. First, Rhode Island switched from the PARCC assessment to the RICAS assessment beginning in the 2017-18 school year. This makes comparisons over time more difficult to judge. Second, in the 2016-17 school year, 10th grade students in Providence did not complete the PARCC ELA assessment. Third, the new RICAS assessment does not include assessments for students beyond 8th grade. Instead, assessment results for high school are pulled from existing tests – the PSAT and SAT – to meet testing requirements. The RICAS assessment was put in place in an effort to reduce the amount of time spent testing in class and to ideally help relieve some of the burden on teachers. The test itself pulls items both from PARCC and MCAS, which is the Massachusetts state assessment. The State of Providence Education The Institute began the analysis of achievement data with a focus on the district of Providence. We identified changes in rates of proficiency as students progress through school as wells as changes in proficiency rates over time for both math and ELA. Below, figure 1 presents the changes in proficiency rates by grade level from the 2017-18 school year when students completed the RICAS assessment. One of the first points to highlight is that every grade exhibited proficiency rates lower than 20% in both math and ELA – fewer than one out of every five students. Proficiency rates in ELA were slightly higher than math in all grades, but not by much. Second, the trendlines indicate a fairly steep decline in rates of proficiency between 3rd grade and 8th grade. For example, in 3rd grade math, just over 17% of students achieved proficiency while just only slightly more than 6% of 8th grade students achieved proficiency in math. This brings up a final point to emphasize: there is a sizeable and noticeable dropoff in proficiency rates in the 8th grade in both math and ELA. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 12 Figure 1. Providence Proficiency Rates by Grade – 2017-18 This drop-off is not unique to RICAS and the 2017-18 school year. In every year since the 2014-15 school year, 8th grade students achieve proficiency at lower rates than 3rd and 5th graders as shown in figure 2. Not only that, but there was only one grade in one year in which students reached proficiency rates greater than 25% - 3rd grade students in the 2016-17 school year. Figure 2. Providence Proficiency Rates Over Time 0 5 10 15 20 25 3rd 5th 8th Math ELA Linear (Math) Linear (ELA) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2015 2016 2017 2018 3rd Grade Math ELA 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2015 2016 2017 2018 5th Grade Math ELA Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 15 Figure 3. 8th-Grade ELA Trends Over Time* *Rhode Island and Providence used the RICAS assessment in 2017-18, while Newark used the PARCC Figure 3 above presents the trendlines for ELA in Newark, Providence, and Rhode Island over the past four years. It is clear that Providence is well below both Newark and the state of Rhode Island; only Newark presents a positive overall trend in ELA. However, the negative trend in Providence is steeper, indicating that students are declining more quickly there than they are in the state of Rhode Island as a whole. One positive development is an uptick in 8th-grade math in 2018. The result, however, is still the lowest of the 3-8th grade math assessments, and even with this slight uptick, more than 93% of the 8th- graders in Providence were not proficient in mathematics. Furthermore, students in Providence continue to achieve proficiency at substantially lower rates than do their peers in Worcerster and across the state of Rhode Island. These struggles are evident in every grade examined. Figure 4. RICAS Math Proficiencies by Grade, All Students, 2018* *Note: The RICAS assessment did not include an algebra test in 8th grade 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 2015 2016 2017 2018 Newark Providence Rhode Island Trend (Newark) Trend (Providence) Trend (Rhode Island) 0 10 20 30 40 3rd 5th 8th Worcester Providence Rhode Island Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 16 The academic outcomes of students in Providence should be seen as the critical backdrop to the remainder of this report. English Language Arts: Trend Comparisons To provide historical context for Providence schools, the Institute examined the PARCC scores in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 in English Language Arts (ELA). Proficiency rates were compared to those of students in Newark City, New Jersey and the full state of Rhode Island. Figure 5. PARCC ELA Proficiencies by Grade, All Students, Averaged Across 2015-2017 *Note: 10th grade ELA data was not available for Rhode Island in 2017 Figure 5 above presents the results of the analysis. Proficiency rates have been averaged across each of the three years from 2014-15 to 2016-17 to provide an overall look at how students performed. As shown, Providence schools scored lower than Rhode Island as a state in every grade. Additionally they scored lower than Newark schools in all grades except 10th, when they were nearly equivalent. Keep in mind that 10th grade scores in Providence include only the 2014-15 and 2015-16 school years as there was no 10th grade test in 2016-17. In Providence, 8th grade ELA exhibited the lowest proficiency rates, averaging only about 17% proficiency. This is 20 percentage points lower than Rhode Island, and almost 15 percentage points lower than Newark. In no grade in Providence did more than 25% of students achieve proficiency. Figure 6 below presents the comparison results for student proficiency rates on the 2017-18 RICAS/MCAS assessments. In Providence, students in grades 3 and 5 exhibited similar rates of proficiency (18.6% and 18.7%, respectively) as they did on the PARCC assessment. However, there was a severe decrease in proficiency for 8th grade students as proficiency rates dropped from 18.7% in 5th grade to only 8.5% in 8th grade. This was nearly 22 percentage points lower than the state of Rhode Island and 24.5 percentage points lower than Worcester. 8th grade proficiency rates were the lowest in each site, but those in Providence were by far the lowest. While students in 3rd and 5th grades in Providence did score proficient rates similar to what they had scored on PARCC, these rates were still substantially lower than those across the state of Rhode Island and in Worcester. 0 10 20 30 40 50 3rd 5th 8th 10th Newark Providence Rhode Island Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 17 Figure 6. RICAS ELA Proficiencies by Grade, All Students, 2018* *Note: Rhode Island switched from the PARCC to the RICAS assessment beginning in the 2017-18 school year. 10th grade students did not complete the participate assessment. RICAS is comparable to the MCAS assessment in Massachusetts The Institute next explored how proficiency rates changed over time. Figure 7 presents these changes by grade. In examining the panels below, keep in mind that Newark, Providence and Rhode Island PARCC data is presented for 2014-15 through 2016-17, while Worcester, Providence, and Rhode Island MCAS/RICAS data is presented for the 2017-18 school year. Each panel contains a single grade with the proficiency rates for each site in a given year. In Providence, the proficiency rates across all four years remained relatively stable in both 3rd and 5th grades. In 3rd grade, the proficiency rates were relatively similar to those in Newark in each year. By 5th grade, the gap between Newark and Providence became a bit more pronounced. In 8th grade, this gap was quite substantial. Interestingly, the gap between these two sites grew over time in each grade. By 2017, the gap between Providence and Newark in 8th grade was greater than 22 percentage points. Another interesting point about the 8th grade proficiency rates is that they steadily decreased over time, and reached a low of only 8.5% proficiency in 2018. It is difficult to make any conclusions for the high school proficiency rates as there were only two years of data for Providence and the state of Rhode Island. However, the proficiency rates for each of the comparison sites were much more closely clustered and there were no longer the substantial gaps as seen in earlier grades. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 3rd 5th 8th Worcester Providence Rhode Island Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 20 Figure 9. ELA Proficiency Rates by Economic Disadvantage, by Grade, 2017-18 Due to data limitations, it was difficult to draw strong conclusions from the analysis focusing on Limited English Proficiency (LEP) students. First, Worcester did not report proficiency rates for non- LEP students. This made comparisons with Providence non-LEP students impossible. Second, with the 2017-18 RICAS implementation, Providence also implemented a practice of not reporting proficiency rates for subgroups for which fewer than 5% of the population achieved proficiency, as was the case for LEP students in both the 5th and 8th grades. With these caveats in mind, there are a few conclusions to highlight which are observable in figure 10. First, there again appeared to be a significant decline in proficiency rates in Providence in the 8th grade for all students. Second, the largest gap in Providence between LEP and non-LEP students was in the 5th grade, considering fewer than 5% of LEP students were proficient at that time. Finally, there was a substantial gap in the 3rd grade between LEP students in Providence and LEP students in Worcester. In fact, 3rd grade LEP students in Worcester achieved proficiency at a rate only 4 percentage points lower than 3rd grade non-LEP students in Providence. Figure 10. ELA Proficiency Rates by LEP Status, by Grade, 2017-18 *Data not reported for subgroups with lower than 5% proficiency rates **Worcester did not report proficiency rates for non-LEP students The final subgroup of interest was students with disabilities. There was again the issue that Providence did not report proficiency rates in cases where less than 5% of the subgroup achieved proficiency, as was the case in the 5th and 8th grades. As shown in figure 11 below, students receiving 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 3rd 3rd 5th 5th 8th 8th Non-Econ Dis Econ Dis Non-Econ Dis Econ Dis Non-Econ Dis Econ Dis Providence Worcester 0 5 10 15 20 25 3rd Non-LEP** 3rd LEP 5th Non-LEP 5th* LEP 8th Non-LEP 8th* LEP Providence Worcester Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 21 special education services performed substantially worse than their non-speical education peers in both sites in every grade. The differences in proficiency rates of special education students between Providence and Worcester were not very stark as they were extremely low in both locations. The biggest gap within Providence existed in the 5th grade, at which time 21.8% of non-special education students achieved proficiency while fewer than 5% of special education students were able to do so. Figure 11. ELA Proficiency Rates by Special Education Status, by Grade, 2017-18 *Data not reported for subgroups with lower than 5% proficiency rates Mathematics: Trend Comparisons As with ELA, the Institute examined the historical patterns of performance in mathematics in Providence. The Institute included the same time frames (PARCC for the years 2014-15 through 2016-17, and MCAS/RICAS in 2017-18) and locations (Newark, Providence, and Rhode Island for PARCC, and Worcester, Providence, and Rhode Island for MCAS/RICAS) as the ELA analyses. Using PARCC data, algebra proficiency rates were identified. These rates included students in grades ranging from 8th to 12th. As with ELA, the Institute first explored the averaged PARCC scores (figure 12) followed by the one existing year of MCAS/RICAS scores (figure 13). Looking at figure 12 below, there are a number of trends to mention. First, Providence exhibited lower proficiency rates than both Newark and the state of Rhode Island across each grade. Second, in each location, students steadily decreased in proficiency rates from 3rd grade to 8th grade, and then experienced a jump in proficiency rates in algebra. As in ELA, 8th grade students in Providence achieved proficiency at very low rates. Only 5% of Providence 8th graders were proficient in math, which is by far the lowest of any grade in Providence. This is 16.3 percentage points lower than 8th graders in Newark and represents the largest gap in any grade between Providence and Newark. Interestingly, the largest gap between Providence and the rest of Rhode Island existed in 3rd grade 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 3rd 3rd 5th 5th* 8th 8th* Non-Sp Ed Sp Ed Non-Sp Ed Sp Ed Non-Sp Ed Sp Ed Providence Worcester Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 22 where there was a greater than 19 percentage point gap. As in ELA, students in Providence did not achieve at or above 25% proficiency in any grade. Figure 12. PARCC Math Proficiencies by Grade, All Students, Averaged Across 2015-2017 Prior to discussing the comparisons with Worcester, it is again important to point out that students in Providence and the rest of Rhode Island did not take RICAS tests in high school or for the specific subject of algebra. However, the comparisons with the MCAS assessment remain valid as the tests are very similar. Turning now to the analysis of the comparison with Worcester in the 2017-18 school year, the patterns are nearly identical to those mentioned above in the comparison with Newark. Figure 13 shows steadily decreasing proficiency rates in each site across the three grades, with 8th grade proficiency rates the lowest in each location. Again, the 8th grade proficiency rates in Providence at 6.4% were by far the lowest, and were substantially lower than both Worcester (16.5 percentage point difference) and the state of Rhode Island (16.4 percentage point difference). The largest gap with Worcester, however, was in 5th grade, when students in Providence (11.5% proficient) achieved proficiency rates nearly 18 percentage points lower. The largest gap with the rest of Rhode Island was observed in the 3rd grade when 17.2% of students in Providence met proficiency and 35.4% of students in Rhode Island met proficiency. Figure 13. RICAS Math Proficiencies by Grade, All Students, 2018* *Note: The RICAS assessment did not include an algebra test in either 8th grade or high school 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 3rd 5th 8th Algebra Newark Providence Rhode Island 0 10 20 30 40 3rd 5th 8th Worcester Providence Rhode Island Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 25 points in the 5th grade. Within Providence, the gap between economically disadvantaged and non- economically disadvantaged students remained relatively consistent around 11-15 percentage points across each of the three observed grades. 5 Figure 16. Math Proficiency Rates by Economic Disadvantage, by Grade, 2017-18 *Data not reported for subgroups with lower than 5% proficiency rates As in our ELA analysis, it was difficult to make specific conclusions for LEP status students because Worcester did not report non-LEP student proficiency rates and Providence did not report observed rates for subgroups with lower than 5% proficiency. However, it was possible to identify clear existence of gaps between LEP and non-LEP students in Providence. Figure 17 below presents the comparisons. The gap between LEP and non-LEP students in Providence was the largest in 5th grade. Regarding LEP students in Providence, in no year did their proficiency rates exceed 13%, and in both 5th grade and 8th grade, their proficiency rates were sub-5%. Figure 17. Math Proficiency Rates by LEP Status, by Grade, 2017-18 *Data not reported for subgroups with lower than 5% proficiency rates **Worcester did not report proficiency rates for non-LEP students 5 It is not possible to determine the exact gap in 8th grade, but a 15 percentage point gap would imply a proficiency rate of approximately 3.5% for economically disadvantaged students. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 3rd 3rd 5th 5th 8th 8th* Non-Econ Dis Econ Dis Non-Econ Dis Econ Dis Non-Econ Dis Econ Dis Providence Worcester 0 5 10 15 20 25 3rd 3rd 5th 5th* 8th 8th* Non-LEP** LEP Non-LEP LEP Non-LEP LEP Providence Worcester Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 26 The final analysis explored differences between Providence and Worcester by special education status. Figure 18 highlights the results of this analysis. The most notable gaps between Providence and Worcester were evident for students not receiving special education services. In 5th grade, this gap was as large as 23 percentage points. Students receiving special education services did not surpass 9% proficiency in any grade in either Providence or Worcester. In Providence these proficiency rates were under 5% in both 5th grade and 8th grade. Though it was not possible to identify the exact gap between special education and non-special education students every year in Providence, it is possible to state that all students had very low proficiency rates and that (as is generally the case) special education students consistently performed worse than non-special education students in every grade. Figure 18. Math Proficiency Rates by Special Education Status, by Grade, 2017-18 *Data not reported for subgroups with lower than 5% proficiency rates 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 3rd 3rd 5th 5th* 8th 8th* Non-Sp Ed Sp Ed Non-Sp Ed Sp Ed Non-Sp Ed Sp Ed Providence Worcester Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 27 PPSD School Site Visits Classroom Instruction and School Culture May 20 – May 24, 2019 Summary The review teams visited four elementary, four middle, and four high schools. Because middle schools were divided between the two teams, we include findings from middle schools with their respective teams. The review team for elementary (and some middle) schools was comprised of the following members:  Tracy Lafreniere, North Smithfield, Reading Specialist (and RI 2016 Teacher of the Year)  Karla Vigil, EduLeaders of Color, Co-Founder and Chief Connector, District and School Design & Senior Associate at the Center for Collaborative Education  Jeremy Sencer, Math Specialist PPSD  Sarah Friedman, The Learning Community, School Co-Director  Michelle Davidson, Parent Advocate and Community Member  Crystal Spring, Johns Hopkins University Research Fellow The review team for elementary (and some middle) school interviews and focus groups:  Dr. Barbara Mullen, Center for Leadership and Educational Equity, Director – Learning Leader Network and former Special Education Director for Houston Independent School District  Phil DeCecco, Retired Providence School Counselor  Dr. Angela Watson, Johns Hopkins University, OR Mr. Al Passarella, Johns Hopkins University The review team for high school (and some middle school) classrooms was comprised of:  Dr. Heather Hill, Annenberg Institute at Brown University, Professor  Paige Clausius Parks, M.Ed., Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, Senior Policy Analyst  Victor Capellan, Central Falls School District, Superintendent  Nikos Giannopoulos, Beacon Charter School, Educator and Rhode Island 2017 Teacher of the Year  Ramona Santos, Providence Public School Parent  Kelly Siegel-Stechler, Johns Hopkins University Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 30 Secondary ELA. Secondary school ELA instruction is extremely weak. On the IPG, not a single category of instruction on a 1-4 scale attained an average score across classrooms of more than 1.75. The review team rated instruction in most classrooms at the lowest possible level. For instance, while many classrooms included grade-appropriate texts (e.g., The Poet X, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Antigone), teachers did not generally capitalize upon the texts’ literary qualities, nor induce students to engage with those texts in a meaningful and rigorous way. Tasks and questions were not well sequenced in order to build depth of knowledge, skills, or vocabulary. There was little to no “productive struggle.” Student engagement was minimal. Particularly in high school classrooms, it was not uncommon for only a small percentage of the students to be participating in the lesson. In such circumstances, teachers resorted to providing the best instruction they could to those students, and largely ignored the behavior or disengagement of others. Even where lessons were designed for students to undertake the majority of the work, few students engaged with the assigned tasks. Very few opportunities for productive struggle occurred, and when they did, students were not especially likely to persist at tasks. In only one observed classroom did students have a real chance to engage in written work, and very few opportunities were observed for students to engage with one another and share ideas. While we clearly observed some teachers engaging with students one-on-one in meaningful instruction, it was often not possible for them to do so with all students, especially those who were already disengaged. Secondary Math, summarized by Dr. Heather Hill. In Providence, middle and high school math consists largely of teacher-directed instruction about mathematical facts and procedures. Although some teachers involved students in Common Core-aligned activities (e.g., productive struggle, engagement with rich tasks, and mathematical reasoning), such activity was rare, limited to two or three mathematics classrooms of the 35 observed by the review team. Even in most upper-level mathematics classes, students experienced the material as teacher-led instruction, with the teacher providing guidance about how students could execute a set of procedures in order to complete their assignments. In a large number of classrooms, teachers did not press students to become engaged with the mathematics instruction, resulting in a variety of student off-task behavior: chatting with peers, checking phones, staring into space, or, in some cases, taking phone calls and watching YouTube videos. In some classrooms, this activity was loud enough to disrupt the learning of other students and, in some cases, led to student arguments that left the team concerned for student safety. In many classrooms, this activity went on for the duration of the observation. This occurred without substantial teacher attempts to redirect students toward engaging with the mathematics. In one school, in fact, some teachers arranged their classrooms such that the non-engaged students were sitting around the periphery (often with desks turned so that they were staring at a wall), while a small number of desks in the middle allowed on-task students to be closer to the teacher. In other classrooms, disengaged students sat near the back of the room. To be clear, not all students were off-task; in each of the classrooms described just above, a number of students were taking notes and working diligently on practice problems. In a small number of advanced math classes, students were engaged in projects involving complex mathematical modeling Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 31 and application. However, we estimate that among observed classrooms on average, about one-third to one-half of students were off-task, with no teacher attempt to reach out and re-engage. When mathematics was delivered to students, it was nearly always free of major teacher mathematical errors, though sometimes lacked the clarity that would support student learning. An example of the latter occurred when one teacher lost his place in solving a problem involving interest paid on a vehicle, and thus provided an ultimately confusing sequence of calculations for solving the problem. In another case, a teacher discussed vertical angles, then started working on a coordinate plane, labeling the y axis y=-1/2x+5 and the x-axis y=2x+3, then telling students to find the point of intersection. This teacher also confused the terms “expression” and “equation.” On occasion, the rule-based nature of instruction seemed likely to confuse students in their future learning. For instance, during a lesson on expressions, a teacher instructed students “to simplify” if they saw expressions with the same variable (3n + 3n) but to factor if they saw an expression with different variables (e.g., 21y + 15x). Students presented with problems that challenge this rule (3n + 3n2; 3y + 5x) would likely be confused. Most content taught in the middle schools met grade-level standards. However, in the high schools visited, some of the content was behind grade level – either for the time in the year (i.e., factoring in late May during an Algebra 1 class) or in topic (e.g., simple interest rates). Many classes this team attempted to visit were staffed by subs, aides, other teachers in the department, or had been disbanded for the day, with students sent to other rooms to wait out the class period. In general, students did not work on mathematics in classrooms covered by subs, aides, or when sent to sit in other classrooms; when other members of the department covered the missing teacher’s classroom, some student work did take place. Many classrooms had aides, either attached to a specific student or acting as a second pair of hands in the classroom. Use of aides was uneven. In two schools, we observed aides very actively engaged in delivering (or redelivering) instruction to students, or providing 1:1 assistance. In other schools, aides were engaged in what seemed like busywork -- e.g., checking the completeness of a social studies assignment on their computer – or were otherwise unengaged with students. Often, the faculty/classroom lists provided by the administration at the beginning of the day were inaccurate. In two cases, teachers listed on the schedule had actually left the school. Finally, we witnessed significant problems in the use of the Summit Learning Platform. In one school, Summit was the major mode of mathematics instruction; in other classrooms, it seemed to be used for supplemental (e.g., remedial or practice) instruction. When we observed students using Summit, they were not engaged with the software in optimal ways. Instead of watching videos or reading tutorial texts, students went straight to the exam and attempted to answer questions. When they answered incorrectly, corrective text popped up, which students did read; they then tried again with the next question. Even if students progressed according to plan, their learning would be limited to how to answer problems in the format presented by the Summit Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 32 exam. In one school, we did not observe a single Summit math teacher engage in whole-class or even small-group math instruction. Instead, teachers either completed work at their desks, and/or answered questions when students raised their hand. Finally, the lack of teacher surveillance of student progress in some Summit classrooms meant that students worked very slowly through the material. Off-task student behavior was the same as, or worse than, in the more traditional classrooms, with some students observably working on assignments from other classes, viewing YouTube videos (or similar), queuing songs on playlists, toggling between Summit and entertainment websites, or pausing on work screens while chatting with neighbors. To paint a picture of one Summit classroom at a given moment during our visit: Four students were working on history, one student stalled on an index screen, one stalled on a choice screen, one focused on a screen with other (non-math) content, two doing mathematics well below grade-level work, and two doing mathematics at, or close to, grade level. There was an aide in this room, but he did not interact with kids. One team member asked him what his role was, and he said, “Supporting students, I’m an ELL teacher.” He did not speak Spanish, however (which many kids were doing), and he did not have content expertise. He explained that his role is not to teach language, but only to offer support—he can “break down” problems well for students. When asked what he was doing in that moment, he said he was marking PPT projects (for another class) as “complete” or “incomplete.” For the classroom observation summaries below, the order of the schools has been randomized – thus it does not correspond to the order in which they were visited - to protect their identity. Observations about the physical conditions seen in the schools have been removed and collected elsewhere in the report, also to protect the schools’ identities. School A Positives  Teachers generally had good energy but a wide range of classroom management skills. The most effective classroom management strategy on offer seemed to be “educational” games on computers.  Some Kindergarten classrooms included play-based learning. (Other Kindergartens were doing straight worksheets.) Challenges  Curriculum and Instruction: o ELA classrooms displayed Reading Street, but this curriculum was in use in only one out of six observations. o There was almost no authentic reading in ELA: just isolated skill work (e.g., categorizing adjectives). Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 35 Challenges  The level of rigor was low in most classes, with lots of worksheet and high technology use.  The opportunities for students to collaborate were inconsistent from classroom to classroom.  The class sizes were also inconsistent (example: one English classroom had 4 students, one EL classroom had 28 students). As a team, we were unsure of how enrollment in each class worked.  The lack of substitutes was also an issue at this school, as it was throughout the district.  There was little evidence of intentional and meaningful learning/connection to real world (procedural work vs. application).  There did not seem to be consistent language or expectations surrounding behavior. School G Successes  There were a few strong classrooms with good routines, engagement, integration across the subjects, and culturally responsive teaching - including a science and a French classroom.  ELA instruction did in some cases ask students to think critically and develop skills such as persuasion. Some ELA classes were using online learning (StudySync), and the quality appeared to be relatively strong. Questions were open ended and students were actively writing. Challenges  The review team found large inequities between academically advanced and general classrooms, especially integration classrooms.  Across the board, students were compliant but unengaged. Most instruction was rote, and it was not standards-aligned.  In inclusion classrooms, teachers used dismissive language and avoided engaging with the included students.  Math instruction was organized but largely procedural in nature. Students were called upon to give answers or describe procedures, but were not given opportunities to discuss ideas or think about math in a complex way.  Some portion of students in each classroom was disengaged or disruptive, and there were some students who openly defied teachers with no apparent consequences.  Bullying seemed to be an issue for students, and sometimes fights, especially on Fridays. School H Successes  The school environment was clean, bright, and orderly. Student artwork and cultural representations lined the hallways. Teachers reported feeling like the school is a family – the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 36 staff care about, support, and enjoy camaraderie with one another. The school felt safe and everyone seems calm and relaxed, and speak with pride about the school.  A few of the classes were engaging and interactive. These tended to be electives or courses in which teachers had developed new content. Challenges  In the majority of classrooms, students were not focused. In many classrooms, students sat quietly with headphones in, stared at their phones, completely disconnected from the environment around them.  In one classroom, students were copying and pasting segments of the text into answer boxes. For example, the title of the article was “Ninth Grade: The Most Important Year of High School.” When prompted to read the title and explain what they expected the piece to be about, students copied the words “the most important year of high school” as their answer. This continued throughout the reading comprehension exercise. In another class, students were taking a quiz on remedial-level math problems, and often just used a calculator to find the answer and then typing it into the online quiz.  Looking at the online learning organizational platform dominated instructional time. Students often just clicked back and forth to act as if they were occupied. School I Challenges  The vast majority of observations witnessed classrooms where no instruction at all was taking place. In several cases, teachers were missing with no clear reason, and we noted with surprise that it was not apparent that the principal had a clear picture of who was where, teaching what, and when.  The instruction that did take place was largely procedural and unengaging. Mostly, teachers would undertake the work of the lesson, and students would volunteer to “fill in the blank,” but there were no opportunities for serious engagement with ideas or for students to explain their thinking.  Teachers circulated and could persuade students to do a single problem or question with some prompting, but most students spent most of their time on their phones or socializing, yelling, or moving about the room.  Teachers were heard yelling at students constantly throughout the building. Discipline appeared to be enacted with no clear pattern, and rules varied significantly from room to room.  Bullying, both verbal and physical, was open and visible around the school. Some students visibly tried to hide or distance themselves from their peers to avoid conflict.  Transitions were a major problem at the school and contribute to the lack of instruction taking place. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 37  There was no visible coherence from classroom to classroom. Although online remediation- type math programs were witnessed in many classrooms, every classroom seemed to be using something different.  None of the principal’s stated plans for school improvement related to classroom instruction. School J Successes  The overall school climate was safe and respectful.  Students seemed to engage purposefully with the content.  The school used instructional aides well, which was unique among the middle and high schools we visited.  CTE classes were strong. Challenges  Instruction in most classrooms was below grade level.  Students almost universally disliked the Summit program. They told the team that they were burned-out through the overuse of screen time, and bored. Some claimed that students actively left school as a result of the platform. There were classes we visited in which teachers appropriately integrated a blended learning model, but in most cases, students were just staring at the screens, totally disengaged.  Large numbers of students seem to be chronically absent. Because of the way the Summit program is set up, one student missed about half of the school year and still earned a B. School K Successes  Some classrooms provided positive learning environments. The arts and CTE programs had the materials they needed. Some teachers displayed evidence of good routines and competent planning, such as a lesson on The Poet X that was well organized and made good use of a second educator in the room, or a great standards-based geometry lesson. There was some evidence of strong student work product, especially in ELA. Students especially reported that they enjoyed the URI writing class. Challenges  There was an overall sense from the team that they saw two different schools here: one for those who chose to engage and were getting a decent education; the other for those who did not show interest and were left to do whatever they liked. The seating arrangements often Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 40 Successes Devotion of Some Principals, Teachers, and Supporting Staff Many interviewees commented upon the devotion of individual teachers and principals. So did students, many of whom complimented specific teachers. In one school, we heard almost universally positive comments about the principal. It became clear in focus groups and after-school conversations that teachers are committed to their students and deeply distressed when their students are short-changed. Teachers reported in several schools that the very hardships they faced in their teaching work had prompted them to work more intensely with their colleagues - including after hours – for the sake of children. The team heard about good teaching from students in Kindergarten (specific examples of differentiation) and 3-5th Grades. We heard from ELL, Math and Reading coaches that they think very positively about their principal. We heard about strong efforts to get to know students’ parents, including via multiple digital platforms (Kinvolved, Class Dojo, PTO Facebook, etc.). Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) We heard from many teachers and principals about the district’s efforts to support the emotional and social well-being of students, and to approach this inclusively across the whole school. Although teachers and principals constantly referenced the need for even more resources in this domain, almost all interviewees appeared convinced of the necessity and importance of this work and recognized that there has been a modest increase in resources. There is real pride in the fact that SEL is being implemented in some schools. Challenges Facilities One elementary school stood out as having excellent building conditions: the furniture and paint appeared to be new, and the classrooms were well appointed and spacious. This proved to be an exception, as the schools varied considerably in their physical condition. The worst reduced seasoned members of the review team to tears. For instance, in one school,  “Students here wanted my [review team member’s] magic wand to fix the ‘crumbling floors;’ they wanted locks on the bathroom stalls; they said that ‘sometimes the water is brown.’”  We interviewed teachers at the end of the day and many of them brought up similar concerns, including lead in the drinking water. Our team later took a picture of a letter from the EPA that was posted above the drinking fountain on the first floor confirming the lead story. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 41  Teachers told us that there was lead paint falling from the ceiling on the third floor, and that kindergarteners were not allowed up there but that the fourth grade was housed on that same contaminated floor. One team member witnessed brown water coming out of a tap. The teachers confirmed that the water was brown and had stained the sinks.  Our team saw that “the paint on the ceilings on the third floor were peeling in sheets. We didn’t see any actually falling off while we were there, but teachers reported that it actually does come down in sheets from time to time.”  The teachers said that there was also asbestos on the third floor. A staff member told us that the gym was on the bottom floor, and that there was a leaking raw sewer pipe in the ceiling for over a year. It dripped on the heads of the children as they passed through the threshold, and they had had to dodge the drips and the puddle. He had asked to have it fixed, had filed grievances, and finally posted the issue on social media. This seems to have produced results; although he got called into the office, the problem was fixed within a couple days after posting it publicly.  Teachers also told us there were rodents in the school, and that students had sticky mouse traps stuck to their shoes.  Also reports of constant leaks- one teacher said s/he had 8 buckets in her room all year. Students interviewed in this school told the team they didn’t feel safe – several said “we feel safer at home.” They reported 32 students in a room without enough chairs so they sat on the floor. One team member from JHU, with deep experience of visiting the most physically run-down schools in Arkansas and Georgia, reported that “nothing s/he saw was like what I witnessed in Providence.” Such extreme problems were not ubiquitous, but facilities problems did seem to occur frequently.  In one school, students and teachers spoke of floors and ceilings in need of repairs. Our team saw that “the walls were visibly crumbling., the lighting was too dark, the water fountains did not work, and many tables were badly chipped.”  In another, our team member noted that “the smell of stale urine in the physical therapy room was so strong that I had to hold my breath.” It was clear from interviews across the system that getting repairs done is a haphazard business. One principal reported that to get a broken window fixed took “from one day to a month.” Transportation is also problematic; in one school, children who want to attend after school clubs cannot participate, because there is no bus available. Collective Bargaining Agreement Hiring and dismissal policies Of all the issues raised across all interviews, the CBA hiring policies came in for the greatest critique. One principal wanted the ability to re-hire the right staff but could not get rid of the weakest teachers. The team was told by teachers in another school that the inability of a school to fire the weakest teachers was a real problem, because there were teachers who “just weren’t doing what they were Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 42 supposed to be doing.” One principal reported still going to hearings about a teacher who had finally been put on administrative leave for repeated, inappropriate physical contact with children. The teacher is still on the roster and is still paid. We heard frequently from principals that the district’s “criterion-based hiring” is far from being so. Principals report that they are not able to determine why a teacher has been labeled as “displaced.” It might be for academic incompetence or due to consolidation, and knowing which is critical for intelligent hiring choices. More importantly, the multiple rounds that make up the hiring system undermine strong faculty placements. The team was told that principals usually cannot hire from outside the district until all inside-the-district candidates have been placed, which means that principals may be forced to hire an underperforming, but senior, teacher. Every time a job is filled, the teacher holds the post for a year before the process starts again- producing what one principal called “a limbo of churn every year.” Principals described the process in detail as follows:  First Round. First, principals post new jobs in their schools to teachers who already work there, in process known as within-school teacher preferences. o Several principals reported that they felt pressured by the union to give these teachers their preferred jobs, even if the principal did not believe it was in students’ best interests. Principals reported that they had “no say” in determining the grade level in which teachers work. o If no teacher within the school wants the job, it opens up for the second round.  Second Round. At this stage, the job opening is posted to all currently-placed teachers in the district. o Principals must interview a minimum of three applicants for the job. Several principals indicated that they were required to interview the most senior applicant and, although they do not have to appoint that individual, many principals suggested there was pressure to do so. o At this stage, the principal can choose the candidate. However, the candidate has 48 hours to respond, in which interim the principal cannot offer the job to anyone else while the applicant can see what other job offers are available – and select the best one. o Simultaneously, “this same dance is going on across the district.” Principals indicated that there was a strategy involved with when jobs are announced and when offers are made, in order to try to attain the best candidates before they land at other schools. o If the job is not filled at this stage, it moves on to open forced placement.  Third Round. At this stage, the district holds a hiring fair, otherwise known as the “displaced teacher fair.” o All open jobs within the district are posted, and displaced teachers are lined up by seniority. They enter a room one at a time where the open positions are posted, choose the one they would like, and it becomes theirs for one year, after which time they must go through the process again. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 45 perception of PPSD” was a constant backdrop and sap on morale. Teachers told us that the lack of supports was hurting children in their school. In one school, teachers remarked that “they have third graders who have already given up and checked out.” Principals’ morale is also low. We heard, for instance:  “Firing is nonexistent.”  “No subs to be found, no money for PD, and we’re not a community school anymore.”6  Principals spend time on lunch duties but have little time left for the classroom. The review team also witnessed several troubling examples of teacher behavior. In one elementary school, a teacher berated students while trying to get them to the bathroom.  The teacher asked the students (who were likely in third or fourth grade) to line up by gender and allowed them to go into the bathrooms one at a time.  The teacher yelled at the students the entire time, taking away minutes of their recess on a clip board as punishment for misbehaving.  The observer noted that the children were standing peacefully in line and chatting with their neighbors, but the teacher wanted silence. Finally, the teacher told them to put their hands in the air, stating, "I should see the backs of your heads and the backs of your hands." In the same school, another member of our team witnessed other teachers who were disrespectful and very loud towards younger students. We overheard scornful yelling in the hallways as teachers and aides placed students into lines for extracurriculars or the bathroom. The issue of teachers’ view of their environment also came up. In one school, teachers told the team that none of them lived in the district or sent their children to PPSD schools. This pattern was repeated in all the schools we visited; almost unanimously, teachers told us that they would send their children to a PPSD school “only if they could pick the teachers.7” Team members at this school observed, and principals confirmed, high rates of teacher absenteeism. One example: in one elementary school, the office board listed fifteen absent teachers. Student absenteeism came up frequently but appears to vary considerably school to school. o In one school, our team was told that “10% of the classes are missing every day, with two to three tardies on top of that.” o In another school, we were told that “half the kids on our roster are missing every day.” o In a third school, we were told that one cause of absences is that students are afraid of being deported by ICE. o Teams were told that PPSD appeared to exercise “no accountability” towards schools on this issue. Student bullying is clearly another issue; in one elementary school, students told us that bullying occurred “every day at lunch,” and that stealing from backpacks happened frequently. One school 6 Many teachers noted the lack of community schools as “ruining the culture.” 7 The president of the PTU said that 80% of PPSD teachers lived outside the district. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 46 had “quiet rooms,” described by both a classroom observer and a parent as “solitary confinement rooms.” Several rooms used for behavioral interventions didn’t show up on our school map. In three schools, our team was told by multiple students about “arranged fights” “often involving girls” that took place “especially on Fridays” and that were “actively promoted on social media.” One elementary school principal told the team that her most important contribution to her school was “ensuring that the students feel safe.” Curriculum Teachers, principals, and even students noted the lack of an established curricula as problematic. Representative anecdotes include:  Teachers said it was hard on students to experience inconsistent curricula from class to class and grade to grade. When asked about the fact that there were supposed to be just four curricula vetted by the district, we were told about multiple impediments: in one school, the new curriculum materials did not arrive until November and included no appropriate materials for IEP students.  In other cases, it was clear that ambivalence about using a particular curriculum started at the top. In one school, the principal told us that the school had purchased Eureka [a math curriculum] but that s/he was “not a fan of programs” and so “considers Eureka more of a resource than a curriculum.” Nevertheless, this principal intended to purchase three new ELA curricula next year.  Without PD, teachers often use older curricula, and mixtures from all over including the internet (as confirmed by our team in the classroom visits). In one school, the principal listed almost 20 different curricula, between math and ELA, that are in use.  SPED teachers reported that they “are constantly needing to find and/or create our own curriculum, and the resources to use it.” In one school, SPED teachers were “asked to put in for a donor” who would support the purchase of curriculum materials.  In our conversations with students across schools, many reported curriculum gaps – no science in a grade level in one school, no social studies in a grade level in another. Representative quotes include:  “We use what we can find,” said an elementary school teacher in a group interview.  Teachers in several schools told the team that they would “trade autonomy for a curriculum.” Interviews with High School (and some Middle) Teachers, Principals, and Students The review team also meet with administrators, teachers, and students in every school. We heard about several some positive initiatives in schools, such as the increased enrollment in Advanced Placement courses, better communication with parents via Kinvolved, and a new data system in place to monitor students’ social and emotional behavior. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 47 However, the teachers and students with whom we spoke focused almost exclusively upon the negatives, as did most administrators. As indicated above, the most frequently cited challenges were low academic expectations, dysfunctional and/or dangerous school culture, and student needs that are not adequately supported. These issues came up repeatedly and across multiple constituencies. Within the school culture conversations, there was general agreement amongst teachers, but not amongst principals, that the pressure to reduce suspensions has resulted in a lack of safety in schools. There was also widespread agreement that students’ social and emotional needs are not being met – to the detriment of both learning and environment. Administrators and many teachers repeated the claim that the district includes teachers who should not be in front of children. In one middle school, we were told in several groups about one particular teacher who was known for making profane and racist slurs against students, but could not be removed because “s/he lawyers up and cannot be fired.” Because of the ubiquity of these sentiments, we provide findings that cut across all constituencies except where noted. Low Academic Expectations Interviewees spoke consistently and frequently about a lack of rigor and also the generally low expectations. They cited the following as contributing factors:  Great variability in the quality of instruction, and very little accountability for teacher performance.  Limited support for instruction.  Lack of a common curriculum and the absence of curriculum consistency exacerbated by student mobility, emphasis on procedural math and poor-quality reading material.  Teacher absenteeism.  Deficiency in content expertise among secondary teachers.  Multiple instances of very poor implementation of the Summit learning platform, which is part of a general perception that a lot of money spent on technology but with very inadequate professional support. Unfortunately, the statements by some principals about their schools did not match academic results. For instance, one principal reported that “85-90% of the teachers are effective,” and that s/he would “feel great about sending [their] own kids attending this school.” Yet the most recent proficiency results in math for that school are below 5%. When asked whether their students were getting a rigorous education, the first two teacher responses at one school were, “Hmmmmm” and “No.” A third said, “Pressure to graduate students can make things really difficult.” In another school, a teacher said “Students know they don’t have to do anything to pass,” and a colleague added, “There’s pressure to pass kids even when they clearly don’t deserve it.” Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 50  A group of teachers in one school listened without push back when a colleague said: “There’s no student accountability…They’re using filthy language, cutting class, smoking weed in the bathrooms and there are no repercussions because the admins have been told they can’t suspend kids. There are no consequences for not showing up to detention.”  Another said, “A student can skip class 15 times with no consequences other than detention.” Cell phone usage is likewise problematic.  Cell phone use was a very common complaint of teachers across the schools we visited.  In one school, we were told the following: “There’s no penalty for being on a phone. At least 10 phones out are in my class every day. They are Facetiming and watching Netflix in the classroom with no headphones.”  In another, “Students are on their phones constantly. They don’t even talk to each other.”  Students’ remarks supported these reports. A representative comment from one of them: “There is constant phone usage among students. There’s no consistent policy for phones, every teacher is different. Some you have to put it away but others it’s a struggle. Some teachers don’t care.” Violent fighting and bullying are present often enough that students and teachers do not feel safe.  In one school, we were told that it is “very common for fights to erupt in cafeteria.”  Another school is “famous for fights. There are fights every week. At least one big fight per month.”  Assaults have gotten “very violent,” with girls throwing other girls on the floor, and then surrounded by other people kicking them. There are violent attacks on buses. “I had a new- arrival student go into the bathroom and another student pummeled his head into the wall and there were no consequences for it. Teachers have almost given up entering infractions because they know there is no follow-through.”  We heard often about bullying. One principal remarked that, “There needs to be more focus on bullying, which has become a bigger problem due to social media. It is now ‘too easy’ to be a bully. A detective assists with bullying issues and has met with families at the police station to mediate.”  There are gang problems. According to one teacher, “I had 12 gang members in my classroom who ended up being arrested. Nobody had warned me…” One teacher put it this way: “Students emulate others exhibiting poor behavior because there is no discipline. One student not doing work became two and then three. They see that they can just sit on their phone and watch videos and not work.” There is an important and concerning divergence between teachers’ and principals’ views about suspensions and student behavior. Teachers told reviewers that that it is now too difficult to suspend kids. They report that the directive to maintain low suspension rates comes from RIDE. The implementation of restorative justice is widely regarded as poor or worse, resulting in no consistent discipline policy within schools and disruptive and sometimes violent student behavior and student and teacher concerns about safety. We heard several references to the fact that there was no preparation for teachers to manage the new Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 51 system: “Teachers have received zero training in restorative justice. It’s not working here.” This concern was pervasive across the schools. It was clear from other interviews that many teachers believed that decreased suspension rates had a lot to do with a failure to enforce disciplinary measures for serious offences. Teachers feel unsafe. In one school, a math teacher was out for two weeks because s/he had been pushed down in the hall by a student. Principals seem to see the issue differently.  One said to us: “There were 2,000 suspensions when he started his job compared to 40 in the most recent year. Now, students are not referred to student affairs “unless they have a gun or assault a teacher.” They now boast “the lowest suspension rate in the city.”  The review team was told in one school that the administration deliberately manipulates suspension data. In the words of one interviewee, "Several students were out after they deliberately planned for, and then took part in, a video-recorded fight. They were out for one week but were labeled as “suspended for one day,” for admin purposes. If someone looks at attendance records for the last week, there were multiple students who didn’t take a test. Students were out suspended but marked as absent to keep suspension rates artificially low. Pressure comes from the state. This has been happening for at least 2 or 3 years now." Low academic expectations, troubled school cultures, and a lack of student supports were by far the most frequent remarks we heard, and they were validated by our classroom and school observations. We include several other issues that arose frequently, below. Staffing and Collective Bargaining Agreement Many interviewees noted the following concerns:  The Collective Bargaining Agreement. o One of the principals told us that he “feels powerless to intervene if a teacher is performing poorly.” o Another principal stated, “In the case of an abusive teacher, s/he is placed on unpaid administrative leave but then ‘lawyers up’ through the union and ultimately returns to the classroom.” o A third principal said “Bad teachers in the district are “reshuffled…They just make the rounds every year. It’s a toxic dynamic.” o We heard several stories from principals such as the following (specifics omitted to protect identity): “You try to get the good ones but otherwise it’s a forced placement. I had one teacher who interviewed for [subject x] that we didn’t select. In the end s/he was force-placed here anyway…There was another teacher at [school Y] falling asleep in front of children….S/he would make up grades for students because s/he didn’t even know them. We fought her placement but the union prevailed. S/he Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 52 ended up here and… made false claims about [Z]. S/he has been on leave since then.…. [Another] teacher missed [more than 70] days last year and was asleep when we got to the HR meeting. The union negotiated his/her punishment down to a [few days] suspension.”  Staffing shortages. A lack of substitute teachers often results in “teachers’ teaching where they are unassigned.” We were told several times about long-term teacher vacancies and heard multiple reports of high levels of teacher absenteeism.  There were widespread accounts of low teacher morale (with exceptions), with multiple expressions of teachers feeling underappreciated, stressed, and anxious. Coupled with this, we heard about administrative reliance on “imperfect, gameable metrics” as measures of success (e.g. suspension rates).  Almost all principals wanted more authority to hire and remove teachers – one said “If I can’t reach expectation then fire me, but I need more control over who works here. I want more control and more responsibility.” PPSD Central Office Most of the comments made by those we interviewed were not positive. There was the frequent expression of a disconnect between central office and the conditions on the ground in the schools.  One school counselor told the team that s/he is “beyond frustrated” about the relationship with central office, noting that “they never visit the school but are critical anyway.”  One teacher said, “Here in Providence, the central office functions as an ivory tower. Many decisions are made there with no insight into how things will be implemented. They could put the Nike symbol on the building because everything is just ‘do it.’”  Another said: “Different initiatives are adopted from behavioral to academic to lunch programs. There is no insight into how such programs are implemented. Some employees are out of touch with practice.”  We were told that, in certain cases, directors in charge of principals have never been principals. Of one such case, a teacher asked why the director would be leading middle schools, “all of which are failing,” and finding the principals to be “’highly effective?’”  One administrator said, “The central office is constantly adding staff they don’t need. All kinds of people with different titles. The director of partnerships has 2 people under them. It’s unclear what they do. Human Resources is larger than ever, but nothing has actually changed for schools.”  We heard several references to the sense that the office doesn’t recognize real achievement. A principal reported that “lack of respect for work from central office” was one of the on- going challenges. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 55 We had gym, we had tennis, we had track and field…..Now they’re only allowed to walk. -PPSD Substitute Teacher School Culture and Needed Support Services Respondents almost uniformly agreed that there was inconsistent discipline and chaotic student behavior, and that many children feel unsafe. There were accounts by parents and students of bullying by both students and teachers, and recommendations for more support services, trauma training, and cultural-responsiveness training. Teachers’ contract allows them to be out too often, substitutes are ineffective and kids are losing out! I have a child - middle school- in “advanced academics” and she sits in the hallway so she can get work done. -PPSD Parent All I want is for my children to feel safe at school. -PPSD Parent Teachers are fed up and burnt out. Since the school year began, 3 of our child's 7th grade teachers have left with subs filling in. If teachers are not there to teach, children don't learn. Behavioral issues from half of the student population nearly halt the learning process on a daily basis. Our children are stressed by this behavior and do not always feel safe. -PPSD Parent We had a couple cut ups in the class… There were students who would get up and they’d start shooting paper at the door like they were playing basketball. This kid once said to these kids “Shut the [explicative] up – I’m trying to get an education.” - PPSD Teacher Every school needs a full-time social worker. Cause those kids need someone to talk to – maybe they don’t have gym but they have an hour to talk to someone. Your child might have a bigger issue. I can’t teach if the behavior doesn’t warrant it. There are a lot of people who want to teach but people are running from PPSD because of the behavior. That’s Providence’s biggest problem. -PPSD Teacher Facilities Respondents agreed that school facilities were in “deplorable” condition and cited examples of lead drinking water, lead paint, mold, “broken asbestos tiles,” rodents, and no heat or air conditioning. Students know which schools are being invested in. They say, “That school has air conditioning, and computers, and books.” Are we really investing in all students? - Community Member Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 56 Communication and Parent Engagement Respondents agreed that communication at the school and district level was wanting. Parents cited this as a reason for their perceived lack of engagement, feeling that it was difficult to advocate for their students. Many mentioned the absence of parent-teacher conferences at the school level9 and their difficulties to obtain even an annual meeting with a classroom teacher. RIDE needs to go to parents instead of expecting parents to come out to them. – PPSD Parent Communication is haphazard at all levels in the schools. School to school it is different. It is not happening consistently. -PPSD Parent It is kind of a part-time job advocating for your kid. – PPSD Parent Because of language barriers and work schedules, if you are not linked up with outside supports or advocacy groups, there is no one standing up for you. - PPSD Parent Chronic Absenteeism and Teacher Diversity Respondents agreed that chronic absenteeism, both of students and teachers, was a challenge in the district. A form letter used by many respondents called for stopping teachers who abused the system. Relatedly, there were many complaints about the lack of substitute teachers and the resulting problems of overcrowding in classrooms - and the impact on learning. Respondents also agreed about the need for a teacher corps that more closely reflected the demographic makeup of the student body, calling for the hiring of more racially diverse teachers and citing the importance of students’ seeing themselves reflected in the leadership of the school. There is minimal teacher diversity. -PPSD Parent There is a fair bit of name-calling [among students], including homophobic and racist slurs. I am also very disappointed that the teaching corps does not reflect the student body's diversity; students need to see themselves reflected in school leaders. -PPSD Parent I visited [School A] for a tour because that is our neighborhood school. I was shocked to see the number of teachers absent and a shortage of substitute teachers to cover the classes. -PPSD Parent 9The decision to hold parent/teacher conferences was reportedly left up to the schools. Some chose not to have conferences. Others held parent nights to which at least one parent reported the classroom teachers failed to attend. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 57 At both [School B and School C], we have had issues with teachers being chronically absent….There are a number of things I would like to see improved, however the main things are having good leadership who show an interest in the children and their learning and then having less teachers absences. -PPSD Parent Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 60 Devotion of Some Principals, Teachers, and District Leaders Many of the partners we interviewed commented upon the devotion of individual teachers and principals. Representative comments include:  “Teachers are deeply invested in their students.”  “There are great relationships between teachers and principals in many schools.”  “Principals are asked to do too many things – but they stay for the sake of the kids.”  “Principals are the unsung heroes of our system.”  “Our team talks principals off the ledge all the time; they’re staying just to help kids. They don’t get enough credit.” Some schools and principals came in for particular praise. DelSesto Middle School, for instance, received kudos from partners for a strong school culture – and cultural coordinators - and good working relationships amongst staff. Teachers in the focus group were clearly committed to their students; many of them spend their own money, not only on supplies for students, but also for jackets and coats; many of them noted that they “stay for the kids,” despite the working conditions and difficulties (noted later). For their part, several district leaders broke down in tears when describing the negative impact of the challenges (see below) upon children; a few had left the district for a time but returned out of commitment to the students. Challenges Governance and Vision All but one of the groups we interviewed believe that the structure of the system is deeply problematic and contributes to the inability of leaders to provide a vision. Most of the interviewees noted that there were “too many masters,” i.e., the School Board, the Mayor, the City Council, the state. One person noted, “There are all these chefs stirring the pot, but the soup never gets made.” (We have listed Procurement as its own theme, but it is clearly related to governance.) Several specific sub-topics came up again and again, within the general theme of multiple layers of governance.  Political patronage. It is the feeling of many teachers, district leaders, and partners, that political favoritism is woven throughout the system. The strength of this belief was striking to the review team. Comments included: o “We’re not sure who has whose ear.” o “Confronting racism or underperformance is risky. There are backdoor deals that happen and personal friendships are at play.” o “Nothing is confidential. If you act as your ‘bold self,’ you could get a call from a council member or senator. Budgets could be impacted.” o “It all depends on who you know.”  City’s Authority. Few interviewees (only two individuals) believe the city’s oversight is beneficial. The rest noted that schools have to compete with other items in the city budget and that there is scant educational experience amongst the city’s leadership. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 61 o That the Mayor negotiates the Collective Bargaining Agreement is considered a serious constraint to most district leaders and partners, who talked not only of the Mayor but “the mayor’s team.” o One partner noted that the Superintendent is not even party to the CBA negotiation; three partners and district leaders asked, given the lack of meaningful authority, “Who would want to become the superintendent of Providence Public Schools?”  District’s Priorities. Many teachers, partners, and even district leaders feel that the district’s systemic priorities skew toward adults rather than students. o Partners believe the compliance side of the district is getting worse. o The Human Capital office in particular is perceived as protectionist and also politically protected. o Many district leaders and teachers feel that the district “is an organizational organization, not an instructional organization.” There are “too many meetings and grievance hearings, and not enough concern for students.” “There is no priority on instructional practice.” o “This organization is upside down. Students need to be the most important element. All systems should be fueling the students at the top of the pyramid. The piece that is missing every time is getting into the classroom to give instructional feedback.” o “The growth in district-level hiring has no relevance to student achievement.” o While very few interviewees commented upon the current superintendent, those who did were mostly favorable about his vision.  Rhode Island Department of Education. Issues with RIDE’s leadership and priorities include: o RIDE focuses on curriculum but not on instruction; it is not interested in professional development. o The star system of rating schools makes it more difficult for schools to accept large numbers of ELL and Special Education students. o RTI’s are onerous; teachers have to spend too much time documenting everything. o RIDE issues unfunded mandates that burden schools (there were several comments about PD requirements). o RIDE exerts pressure on districts to lower suspension rates, which affects school culture negatively. o RIDE requires federally funded fiscal negotiations “based on 98% of prior year,” which “puts us in the constant amendment process. And the process changes constantly.” o The Department does not concern itself with facilities problems – such as lead abatement funding. The overlapping networks of authority are no doubt related to the lack of vision, which partners and teachers frequently mentioned (with exceptions for particular district offices, noted above). Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 62 Collective Bargaining Agreement One of the most striking findings was the agreement across all groups except for one that two features of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) are detrimental to student success: the hiring policies and the restriction on professional development days. Hiring and dismissal policies. Of all the issues raised across all interviews, the CBA hiring policies came in for the greatest critique. Every single group and most individuals (except for one group – a district office) named the CBA as one of the top most pressing problems for schools. In general terms, district leaders, teachers, and partners referred to the CBA as “oriented towards staff, not students”; “based on adults, not children”; “a roadblock.” It must be noted that this was highlighted in several conversations as particularly problematic for teachers of color, who are “chased out by other teachers” without apparent consequences. In specific terms:  The hiring process. o In November or December, principals list their personnel needs for the following year. o Teachers in that school, and then across the district, may apply for these jobs based upon seniority. o Displaced teachers across the district may apply for these jobs based upon seniority (more on displacement below). o Principals must accept these applications, provided the certification aligns. Only afterwards may the positions be posted externally. o The process is seen to protect poorly-performing teachers and require principals to hire staff who may not align with his or her vision for the school.  The dismissal process. o All interviewees except for the Human Capital office noted that there have been no dismissals due to financial constraints or to performance; “the number of teachers who have been let go on account of performance is exactly nil.” o The onerous process of documenting low performance was cited as a factor, but several partners and district leaders also claimed that no one is willing to actually dismiss a teacher because “Human Capital says the School Board wouldn’t allow it” or “the Superintendent says it doesn’t look good politically.” o Four interviewees, from four different groups, provided a specific number of low- performing teachers (55) who should be let go immediately.  Consequences for schools. o The large majority of interviewees consider the consequences of these policies and the seeming lack of political will to be dire.  Loss of morale in schools. Teachers and leaders alike said that, in every school, teachers know which of their colleagues are not serving students well. Six partners and teachers cited additional experiences with negative pressure from peers, who indicated that “going the extra mile” makes everyone look bad. Specifically, we heard, “Unions discriminate against hard work. They put pressure on those who go above the bare minimum and ask ‘why?’ if you Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 65 o “There are hundreds of contracts, hundreds of purchase orders. Even philanthropic dollars have to go through the process.” o “The whole process is cumbersome.” o “There are constant meetings.”  Invoicing is “problematic; if you don’t bird-dog it, it disappears.”  There is insufficient attention paid to program evaluation, once a new one is in place. o “Data-sharing agreements are impossible to get and the process is cumbersome.”  Finally, the district’s budgetary process is viewed from the outside as opaque. One district leader contended that any request for more funding should be preceded by “confidence that we’re spending what we have, appropriately.” A related concern is about the state’s lack of transparency. One group indicated that “the state does not allow access to the data of students currently enrolled in Food Stamps that would automatically make them eligible for USDA programs. This is not only a significant issue for the lunch program which is 100% federally funded, but it has an impact on the overall state aid the district receives.” School Culture – particularly in Secondary Grades We encountered widespread agreement that the culture in many schools – particularly middle and high schools - causes distress for students, teachers, and principals. Elementary schools were, by and large, commended for having somewhat less chaos, more instructional support, and “more granular, classroom-level connections.” The middle and high schools, on the other hand, are “a disaster.” Discipline. Many teachers do not feel safe in school, and most partners and district staff concur. There is a general feeling that actions do not have consequences, and that teachers are at physical and emotional risk. One interviewee feels like “the tired, drained teachers of Providence are dragging kids across the finish line.” A few representative comments:  “My best teacher’s desk was urinated on, and nothing happened.”  “One of our teachers was choked by a student in front of the whole class. Everybody was traumatized, but nothing happened.”  “When we refer a student, we get zero response. Kindergartners punch each other in the face – with no consequences.”  “Principals are not allowed to suspend.” Some of these issues likely result from pressure to reduce suspensions. Teachers and district leaders feel that children with behavioral problems are allowed to continue, passed from one classroom and school to another. Several noted that the number of social workers in schools is too modest.  Said one district leader, “the data masks what’s happening. We can SAY we’re reducing suspensions, but we’re just churning middle schoolers.”  Several teachers note that the plan to implement restorative practices foundered because of lack of PD, but “we’re still supposed to use them. Restorative practices cannot be done unless everybody in the building is trained.” Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 66 The Student Affairs Office (SAO) came up frequently in this issue. Teachers are seldom informed when a child in their classroom has been violent, but “if an SAO student skips my class, I’m in trouble.”  Students are passed from one school to another; “some schools have become dumping grounds for kids.”  One district leader noted that principals often “bargain” about problem children, doing whatever they can to avoid taking a troublemaker.  One district leader said simply, “the students run the buildings.” It must be noted that support staff, including bus drivers, share these concerns. One interviewee noted that “many bus drivers are getting injured,” but when they bring safety concerns to the district, “it falls on deaf ears.” Racial mis-match between students and teachers. The lack of diversity of Providence’s teaching force, and barriers to teachers of color, came up in multiple interviews across multiple stakeholders. Lack of instructional core.  Most teachers, most district leaders, many partners, and some students mentioned the lack of coherent curriculum – and the related “school autonomy” - as a problem. Two teachers noted with regret that “we have to write the curriculum”; a district leader commented that “we used to have a coherent curriculum. It might not have been the highest quality, but we shared it.”  All partners, many teachers, and most district leaders noted that principals are “not able to be instructional leaders” because “they are asked to hold grievances during the day; they are required to provide fixed asset reports that are 30 pages long”; and their roles “have been turned into roles of compliance.”  Almost all interviewees noted that budgetary constraints meant that the number of induction coaches for first-year teachers had been drastically cut, and that few middle and high schools had on site instructional coaches (unlike elementary schools).  Almost all interviewees highlighted the lack of substitute teachers. When a teacher is absent, the students are often distributed across multiple classrooms. Capacity. Many of the groups cited the following as key problems that must be solved.  Substitute teachers. There seems to be a chronic shortage of substitute teachers, while many subs are not qualified. One partner said the students were “taught by long-term subs who were yoga instructors, not physics teachers.”  Adequate bilingual supports. Many parents, partners, and teachers mentioned that the schools had little to no capacity to serve English Language Learners and their parents. Low Expectations There is widespread agreement among district leaders and partners that all parties (state, district, teachers, and the business community) hold very low expectations for Providence’s students, with Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 67 tragic results. The phrase “students are underchallenged” came up almost a dozen times throughout the interviews. Representative comments:  “There isn’t enough rigor. Students aren’t supported in challenging work or in advanced programs.”  “We face a culture of low expectations. I visit schools and go out in my car and cry because the expectations of students are so low.”  “The low expectations are discriminatory and racist” (repeated multiple times).  “The biggest challenge is translating equity and rigor to the school level.”  “Equity and excellence are not on the table.”  “The saddest part is that our students and families know it. Students know they’re not being prepared for success.” Interviews with RIDE Staff, Mayor’s Staff, President of the PTU, and Providence Business Stakeholders The interview team was comprised of:  Dr. Domingo Morel, Rutgers University, Assistant Professor of Political Science, founder of Latino Policy Institute at Roger Williams University  Karen Taresevich, Superintendent, West Warwick  Dr. Angela Watson, Johns Hopkins University RIDE Staff Interviews This interview took place with staff at the Rhode Island Department of Education. A number of those interviewed were visibly distressed at what they reported during the conversation. Several expressed optimism about the new Commissioner. Successes  Use of data. Providence has done the most out of all of the districts to use and present data. Their dashboard and capacity to use the data to good effect is strong. Interviewees did add that elementary school principals are the strongest at using the data.  Individual schools. There are many good teachers and principals at the schools, and many assets despite the challenges. There are many challenges but there are strong assets. Schools are less committed to the status quo than the district is. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 70  Conduct annual “retreats,” with periodic check-ins, between City and district to address lack of communication and coordination. President of the Providence Teachers’ Union (Maribeth Calabro) The President’s overall perspective is that PPSD and the union are working effectively, but that the Mayor and RIDE are not. Successes  Personalized learning: use of Chromebook and Summit. She acknowledges that, when it works, students could work on their own and then receive small-group instruction or be one- on-one with teachers.  The union-assisted, five-year strategic plan. The union president felt like it wasn’t going to be a “one and done” but did incorporate “new ideas and new people.” They are two years into the plan, and she thinks people support it and things are better. Challenges Some issues with Teaching and Learning  Teachers “have PTSD” from mass firing and “sharp pendulum swings,” e.g., from minute-to- minute classroom pacing, then complete autonomy. Teachers no longer trust that initiatives will be followed through.  Substitute teachers. RIDE needs to work harder to create pipelines for teachers of color, including for substitute teachers of color.  Professional development. Teachers need more PD – not only on instruction, but also trauma, cultural competency, dealing with grief. The Race to the Top grant supported PD, but it is now over. Governance  RIDE. o RIDE’s mandates change frequently. She worked with Commissioner Gist on an educator evaluation model with an effectiveness rating tied to certification, indicators and grades…then with Commissioner Wagner, the pendulum swung the other way: it became “us versus them, setting Providence up to fail.” o RIDE has unrealistic timelines. She gave the example of RICAS, which were taken in April of last year, but the results only came in February of this year and then teachers “were expected to move the needle in six weeks.”  Mayor. The President views the Mayor as a “detriment” to the district’s progress. Specifically, o The Mayor micro-manages, including interviewing all non-union employees. o He has an unfavorable view of the union and creates an “us vs them” atmosphere. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 71 o He shows favoritism, such as giving a signing bonus of $250,000 to a new bus company. Business Leaders’ Focus Group The business leaders with whom we met described a school system that vastly underperforms. They noted that the Chamber of Commerce has an education committee since the “key to economic development is improved schools,” but at the same time, these leaders feel unsure of what they can do to make the school system better. Representative comments include:  When asked to rate PPSD schools on a rating of 1-5 with five being the highest, all present agreed on a “1” rating for the schools.  This group of interviewees said clearly that they are ready to help, but didn’t really know what to do, and don’t want to spend money to no effect or put band-aids on a broken system.  One member said (to agreement from the others), “The mission of schools doesn’t seem to be clear. We aren’t all marching in the same direction.”  They expressed concern about PPSD: “You drive by here (PPSD) at 2:30pm and the parking lot is empty. You drive by the schools and the parking lots are empty.” Success An internship at one of the high schools has helped to improve the dropout rate. Challenges  The absence of teachers of color, and the lack of a strong teacher pipeline, were referenced as a major challenge.  Wrap-around services are critically needed, especially for ELL students.  Schools needed more autonomy in purchasing and procurement.  The district needs additional funds from the state. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 72 PPSD District Site Visit Leadership: City Council, Providence School Board, Providence School Superintendent, Mayor May 20 – May 24, 2019 Summary The Leadership review team was comprised of five members: ● Dr. David Steiner, Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Angela Watson, Johns Hopkins University ● Superintendent Karen Tarasevich, West Warwick ● Dr. Domingo Morel, Rutgers University, Assistant Professor of Political Science, founder of Latino Policy Institute at Roger Williams University ● Dr. Jaime Aquino, Distinguished Educator, Rochester NY The interviews were conducted on-site in Providence. Team members interviewed representatives from the City Council and the School Board, and Drs. Steiner and Aquino conducted the interview with Superintendent Christopher N. Maher. We summarize below the information and opinions that were shared with us during our interviews. Because we believe it important to capture the perspectives of different governing bodies separately, the following summaries are divided accordingly. We have grouped the responses into similar headings so as to facilitate comparative and comparable review.11 Mayor Jorge Elorza12 As leader of the education system in Providence, Mayor Elorza summarized his position thus: “I ran on the platform of education.... Education is my priority…. The buck stops with me. I am the one the residents hold accountable.” 11 We interviewed council and board members in groups, so they did not get to hear what other colleagues shared with us. We did try to share observations of later groups with earlier ones, and indicate below where there was a marked difference of view from one or more members of each group. 12 Direct quotations are so marked. Other statements are paraphrases based upon the recording (with the Mayor’s permission) of the discussion. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 75 Challenges The Superintendent pointed to several challenges to moving performance in PPSD. Governance and Leadership The Superintendent said, “There is no alignment of priorities,” and just “too many masters in PPSD.” Throughout the interview, he stressed frustration with the need for micro-management of every initiative through endless layers, players and budget limits. He said that new expenses had been incurred in the millions of dollars with only a fraction then provided for payment. He mentioned an example of “$55 million in new costs vs $3.5 million in new revenue generated in 2011.” Overall, the Superintendent said that endless “trivia” occupy massive amounts of time. The key problem, the Superintendent said, was that “no one wanted to lose control.” With respect to specific entities:  School Board. He was not complimentary about the Board and said that they tend to micro- manage the district.  RIDE. The Superintendent said RIDE was understaffed and “unable to differentiate their support.”  The Mayor. o The Mayor’s relationship with the City Council is not always straightforward, e.g., a playground against an expenditure for a school. o The Mayor is “often at odds with RIDE.” o The Superintendent spoke for some time about the Mayor, who he said had taken over negotiation of the school contract and negotiations, and who held meetings with a large list of individuals inside the system, including clerks and laborers.14  City Council. The Council micro-manages every expenditure above $5,000. Furthermore, it doesn’t meet in August, while the School Board often doesn’t meet in July, resulting in months without action.  Superintendent’s office. The Superintendent is “often viewed as a department of the Mayor.” “I often feel I don’t have the authority.” Low Expectations The Superintendent said that the biggest single problem in PPSD was “low expectations” throughout the district. The most significant causes are: 14 The superintendent referred to the Mayor’s interviewing “crossing guards” as an example of micro-management. This example was used by several other individuals on the school board interviewed by the review team. As cited above, the Mayor explicitly denied that this occurred. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 76  The change in demographics, which has put severe strain on the system (the ELL student population has risen exponentially in the 2010-2019 years).  The Collective Bargaining Agreement is a “thick” teachers’ contract which gives a green light for grievances on “almost anything” and funds only one PD day per year. The Superintendent contrasted this with 24 days of PD per year at Achievement First. This reality leaves teachers unprepared.  A “massive teacher shortage” with an inadequate teacher pipeline. The Superintendent noted that last year Rhode Island College had produced only six certified science teachers.  Political patronage. Personal favors and relationships have an outsized influence in the district on matters small and large, such as extra dollars for ELL students, which finally came through a personal relationship with the Speaker.  Parents are left out. Finally, the Superintendent said that facing all of this, parents’ voices were often “spurned.” He heard from parent after parent, “We don’t know who to go to.” Teaching and Learning The Superintendent stressed that changing what is taught in the classroom is “very hard.” He said the old materials and curriculum were wholly inadequate. Teachers had also used Direct Instruction, or built their own curriculum, or followed whatever their particular school was doing. He had been pushing for limited curriculum autonomy that would enable teachers to choose from an approved short list but noted that this was a work in progress. In terms of the teaching corps, the Superintendent said that a large number of teachers had been in the system for some twenty years, and had thus signed up when the population of PPSD was different. It was in these circumstances that he had supported (and continues to support) the emphasis on digitally-based personalized learning. He believes that effective curriculum has to be presented in different, non-traditional ways, and that this is now increasingly taking place. U.S. Department of Justice The superintendent briefly discussed the findings of the U.S. Department of Justice that PPSD had provided inadequate services to ELL students – including the commitment to hire more teachers who were ELL certified. The Superintendent pointed out the “completely inadequate” historic level of funding support for this population from the state – which had only recently supplied PPSD with funding for ELL students. The Superintendent focused on the circumstances of PPSD students. He acknowledged that despite progress and good effort, there were still far too many instances in which the system was “failing to protect the civil rights of students.” He pointed to the fact that when a student was suspended once in middle school, he or she was six times more likely to drop out of high school, and that despite some progress, suspension rates were still high. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 77 City Council The review team conducted three sessions of interviews with Council members. We found widespread consensus on the successes and challenges below. Where there was divergence, we have noted it as such. Successes The Council agreed that specific schools are doing well. Examples include one elementary school that offers well-funded after-school programs, a “21st-Century grant,” and volunteer students and faculty from a nearby university. It’s a “full-service school with an open door to community organizations. One high school “is a shining star.” One Council member noted that “advanced academics have expanded into new schools.” They also agreed that charter schools work well for many students: in one charter school the “amount of support for children was night and day more than in the district schools.” However, there is divergence on whether to expand charter schools or to pause their growth. One member said: “Charter schools keep parents in the city; the main loser is parochial schools.” In response to a question about a large expansion of charters, members were cautious.  One member said: “The pro would be we could get rid of all the obstacles and red tape and drama; but at the same time, [an issue would arise as to] how to protect the students from the wrong charter CEO.”  Another said: “A part of me would be sad - because it’s sort of like the family you know, right? At the same time, if we do want to reset and start over, if we went the charter route, we would circumvent a lot of issues. [The question is] could we go that route? I don’t see the Providence Teachers Union going anywhere, so that is something we would have to deal with.”  In response, a further member of the board said “I agree with that assessment; I think we owe it to the students, owe it to the parents to provide them the best possible education. If this were an option, I would not close the door on it, but would proceed with caution.” Challenges There was general consensus that the following areas represent barriers to the district’s (and students’) success: Governance, Academic Outcomes, and Facilities/Procurement. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 80 high percentage of LEP and special needs students, and the fact that the city was working to educate children from all over the world including some countries without written languages (countries of origin include parts of Africa, Haiti, south Asia, and South America), and indigenous students. For example, o Multiple members spoke about the LEP15 student population and the “failure” to staff the LEP office properly. One said that the LEP community must think we are “a terrible failure.” Several members spoke to the severe lack of bilingual staff in the district. o There was agreement that “Title VI compliance isn’t good.” Several members spoke of the lack of special education teachers, and one remarked that “teachers have to coach parents on how to get the service.” o Furthermore, members agreed that teachers and staff had not been trained in how to support these new students.  Collective Bargaining Agreement. One member said (without pushback) that the “teacher contract was not transformative.” This comment related to the concern that professional development suffered, as there was only one mandatory PD day during orientation. o “PD is challenging.” o With affirmation from others present, one member asked, “What about cultural competency, social emotional support, learning about the curriculum?”  Frequent change. Members noted that testing models had constantly changed over the last few years, and that the district did not have a uniform curriculum. “That’s a problem.” o Divergence. While some Council members mentioned that there were “significant issues around teaching and training,” and that “instruction is not being taken seriously,” others stressed that most teachers were doing their best in very difficult circumstances. Facilities and Procurement  There was near unanimous (with one exception) agreement that the requirement for the Council to approve new contracts of $5,000 or above was not effective.  All agreed that the facilities required urgent, and major, attention. o One said that “in the middle-class areas, parents had raised the money for urgent repairs.” o Another spoke about “deplorable conditions in certain schools.” City School Board The review team conducted several group interviews, one individual interview, and one phone interview with School Board members. We found widespread agreement about successes and challenges. Where views diverged, we have noted as such. 15 “Limited English Proficiency.” In our interviews, some individuals used ELL (English Language Learner) to denote the same group of students. We thus use the terms interchangeably in this report. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 81 Successes There was general agreement that charter schools have been successful.  One Board member mentioned the many days of PD that Achievement First charter schools in Providence provide, in comparison to the single day of PD in the district schools.  Members spoke of Achievement First schools as having high “standards of excellence.” o “There is a clear vision, there is a clear expectation, there is a clear function.” o “You knew from the minute you walked in that there were expectations, that the teachers were all on the same page, that parents were welcome. There were very deliberate open-door days.” A few Board members noted the school-based health clinics they had put in place, and others the reduction in school suspensions, as notable successes.16 Finally, while there was consensus that many aspects of the Collective Bargaining Agreement hurt the district, members referred positively to specific areas of cooperation with the Providence Teachers Union and the PTU President herself, who “rolled up her sleeves” to address partnerships on chronic student and teacher absenteeism and suspensions. Challenges The School Board members found challenges in almost every domain of the district. Representative comments, echoed repeatedly, include:  “Operationalization/execution/communication/accountability is a challenge…..to get to the school level is a challenge.”  “The Superintendent and the cabinet are weak.”  Collective Bargaining: “The School Board should be able to bargain with the union.”  “Who is leading? Strong school leadership is not there…. It doesn’t trickle down.”  “Should we wait for regulation and wait for the district? Well, that hasn’t worked.”  “It boils down to leadership, from the top down: leadership at the state level, district level, the school level, and setting high expectations in the classroom.”  “Providence seems to be the stepping stone for people’s career in managing an urban district.” When asked whether they would put their own child in a district school, one replied that the dire needs overwhelmed the schools: I like public schools; I am a product of public school. But I see my friends and their kids going through elementary school. The stuff that elementary school kids are going through is astounding to me: a lot of trauma, a lot of trauma - and teachers are not 16 While some Members noted the restorative practices as a positive, others acknowledged the “problems with implementation.” Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 82 equipped to deal with any of it. It is just seen as behavioral issues; trauma is not recognized; learning disabilities, all kinds of conditions, are not recognized as social or emotional issues. They are seen as behavioral issues. There was general agreement that the following areas represent meaningful barriers to student success: Governance, Academic Outcomes, and Facilities/Procurement. Governance Board members agree that the current structure is unwieldly. One member summed it up: “The whole structure and organizational chart are very confusing.” Comments include:  “There is no one entity where the buck stops.”  “You have to jump through a lot of hoops: School Board, City Council, Mayor. You may never be able to get through the finish line.” On specific actors:  Mayor. Board members expressed no personal animus, but no one thought that the relationship between the Board and the Mayor was working especially well. “He doesn’t trust Board leadership.” Specific concerns included: o Lack of communication.  “I think the break in communication came when the mayor stopped meeting with the leadership team on a monthly basis; a standing agreement is that there should be monthly meetings as a conduit to get to the Board.”  “I have had three interactions with him in three years: when I got appointed, reappointed, and at the Board retreat.” o Mayor’s over-involvement.  He “runs a parallel process, interviewing not only superintendents but also crossing-guards.”17  Our prior superintendent “would still be with us” if the “relationship between her and the Mayor had been a healthy one.” o Mayor’s initiatives “dilute the resources” so that they are not effective. On summer learning: “We have no business running summer learning if we can’t do the school year well.”  City Council. The Board considers the City Council to be “part of the problem.” o “They think they know more about education, and they want to impose.” o “It’s political machinations.” o An upcoming joint meeting with the City Council, organized by Young Voices, has no support on the Board.  RIDE. RIDE’s role was usually reported in negative terms. 17 Note: the Mayor explicitly denied this. Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 85 Academic Outcomes The Board members all agreed that the performance needle has not moved and cited “what we have done until now” as “tinkering around the margins.” In summary, “We have not moved the needle on test scores or a culture of excellence.” Asked to evaluate the academic performance of PPSD on a 1-5 scale with 5 being the highest, the consensus answer was “2.”18 Members were quick to say that this did not reflect “lack of effort put in by the teachers and students; we have the most resilient teachers and students on the face of this earth.” But we also heard that no one is giving the Board real pushback about academic outcomes – something the reviews found very notable. The Board members suggested various causes for the academic underperformance:  Money. Almost everyone said that money is a problem, or even that it is the number one problem. o Some district offices, such as External Affairs, are “understaffed,” and the Family Engagement Office is in “dire need of resources.” o One member noted that “Some schools only have one social worker for half the day; our kids’ social emotional needs are not being met.” o While one member noted that “it’s not just about resources,” there was consensus around the fact that “cuts in finances to the district over the years have hindered the district’s ability to perform. There is another round of cuts this year; who do the cuts effect? They effect the children; more funding would be needed.” o There was strong agreement that the funding for LEP students was vastly inadequate. One said “we finally got $5 million – really?” o Many are concerned that the district’s low performance and dysfunction push away private philanthropy: “For two years, have told the district to determine the ask for funding – we will go to the Governor’s office to ask; we will bring in the union and leadership asking for input. But the district doesn’t operationalize that. They leave money at the table.” One member pointed out that “private funders are not going to give money to the district: we need an education foundation [philanthropy].” o But while some members drew a causal line from the money issues to morale issues, no one explicitly blamed the lack of funds for the low expectations (see below). As one member put it, “Outputs don’t match inputs. Whatever measure of success that we are using – which keeps changing, which is a massive problem – you would expect that our outputs would be different. Something has to change.”  Inadequate preparation and support for teaching and learning. Members were very clear that “individual teachers are heroic,” but that many are “cynical and worn down.” They acknowledged that the social context of Providence has changed, and that teachers are not prepared. o Teacher pipelines are “horrible; there is no innovative leadership.” This is particularly acute when it comes to pipelines for teachers of color. 18 One member said “a 3, because I believe in the public school system.” Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 86  There was strong agreement about a deep problem with diverse teacher recruitment and support. One member remarked: “There isn’t a concerted effort, not to retain teachers, not to retain teachers of color; I have a general sense that there aren’t enough people of color in the pipeline to meet the needs.”  One member cited that teachers of color sometimes face “immediate supervisors” who are “part of the problem.”  School Discipline.19 Multiple members shared frustration with student support services. One member claimed that it got so bad that the Board took over the responsibility from the Superintendent. o “We kept hearing about behaviors in the classroom, with the charge that there was no funding, no supports for teachers, no solutions came after a year. So we got five principals in the room, the union balked, got the union in the room and agreed on the goals, showed the numbers and found out who was getting the referrals, and went to [the principals] and offered them space so referrals were in-district.”  Teacher Morale. There was a consensus that this is a challenge. Board members attributed it to lack of direction, lack of consistency, new plans, new standardized test, churn in leadership, and lack of teacher PD.  Social Challenges. Many Board members cited the difficulties that families in Providence face: o “We have a variety of students coming from different backgrounds – not just language, but trauma, refugees, unaccompanied minors, PTSD, learning disabilities, sex trafficking, so much more than just language barriers. Some kids don’t know how to read or write in their native language; the issues are a lot broader and more complex.” o “There are so many issues our students deal with – poverty, trauma, homelessness, etc., and society has not addressed these issues.” o Divergence. One Board member “respectfully disagreed” that the challenges presented by a highly diverse student body are new, noting that “we have had diversity since forever…but the system has always failed.” Other Board members worried out loud that the student population would be used to “excuse” low performance.  Leadership and governance. Many members view the low achievement as a consequence of the governance issues outlined above. “There is no hiding behind the fact that we have not moved the needle on test scores, on creating a culture of excellence…[none] of that has happened. This goes back to overall leadership and what that includes, what happens at the district and the school level; there is a disconnect between the district and the schools.” 19 PPSD states that: “PPSD uses a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework to promote a safe, supportive and positive school climate that helps students develop the skills they need to be successful in school.” Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 87 Collective Bargaining Agreement There was widespread agreement that the Collective Bargaining Agreement is a problem for schools. Specifically,  The criterion-based hiring practices prevent stronger schools. o “Ineffective teachers just get moved to a different building, and the problem follows them.” o One member articulated it this way: “This is where macro and micro get confused; helping schools to improve and move in the right direction includes [the importance of] hiring and firing. We negotiated with the union about this, and then the union contract became the driving force behind that policy. So we took what was supposed to be a robust policy, and then it was backwards-mapped into the contract. Because of all the additional layers put on, principals’ hands are tied and fewer positions are available for real criterion-based hiring.”  The CBA prevents meaningful professional development; the “thick contract” causes the lack of PD.  The Board wishes it could have been involved in the negotiation process. o “Collective bargaining should be under the review of the School Board,” so we could “set policy that has teeth.” o “The Board has a really good relationship with the teachers and the teachers’ union, and it would have been good for the Board to lead [negotiation.] It could have been less public. We understand the needs of the teachers in the classroom and could have anchored the contract in terms of their needs.” Procurement and Facilities Every single member raised the issue of the $5,000 limit on contracts exempted from review by the City Council. While we were told that the origins of this requirement went back to corrupt decision- making in the past, the policy had only one lukewarm defender. One Board member said: “This is just such an inefficient use of time, and not necessarily for a better result.” There was unanimous agreement that the school buildings were a massive problem. One member said: They are crumbling, there’s mold, there’s water coming into the building; I went to visit [an] elementary school and was walking around the building and there’s paint peeling. A pipe actually broke while I was there and water came flowing down. Kids running around calling out about what’s happening, only one maintenance person. In the basement of the school is just storage, and part of that is these water cannisters from World War II, just sitting there…it’s just a sinking ship. It should be noted several Board members expressed the hope that things could get better, on the condition that trust were rebuilt between entities. One member said, with support from Board colleagues: Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 90 Office of Curriculum and Instruction Staff School Board Members (All members were invited) City Council Members (All members were invited) Business Leaders  Jeremy Crisp – Nail Communications  Christopher Graham – Locke Lord  Lauri Lee – Academy for Career Exploration (ACE)  Art Norwalk – Norwalk Communications, Inc.  Janet Raymond – Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce  John Sinnott – Gilbane, Inc.  Neil Steinberg – Rhode Island Foundation School Support Partners  Highlander  NE Basecamp  CYC  Inspiring Minds  Center for Resilience PTU President  Maribeth Calabro  Jeremy Sencer Educator Pipeline Partners  Kristine Frech  CLEE  RIC  URI  PC  RWU AFT Organized Teachers  Jeremy Sencer + 5-10 teachers Student Support Partners  Providence Student Union  College Crusade  College Visions  Breakthrough Providence Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 91 Afterschool/Enrichment  Hillary Salmons  Jennie Johnson, Americorps  Boys and Girls Club of Greater providence  Down City Design Key City Staff  Emily Crowell, Chief of Communications  Sabrina Solares-Hand, COO  Ellen Cynar, Director, Health Communities  Matt Shumate, Deputy Chief of Staff  Leonela Felix, Deputy Director of Policy Laborers Local 1033 Staff AFCSME Local 1339 Staff Vendor Partners RIPN and PLEE Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy Providence Public School District in Review June 2019 92 APPENDIX B Interviews with Former Superintendent and Mayor Phone interview with former Superintendent, Dr. Susan Lusi May 31, 2019 As former Superintendent of the Providence School System, Dr. Lusi summarized her overall view of the district in the following terms. The situation, she said, “is not our fault but it is our problem to solve.” She said it was “impossible not to acknowledge that Providence has hard working conditions for teachers and, combined with low pay, is a poor place for acquiring talented teachers.” She added: The workforce in Providence should reflect the community diversity – the story of Providence is it has failed both the kids and the educators… [There are] insufficient resources and inattention to diversity inclusion and training. Putting money towards this kind of training was not priority; school counselors/psychologists were not a priority…. At the same time, she stressed multiple impediments to effective action:  Time – It takes a very, very long time before you could get anything done. Providence serves students who need immediate attention… [there are] too many cooks in the kitchen.  Process - Municipal entanglements need also to be addressed. Through the Compensation Ordinance, the City Council votes on budget and compensation & classification. The bureaucracy would take at least three months to pass ordinances or award contracts, and individuals would just be kept waiting. [She] wanted to hire a Chief of Staff who had authority, and then had to go to the School Board, the Mayor, and the City Council to change the job priorities of the Chief of Staff role so that the person could be effective. This took months and months.  RIDE – [Dr. Lusi was] disappointed that top RIDE leadership never fully understood “our context,” and that there “wasn’t the trust to strategize together.”  City Council – [The] City Council is the main deterrent – structurally, the City Council has no business making [educational] decisions.  Laws – The laws in Rhode Island around collective bargaining go deeper than in other states – the contract pushes money to areas outside of high-quality instruction in the classrooms. (She) never could figure out staffing flexibility for principals… [There was] hardly time to work with teachers or teachers to work with [other] teachers.