Letter: Superintendent Responds to Fung's Mayoral Academy Op-Ed

The mayor's original op-ed is attached to this letter.

Mayor Fung, you have finally revealed your true feelings and opinion of the administration, principals and teachers of Cranston Public Schools. You place into doubt the success of all our students, especially those students graduating in two weeks.  Many of our graduates will be attending the finest colleges/universities in the country, some will be attending career and technical schools, enlisting in the military, entering the work force or transitioning to our 18-21 program.  They are moving on to these other opportunities as a result of their Cranston Public Schools education.

Do you forget your accolades and public recognition at public events, such as honors nights or graduations, when you praise principals, teachers and students? Or, are those remarks insincere? Recently at Hugh B. Bain Middle School, your fellow Classical High School (a public high school) alumnus, Principal Tom Barbieri, received the RI Middle School Principal of the Year award. Mayor, when the presenter was praising Tom for improving test scores and building a school based on trust and respect, did you notice the five (5) prominent banners in front of you that proclaim Bain as a High Performing school for five straight years? You praised Tom and Bain Middle School at that ceremony.  Empty rhetoric again?

So let’s be honest.

In 2009, the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) ended a ten year practice of ranking schools. At that time, sixteen (16) of the seventeen (17) Cranston elementary schools were High Performing schools, most of which were classified as High Performing and Improving. At least four of them were classified as Regents Commended schools.  (Unfortunately, one of the Regents Commended schools had to close due to our present funding problems.)  Based on our test scores and the latest indicators used by the RIDE, sixteen (16) of our seventeen (17) elementary schools continued to reach Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). This means our test scores are steadily improving according to indicators determined by RIDE.  It appears to me since the performance rankings were eliminated just one test cycle ago in 2009, we continued to meet the latest indicators, which correlate with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements.   Also, I need to correct your editorial regarding our middle schools.  Last year Western Hills Middle School met AYP and was “Commended”.

In your op-ed you compare us to South Kingstown and Portsmouth, which I, too, recognize as two excellent school districts. However, let’s be realistic. If you asked me to examine comparable districts, according to size, demographics, and budgets, I would start by comparing the Warwick Public Schools’ budget which last year spent over $37 million more on their children than Cranston Public Schools.  Did you know that last year Warwick had approximately 150 less students than we have in Cranston?  Mayor, it all depends what numbers and what districts that you want to compare. Our population, per capita income and other demographic information indicates we are not comparable to South Kingstown and Portsmouth.  According to InfoWorks LIVE! data provided by RIDE, in Cranston, the average percentage of students who receive free/reduced lunch subsidies is 33%.  In Portsmouth, that number is 11%. Clearly, you are comparing two very different demographics.

Last month a representative from your office called me to find out how many of our schools are at the poverty level.  They explained to me they needed this information from us to help you secure a grant in order to make improvements to open the Budlong pool this summer. Are you that out of touch that you do not know how many schools in Cranston had students who live at-or below- the poverty level? Cranston’s schools poverty level is computed based on the number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch.  When 36% or more of the school’s population is receiving free or reduced lunch, the school is considered at the poverty level.  Did you know that in the last three years we have grown from seven schools at the poverty level to eleven?  Current data states that in just our elementary schools, two schools are higher than 36% poverty, two schools are higher than 40% poverty, three schools are higher than 50% poverty, one school is higher than 70% poverty level, and another school is at almost at 80% poverty level. Garden City, one of the first inclusive suburban communities developed in the United States post World War II, a showcase community, could be at the poverty level next year!  Still want to compare us to Portsmouth?  Two of our three middle schools, Bain and Park View, are at the poverty level.  However, both met AYP.  Many of those students tested, which reflects last year’s learning, at Park View were victims of the “historic floods” from last March and were displaced from their homes for several weeks or months.  But still, the students and teachers persevered and Park View met its AYP goals.

Despite our incredible struggles with funding, Cranston is still a place where people want to move; specifically to educate their children.  Mayor, did you know that this year our student population grew by 393 students at the elementary level alone? While other districts, as well as the state in general, are experiencing declining enrollment, Cranston is growing.  Mayor, it all depends what numbers and what districts that you want to compare.  Remember, we educate all students, from all places, with any need, who arrive at our doorstep at any time.  We do not hold lotteries to select who gets an education, unlike charter schools and mayoral academies.

I will never state that money, specifically family income, is the sole indicator of student achievement; it’s not. However, the reality is, despite the dramatically changing demographics of Cranston and the lack of school funding, 16 of our 17 elementary schools and all three middle school met AYP last year. Schools like Arlington and Gladstone attract often needy families from our neighboring urban districts.  Students arrive at school living in poverty, not achieving at grade level and many of them not speaking English.  Despite these challenges, our test scores reveal that after three to four years in our school system those students achieve AYP.  There is a reason for that; it’s the dedication of our teachers and principals.

It is apparent that you do not find the district credible as you were looking for honesty in your op-ed. For the last year I have been telling the Cranston School Committee, and  you that funding for our schools is below the Basic Educational Plan (BEP), the minimum required by RIDE to educate children.

In your distrust of the school department you brought in a hired gun, former Westerly Superintendent, Sal Augeri.  You commissioned him to perform an audit to investigate whether we in fact the made cuts outlined in last years’ Performance Audit and to verify if the school department’s claim that you have funded our schools below the BEP. You flew him in from Florida, paid his expenses and about a month later, got your “analysis.”  His report, released to the public, vindicated the Cranston Public Schools administration. The audit report revealed that we were right! We are funded far below what is required of the BEP.

I hope in your consultation with RIDE, seeking information to discredit our test scores, you were honest with them, and with the Commissioner of Education, and revealed the aforementioned audit report findings.  Did you tell them that you are not providing the funding for the basic educational needs of our children? In fact, Mr. Augeri and Jeffrey Wadovick, CPA, who you also hired to do the financial analysis, state: “The cost to fully comply with the BEP at this point in time is estimated at $3,928,761.”  Did you know that the BEP is at the very heart of Commissioner Gist’s administration? I’ll state it again: according to your own “commissioned” report, we are $3,928,761 below the minimum required to educate our children!

So let’s be honest. Your heart and soul is not in working to improve Cranston Public Schools. I find it disturbing that you think you must publically tear apart your city’s own schools in order to rouse interest in a proposed charter school.  Perhaps your allegiance is to some school in New Haven, Connecticut.  You know the one, the school that you recently invited the RI Board of Regents members to visit.

A couple of months ago you met with the Cranston Educational Advisory Board (CEAB), a group representing all of the school-based parent groups/associations in the city.  These engaged parents all have children in our schools and they invited you to their monthly meeting to discuss your mayoral academy. By all indications they were not impressed by your and Mayor McKee’s presentation. In fact, they wanted to know how you are going to fund this charter school in our city, when you are not adequately funding the schools already here! They seemed unsatisfied with your response to that, and other, critical questions. 

In all my discussions with you since I have become Superintendent, not once have we ever sat and discussed the educational programs in Cranston. Be honest, you have never discussed one educational goal of our district or our Strategic Plan.  You have never inquired or sought to collaborate on what it would take to reach the district’s goals. If you did, you might find that my principals, administrators and teachers are working tirelessly on all the areas that we need to improve, as well as in the areas in which we rank far above other districts in the state. We would tell you of the outstanding work we are doing with the DANA Center in the areas of science and math, the exemplary program we have developed in Response to Intervention (RTI) and our committed efforts to make our schools, safe, respectful environments for all students and staff. We have Physics First in all three high schools, and after piloting the successful Positive Behavioral Support & Intervention (PBIS) program at five schools last year, it will be implemented in all our schools K-8 in September.  Last month, hundreds of our principals and teachers attended professional development on Friday night and all day Saturday to prepare for PBIS in the fall.

Let’s be totally honest. Two years ago when you were on the talk radio circuit and were asked what the average per pupil expenditure for Cranston Public Schools was, you did not know the answer; just as you did not know how many of our schools currently service truly impoverished families.

Though you do not recognize the excellent effort of the district’s principals, administrators, teachers and staff, I’ll tell you someone who does, the US Secretary of the Department of Education (DOE), Arne Duncan.  In February, the US DOE selected Cranston as one of 150 school districts in the nation to celebrate our extraordinary collaboration and work in education among administration, school committee and Cranston Teachers’ Alliance.  Specifically, we were cited for the work done over the last two years in developing a ground-breaking teacher evaluation instrument which we are now piloting.  The US DOE flew us to Denver to exchange ideas with the best school districts across the country, all involved in innovative work in public education.

Mayor, I will never profess that as a school district we couldn’t do better.  Every day, I along with every teacher and administrator, go to work with the intent of improving our schools.  Since I began my tenure as Superintendent two years ago I have done everything in my power to control spending and, as revealed in the Augeri and Wadovick audit, we exceeded our previous Performance Audit projection in savings by $5,084,144.00.  All the time I have spent cutting and dismantling excellent educational programs to help balance your budget has taken up the lion’s share of my time, which I should be devoting to my educational responsibilities delineated in the BEP.  It’s a shame that we have been forced to dismantle our excellent programs in music, arts, and sports to gain financial savings.  Certainly, I hope those savings will not be used to bank roll the Mayoral Academy. 

But what is most distressing to me, to state it in more contemporary vernacular, is your public “dissing,” of the hard work and dedication of my administrators and teachers, again, who you lavishly commend in their presence and in the presence of the voters. You remind me of a computer program, depending on the event, the venue or the media outlet; you click on the drop down menu and choose your response.

Finally, in your editorial you make reference to the letter you wrote to me last November.  I will now refer to mine, Mayor Fung:  “If we intend to make things better in our schools then we all need to sit down and have a conversation.”  I’m still waiting.  It seems to me that Arne Duncan feels that the School Committee, administration and the Cranston Teachers’ Alliance are doing just that.  Thankfully, recent meetings with the members of the City Council have been the most positive conversations in the last ten years.  Maybe they, too, are recognizing our work.

I have known you since your days on the Council. We have been together on professional and social basis at many events.  I continue to be disappointed that although you meet with your other department heads regularly, you do not meet with the school department.

This op-ed is out of character for me.  At every school committee and council meeting I have taken the high road, never once making petty remarks or insults. Above all, I have been respectful. However, I cannot stand idly by as you assail the hard work of our administrators, teachers and students.  Once again, I am willing to have that conversation and tell you more of the great things being done at all our schools versus you attacking the district in the media which I found for the most part out of character for you, as well.