To: School Board Members, Central Office Staff and PTOC Members, City Council
From: Kathy Galvin 
Re: PDK Audit Comments at the January 13, 2005 PTOC meeting

First, I would like to thank Paul Wagner for prompting me to request this meeting. I would also
like to thank the PTOC executive committee for taking my request seriously and the School Board
and Central Office members present for demonstrating a commitment to public process. Tonight
I will highlight what i believe to be are the most alarming aspects of the PDK Audit, although the
document will leave with you provides a more extensive review. I say alarming because on a
few occasions, Board members have expressed support for several of recommendations
and a desire that they be implemented. Unfortunately, the further probed into the details of the
audit?s premise, ?ndings and recommendations, the more problematic the PDK Audit became.
The audit concludes by stating that the requirements of NCLB and high-stakes testing require a
strong centralized response. This in turn will require tighter connectivity between schools and a
range of effective instructional methods differentiated instruction.) Although i agree with
these broad goals on face value, I believe that the premise upon which they are based is far too
narrow and racially biased for a public school system. The audlt?s findings and recommendations
are skewed by this premise and are often refutable and unsubstantiated or simply generic and not
?eshed out. The devil is in the details. Resultant policy prescriptions could lead to a whole slew
of unintended consequences in the classroom. Therefore, I believe the PDK Audit should not be
the basis for making or implementing policy. At best, it could conceivably provide a framework for
public discourse on the state of the school division.

certainly do not pretend to be a professional educator or public administrator. However, have
been involved with the CCS for over 10 years. In 1994 I sat 'on the Social Development
Commission and between 1995 to the present my sons attended Johnson, Burnley-Moran,
Walker and Buford. In 1998 my family was both "casualty and beneficiary? of site-based
management and school choice when we were allowed to leave our neighborhood school,
Bumley~lvloran for instructional reasons and place our sons in Johnson Elementary with Jim
Henderson as principal. was PTO president at Johnson for two years and the PTOC Board
Liaison during the 2002 Superintendent Search. We finally returned to Burnley-Moran in 2002
when Anne Lintner was principal. We have never regretted either decision and in fact have

benefited greatly from having had both a north and a south side perspective. These CCS

experiences coupled with my professional experience as an architect, urban designer and land
planner have given me insights into our schools, public policy and process.

With that context in mind, i respectfully offer these comments and questions to you out of a deep
conviction that the Board and this division have not been served well by the PDK Curriculum
Audit. They are divided into four parts; overarching concerns, general reflections on the audit,
specific comments on recommendations and conclusions. refer to William Lucy, Kevin
and Blake Caravati throughout my review and hopefully have not misconstrued any of their
?ne statements. When viewed as a whole, our comments reflect a growing consensus among
members of this community regarding the recommendations found in the PDK Audit.

l. Overarching Concerns.

. What was the Board?s charge to 

. is the essential goal of the division to "close the achievement gap" or have every child pass
the SOLs and gain proficiency as defined by How is pro?ciency defined?

. When and how will the board discern which PDK recommendations are valid and how will the
public be involved with that discernment process?

0 Will these PDK recommendations be used to guide budget decisions for the ceming fiscal
year? is there adequate time for substantial public input?

. Does the Board have its own priorities for reform that predate this audit (including those that
happen to coincide with PDK's recommendations)? What are they? Can they be discussed
independent of the audit? Should only these be considered during this budget cycle?

Ii',

ll. PDK Curriculum Audit- General Reflections.
A. ?Omissions and Assumptions.?

1.

Ex)

Socio-Economics. PDK assumed that the achievement gap is solely the result of a
segregated, horrible, racist past. There is no mention of the role family or community
plays in the school preparedness and motivation of a child. How can the terrible
persistence of the achievement gap be understood and adequately addressed if only
school conditions and not socio-economic realities are considered? How can the
division be fairly evaluated in this regard, if its remediation programs are not assessed?
Particularly glaring omissions and assumptions include;

a. No reference to the importance of early childhood or parenting programs, nor any
acknowledgment of the language and cognition gap that exists from day one.

D. No assessment of existing remediation and enrichment programs. In a recent
letter, Council member Kevin points out that PDK neglected to review
the document ?intervention and Remediation Programs, CCS 2003-04."

0. Offers no assessment of the impact dropping PALS testing poses for the division or
the role Book Buddies plays in mentoring and tutoring. Again reference Kevin
letter where he identifies cut backs in the Book Buddies Program which
translated into 75 students would no longer receive individual tutoring and
mentoring. Evidently no evaluation of Book Buddies was done beforehand, ironic
in light of heavy emphasis on testing and monitoring effectiveness.

d. Assumed that the teacher's race mattered in achievement results. Five years ago
this issue surfaced at which time I contacted the John Hopkins/Howard University
Center for At Risk Children. i was informed that no studies have shown a
correlation between the teacher?s race and academic achievement of the child.

A diverse workforce in and of itself is a worthy goal, but it is not a remedy for the
persistent ?achievement gap."

Site-based Management. There is no mention of the role recent history played in

creating present conditions, namely site-based management. in fact, much of the audit

reads as a critique of site?based management the duplication of positions, no
consistent curriculum between schools, etc.) instead, the audit "assesses" its data
through a skewed lens, viewing the achievement gap not as one of many systemic
problems but the primary problem to solve. But how many of us "privileged" often white
middle class parents have had to supplement instruction at home because of
de?ciencies in the curriculum or classroom management? That's why many of us have
pushed so hard over the years for good principals, teachers, central office leadership,
instructional practice, classroom management and a coordinated curriculum. Nonethe-
less, the audit assumes that the success of white, middle-class students is solely due
to the schools. That is simply not true for the same reason that the poor achievement
of many poor African-American kids is not solely due to the schools. Family and
cultural experiences and expectations play a huge role in the outcomes. Yet for one
group (high achievers) the auditors assume the division works and for the other group

(low achievers) they assume is doesn?t. in other words, institutionalized racism is to

blame for the gap, not as Kevin states, ?a site-based management model which

was not well suited to the world of high stakes testing and division accountability."
improvements. The audit fails to acknowledge the many academic and instructional
improvements that have been made while Ron Hutchinson was interim superintendent.

These positive steps have been due in large part to the leadership of good principals

and their attempts to nurture teamwork and systematize instruction division?wide

between schools, particularly in the area of reading and assessment.

Gaps in Subiect Matter. instruction and Classroom Management. The audit fails to

identify specific gaps in subject matter, recommend appropriate instructional strategies

(except only to avoid drilling and boring students!) or come to grips with the challenges

of classroom management in today's increasingly less formal and more violent world.

Beyond reading, shouldn?t the division move toward creating division?wide policies,

0? ?4

standards and ?best practices" for math, writing and grammar. science, history and
geography instruction and ensuring respectful order in the classroom? Wouldn't
advising the Board on these matters been an appropriate charge of a curriculum audit?
innuendo. The audit presents a stark demographic contrast between special programs.
it immediately positions the excellence of the music programs as a success story for
Whites and detention programs as proof that the system fails African?Americans. What
is implied? Do we dismantle the music program and use the money to raise academic
achievement among African-American students? Do we find ways to increase African-
American involvement in these programs through tutoring and mentoring?
Comparative Analysis of Best Practices and Divisions. Bill Lucy?s thorough review
raises serious questions about the manner and methods with which this audit was
conducted. it also identi?es important missed opportunities, such as a comparative
analysis of the differences in test scores between elementary schools and their
implications for instructional programming. A comparative analysis of curriculum,
instructional practices and demographics among the six elementary schools might very
Well have been the most positive outcome of site-based management.

PDK Sponsored Parent Session. The audit did not include critical insights offered
during the parent session facilitated by Michael Heard. The educational system is in
and of itself neutral, even passive. White parents make it work for them through
persistence and volunteer involvement. Black parents on the other hand expect the
schools to look after their needs and tell them what needs to be done. There is very
little on?site involvement. As a result white kids learn how to prepare for college life
due to their parents? advocacy and black kids are left in the lurch due to their parents?
lack of knowledge or experience with a good education and the opportunities it affords.

B. ?Whv Recommendations to the 2005/06 Budqet?"

1.

3?

As pointed out by council member Blake Caravati, the Superintendent will not present
her recommendations concerning the audit to the Board before the 2005/06 proposed
school budget is released in early January. Consequently, the school community will
not have had suf?cient time for public input regarding the audit. i support Mr.
Caravati?s position that the Board use the audit recommendations and public input to
create a strategic plan for our schools and implement that plan in next year?s budget.
Several Board members themselves have criticized the tone of the report, some of its
methodology the years to parity calculation) and its failure to report crucial facts
like the in?uence of socio-economic status on achievement. -

Because of the posture taken by the audit (?close the gap or else" instead of "let?s
improve the system for all?), the Board and Superintendent have run the risk of
alienating an entire block of parents who could have been allies in this venture for
years (as evidenced by the 2002 PTOC Questions for the Superintendent.) instead of
building consensus, this audit has polarized the two groups in question poor black
and middle class white) and made dialogue even more difficult. Consequently any
sound recommendation found in the PDK Audit will now be that much harder to sell as
a principle for setting budget priorities.

m. Recommendations- Wheat from the Chaff.

A. Recommendation 1.1 -1.4 - Centralized Organizational Structure.

Overall, is far too simplistic in its assessment of the CC8 and treats one as the
illness, i.e. the race-biased achievement gap.

i must defer to William Lucy?s comments (pages 2-4 of his "Perspectives") regarding
organizational changes. in spite of PDK's emphasis on ?closing the gap? they did not
demonstrate how their organizational structure would make a difference.

a. interestingly enough, the PT DC 2002 Superintendent Questions raised the specter
of a connection between low test scores and site based management due to the
high mobility of poor children. Hence these children didn?t receive consistent

instruction across the city. However, PDK never established this link because it
refused to regard student socio-economics as a factor in its assessments.

b. Since 2002, the division?s central office staff and principals have been moving
toward systematic, school-wide as opposed to classroom-based approaches in
reading and math instruction. There has also been an evolution away from site-
based management to more homogeneity between schools. Much more remains
to be done, especially in instructional areas writing, grammar, science, history
and geography) and coordinating elementary curriculum with Walker, Buford and
CH8. Nonetheless. consensus has been growing between schools as to what
should be done to improve education for all. in light of that, wouldn't it have been
prudent, constructive and ultimately more effective for the Board and Central Office
to have first worked with principals and teaching staff across the division before
hiring an outside auditor bent on finding evidence of institutional racism?

2. The audit calls for a unified curriculum across grades and between schools.

a. What does that .mean in terms of content and basic skills instruction?

b. Will there be systematic, coordinated instruction in all subject areas?

c. Will principals be given any latitude to cater to their communities?

d. Will parents be given a scope or sequence and opportunity for input?

e. Do we exceed the SOLs across all subjects or teach to the test?

3. On face value, the creation of two Central Office Specialists (one in K-12 Curriculum
Content and one in Programs) and a Division Curriculum Council is positive. However;

a. Do principals and teachers believe this will make the delivery of support resources
to their schools more effective or lead to confusion and turf battles?

b. How might a ?Curriculum Council" function differently if its sole purpose was to
close the achievement gap as opposed to improving education for all? What are
the implications for curriculum design and instructional strategies if the needs and
interests of one ethnic and economic group are emphasized over all others?

c. How will the community and parents be represented on the What
mechanisms will be put in place to gain parent and community input on curriculum?

4. Revising Job Descriptions to match changing demands is common sense.
5. Revising administrative and teacher evaluation protocols to promote professional growth
so that teachers are more effective in differentiating instruction makes tremendous sense.
a. Linking evaluations to individual pupil test scores (as opposed to measures of
student improvement over time) without acknowledging the responsibility of family
and community is not fair however.
b. including teachers on a task force to develop evaluative procedures is positive.
c. Aligning professional development with curriculum and differentiated instruction
makes sense but the audit offers no tangible illustrations as to how this is done.
What are some strategies? is the collaborative model used at Walker an example?

B. Recommendation 2. ?Program-based Budget and Monitoring.

Overall, makes no allowances for local initiatives and expectations for setting curricular
content and by extension budget priorities. As a result, public input in the curriculum and
budget are given short shrift.

1. ?Providing the public with accurate data that re?ect expenditures by program area that
are supported by program evaluation data can boost con?dence in the stewardship of the
board and administration? is positive. But how is that different from what we do now?

2. Under sections A.2.2 through 2.6;

a. incorporating teacher and principal ideas on budget priorities 8 good.

b. But how about local community-wide and parental input?

0. Budget requests are to compete with each other for funding based upon the
evaluation of criticality of need and relationship to achievement of curriculum
effectiveness. Does this mean that if a special program athletic, orchestra,
band, chorus, art, etc.) cannot be directly tied to an SOL or NCLB objective, it is

to

inherently more vulnerable to budget cuts? Doesn?t a locality's priorities warrant as
much consideration as State and Federal mandates?

d. Enabling the Board to make budget decisions based on what works is obviously
preferable. However, by what means will the board establish priorities in its
?prioritization? process. if the division's sole priority becomes to ?close the
achievement gap? does that preclude other educational goals such as cultivating
an appreciation for art, music, architecture, history and geography across a
spectrum of cultures?

Recommendation 3. ?Multi-Year Plan Equitable Access.
Overall, the most counterproductive, confusing and problematic part of the audit.

The audit states that the lack of a central planning focus is deleterious to not only
improved operations but also any attempt to control administrative costs. For that
reason, the multi-year educational plan should become the driving force for erasing the
achievement gap? No logical connection here.

Success in erasing the achievement gap is measured by ?years to parity.? defer to
William Lucy?s report which cites errors in PDK's calculations (page 6 of Perspectives.)
The audit asserts at this time ?it is propitious to re-examine policies and practices
regarding equity and fairness. There should be increased access to academic programs
and related opportunities to all students. The superintendent should be charged with the
responsibility to eliminate any practice not covered by policy that inhibits the district?s
effort to eliminate inequities and inequalities. The auditors then identify areas of
inequity; student and staff ethnic compositions, AP course, gifted and special education
class participation, suspension, detention, attendance and graduation rates. The
problems with this are legion;

a. As brought up by William Lucy, demand and preference aspects of equity are not
mentioned, nor does the audit itself consistently define equity often confusing it
with equality and need (page 9 of Perceptions.) Finally, the audit provides no
comparative analysis with other divisions.

b. Student ability, effort and preparedness (and the role families play In fostering
student attitudes toward academic achievement) are not discussed relative to the 
demands of AP course, requirements of gifted, honors and advanced class
participation or requirements for graduation. How is this fair to students who have
a demonstrated the ability to go beyond minimum SOL requirements?

0. if the goal under NCLB is to achieve proficiency in critical academic areas, why are
advanced placement and gifted classes even under scrutiny?

d. Student responsibility, family stability and expectations are not discussed relative to
suspension rates, detention rates or attendance rates.

6. A most troubling recommendation is the latitude given to the Superintendent to
?eliminate any practice" which may smack of inequity and inequality. The
underlying assumption is that students are where they are solely because of racial
bias Does this mean that the Superintendent should unilaterally be able to;

i. Adjust the demographic compositions of AP gifted, honors and advanced
classes, special education suspension and detention rates to reflect the
division?s demographic composition at large (African?American 47%, White 45
Asian etc.) immediately and regardless of preparedness and behavior?

ii. Lessen academic rigor, requirements and expectations in AP, gifted, honors
and advanced classes as required in order acquire the desired demographic
composition in each class immediately? What safeguards would be put in
place to prevent this situation from devolving into the state Buford found itself
in before Tim arrived, when standards dropped precipitously?

Target under-performing groups for rigorous remediation in reading and math
(after school and summer,) to bring them up to existing academic standards for
AP, honors, advanced and gifted classes as quickly as possible?

I1.

iv. Target groups over-represented in suspension/detention for inclusion into
regular classrooms, regardless of behavior? In the event that such students
are in fact disciplined because of behavior and not their race, how will teachers
and principals be equipped and supported by central office staff to handle
disruptive behavior without unfairly depriving others (including African-
American students) of their right to an effective classroom experience?

D. Recommendation 4. - Curriculum Management Plan.

E.

Overall constructive but generic. Listed platitudes without identifying speci?c prescriptions
and demonstrating their application to a Charlottesville classroom.

The audit states, ?the link between the written, taught and tested curriculum across grade
levels, classrooms and schools is essential to promote consistent student learning
outcomes throughout the division." This seems to be a direct broadside against site-
based management however, once again the audit doesn't clarify why this is linked
specifically to the performance gap. It would most likely improve learning for all students.
The audit identi?es five critical elements of a curriculum management plan all of which
are laudable;

a. A series of benchmark tests for early intervention.

b. A data management system tied to benchmark testing in the classroom so that
differentiated instruction can occur. .

c. Staff development on using benchmark data to differentiate instruction. However,
the bias against ?dril is unfounded. Automaticity of basic math skills for example
is essential for higher level math skills and automaticity can only be mastered
through drill and practice.

d. Principals must be able to actively monitor how the curriculum is being taught in
each classroom.

a. Technology should be an integral part of the curriculum, however it should not be a
substitute for basic skills instruction in writing and research.

Of all of the governance functions recommended to the board this was particularly
constructive; ?Establish through policy the expectations of varied instructional strategies
and methodologies to meet different student needs and to effectively teach curriculum
content." However, what strategies and methods would they recommend?

Likewise, all of the administrative functions regarding maintaining and monitoring the
curriculum have merit, particularly with regards to differentiated instruction, monitoring of
curriculum delivery, linkages to the budget and a process for communicating curricular
revisions to the Board, staff and community. However, the fundamental question
remains, how do we craft the curriculum in the ?rst place?

Recommendation 5 6. ?0versight Performance Measures.
Central Of?ce Preschool.

The guidelines have merit, especially as they pertain to data on program effectiveness
relative to decision-making. But as Kevin states, they are almost ?boilerplate."
Section 6 seemed out of context. The adequacy of physical plant can only be determined by
site planning process. Likewise. the preschool should be the focus of its own study.

IV.Concluding Remarks.

Given the complexity at the challenges lacing chadottosville and the less than abjenive,
assessment produced by PDK. urge the Board to torego using any of the more controversial
PDK recommendations as for guiding budgetary decisions Furthermore. what is
controversial. legitimate, essential and acceptable can only be determined through a public
vetting process similar in scope to that or a Jurisdictions comprehensive plan update As alluded
to in the beginning of this outline, only essential and valid division priorities for school retonn that
predate this curriculum audit (yet may coincide wilh its recommendations) should be considered
tor the current fiscal year Then as suggested by Blake Canavati, the Board should use ttie audit
recommendations lamong other resources) and public input to create a strategic plan tor
inclusion in next year's budget The toltowing onet outline is ottered to the Board as lust one
possible scenario tor achieving what needs to be done between now and the tunnation ot a

strategic plan.

a. The Board authorizes the tormation or several public forums tor the disseminatlon ot
intonnetion and discusston ot the PDK Audit. curriculum. Board goals and budget
priorities Tasks associated with this objective might be;

invite the community at large as well as the most attected stakeholders
ii Consider protessionat and record responses tor use by the Bastd
Unequivoeaity state that the racial bias in the PDK audit was unnecessahy and in tact
harnitui. Restate the purpose to be the improvement of our educational system tor
the benefit of all children.

to The Board acts as both mediator and aroiter as it weighs both community and central
office opinions. unless the Superintendent begins to actively seek public input, the Board
will have to step in to provide those opportunities. The importance or stakeholder buystn
for eftectlve implementation and the importance of genuine input
in achieving buy-in cannot be underestimated.

c. The Board identifies what if anything in the audit will he used to set policy only alter this
public process These among other policy objectives could serve as guioirig principles tor
setting budget priorities Budget hearings would then be held as usual.

in closing. tor a very long time the public has been aware or the need to Improve the delivery
ot educational services to all of the Clly's children. Exactly how and to what extent were the
questions. The achievement gap between African-American and White students has also
plagued the division tor a very long time. Poverty, homelessness and crime rates also
remain dispmpamonalaly high among AfricanAmerlcarls in our city Unlomtnalely the PDK
Audit tailed to address these tundarnental questions and lssues in a consuuctrve. convincing
manner instead ot consensus. the Audll's rhetoric polarized, At this iuncture. many
parents who have been actively involved in the public schools for years and could have been
potential allies in developing an improvement plan are now at a loss tor words. Although
there is no hardcore data. anecdotal evidence suggests that in this one year alone many
taml'llss meansl regardless of race, have lett the division, are considering leaving or have
decided not to enter their child in the system We cannot attoro to lose more tamiliea to
private education because they perceive that academics have when a back seat to politics in
the Charlottesviile City Schools.

End ot MemopJanuary 13. 2005
Kath Galvtn

Charlotteswlle. VA 22902

(434_