It is sad that such a well written letter has prompted the downtown administration to react in such a negative manner. After re-reading the letter I wondered what caused this negative response from the district, particularly when the letter states "We welcome your thoughts on all of these issues - collegial dialogue is part of the strength of any successful school."

The actions taken by the district has forced the dialogue to go beyond the local site, community and downtown administrators. This I thought would happen when I first read the letter. Some have ask why I thought such. The reasons are as follows: 

(1) As long as students fail there is money to give to consultants and top heavy administrators who do not have a clue about the daily workings of the local site and could care less. They can come in and do their script and walk away with a better resume and over $200,000 a year, as has been done with O'neil and 
the many others. This type of practice makes teachers feel incompetent and less secure in their profession. It also perpetuate the myth in the community that the teachers don't know how to teach or what they are doing.

(2) School governance: The above statement holds true for this area as well, because if the sites staff develops a plan that would improve the achievement of the students without the "Heavy Hand of downtown and consultants" they would not be able to justify their outrageous salaries and the myths about why students can't learn would be destroyed. When one read what was written in this area, "... it is vital that decisions which affect our students be made jointly by teachers and administrators. Adjunct duty committees ...." makes good common sense and researched teaching strategies.

(3) After School Program: The persons who would know more about the needs of failing students would be the teachers and parents. Why would anyone want to exclude them from the process. In fact, one of the main reasons the district is attempting to change the way after school intervention has been going, is that parents have been complaining about outside providers not have knowledge about their child's needs and are only babysitting the kids or giving them can instruction that does not address their area of need.

(4) Phonics in 4th grade: I believe they gave a good reason for not killing students with phonics. Therefore, unless we are dealing with a child that has had a serious accident and is starting to learn how to read all over again, he/she should have master it by 4th grade. Also, if such  a 4th grader was in such an accident and needed phonic to begin the reading process, he/she should be given this in a Resource program.

(5) Low quality In Service: The only addition to this is that NCLB defines Staff Development as of High quality and centered around the needs of the teachers and students. Now who would be better able to make a decision around Staff Development other than the teachers and parents in a collective way.

(6) Student Study Team: I agree with everything said and will only add, that the State have given this district a good deal and is continuing to give money to districts to improve the operations of the SST. The State has stated that a good, functional SST is the first step in early intervention. The district 
(downtown) has failed to use the monies and training to the best interest of the teaching staff and students.

(7) ELD Testing: Another way to get extra dollars and subject students and parents with the feeling that something is wrong with my child or he/she is different.

In sum, I thank the teachers at Downer for opening the door to what can be a new perspective and dialogue about how education can change or be delivered. When reading the NCLB School requirements for year 3 schools it states that one action could be to restructure internal organizational structure of the school. The Downer 5 are attempting to do so. It also states that the LEA informs parents and public of corrective action and allows comment. The actions of the LEA is in direct opposition to that statement. We have spent the last 5 years with teachers  speaking out about their voices not being heard. We have watched as good teachers leave the district and go to places where they are respected or just retire from teaching, it is time to move from the plantation mentality to a more open way of educating our students.