A Tufts University study finds that while the District and 20 states do discuss the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in their high school social studies curricula, they don't have much context or detail. Fourteen states don't mention the attacks at all in texts that have been updated since 2001.

While the researchers don't want states that exclude 9/11 from their texts to be considered "negligent," they praise the states that include the attacks, writing:

We do, however, recognize the power of these standards in guiding what is taught in high school social studies classrooms and as a form of "official knowledge" that becomes part of the historical narrative.

District of Columbia Public Schools' high schoolers study 9/11 in the 11th grade, and are asked to "describe America’s response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, including the intervention in Afghanistan and invasion of Iraq."

The DCPS choice of curriculum makes sense. Take the wide variety of opinion pieces posted in local and national media over the weekend. Unlike Pearl Harbor, to which the researchers compared 9/11, the lessons of the day are anything but settled. America is still examining and re-examining its feelings about the attacks and their aftermath. For the time being, standardizing those feelings into "official knowledge" seems like something that should be held off.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

But how to motivate kids to reach new heights of testing achievement? Snacks? Field trips? Inspiring speakers?

Teachers at one school, Petworth's E.L. Haynes Public Charter School, decided that a music video would be the way to go. To the tune of Young Money's "BedRock," behold "CASrock":

Says one WCP staffer, "They're totally gonna make AYP this year."

The video for the original is, um, somewhat different:

UPDATED 6:05 P.M.

A week after a new D.C. Public Schools teacher contract proposal was rolled out with great fanfare, fiscal revelations aired today leave its ultimate implementation very much in doubt.

Chancellor Michelle Rhee and Washington Teachers' Union head George Parker appeared at a D.C. Council administrative meeting earlier today to brief councilmembers on the agreement. Rhee was grilled on the deal's financing details and revealed that retroactive raises are being funded by a $34 million DCPS surplus.

With that revelation, "everyone's ears perked up," says a person at the meeting. That's because less than eight months ago, the school system was pleading poverty and ordered layoffs for 266 teachers to close a $40M budget gap.

The surplus, Rhee told the room, was the result of a miscalculation by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Specifically, she said expense projections had been based on an average teacher salary of $81,000 when the actual figure is nearly $15,000 less.

Councilmembers were aghast at the disclosure—an admission that at least some of the layoffs, which tore the local body politic asunder, were unnecessary. D.C. Council Chairman (and mayoral candidate) Vincent C. Gray was "stunned and astounded," a spokesperson says. Rhee said she had "recently" learned of the miscalculation, says a meeting attendee.

The political ramifications are heavy.

Bearing the brunt of the disclosure, at least immediately, is union president Parker—who will have to decide whether to seek reinstatement for the fired teachers with the surplus, or to press forward with a contract. In either case, his hard-line opponents within the union have a new avenue of attack; he stands for re-election next month. Parker claimed today that he had no knowledge of the surplus prior to the meeting.

Also in the hot seat: CFO Natwar M. Gandhi, who certified the erroneous figures last summer. Rhee named her former agency CFO Noah Wepman as the culprit, meeting sources say, but Wepman was supposed to be accountable to Gandhi—not Rhee.

In the wake of the fall layoffs, tough questions were raised about Wepman's independence from the chancellor, and he was forced out after a poor showing at a council hearing. Questions about Gandhi's stewardship of school finances now reappear. Note also that Rhee's fingering of Gandhi represents a shift of political blame to an entity ostensibly independent of the mayor; Gandhi, of course, has survived much worse.

Other folks with egg on their face: Katherine Bradley, who is spending $100,000 in her foundation's money, to hire former White House communications chief Anita Dunn to handle, among other things, the rollout of the teacher contract. And this is what they get?

The big questions going forward: Assuming Parker doesn't withdraw from the contract agreement and that Gandhi certifies the deal, will teachers vote for big raises knowing it comes at the expense of wrongfully fired ex-colleagues? And if they do vote to ratify, will a feisty group of D.C. councilmembers, led by a mayoral candidate, abide by their wishes and vote to approve the contract in this election year?

LL was not in the room; Examiner's Leah Fabel was there, among other reporters.

Fabel quotes Gray's reaction: "If I were one of the fired teachers, I would be ready to put my hands around someone's throat and squeeze till there was no air left....At the end of the day, some people's pay raises [would be] funded with someone else's job."

UPDATE, 6:05 P.M.: A Rhee spokesperson challenges LL's reporting that she identified Wepman as the source of the bad information; LL has asked in what context Rhee might have uttered his name.

Gandhi's office has issued a statement: "All of the facts, figures and information concerning the finances of the teachers contract will be released when the CFO’s analysis of the contract is made public."

And a statement from the WTU:

To put it simply, this is unacceptable.

We once again request that DCPS reinstate the teachers who were laid off. If the teachers are not reinstated, the WTU requests a new hearing on the RIF, at which time the newly available budget information will be provided to the court.

We also are requesting that the D.C. city council take legislative action to ensure greater transparency in the budget process. In particular, we would like to see more rigorous guidelines for determining what does—and does not—constitute a crisis that allows for unregulated actions like October’s RIF.

The WTU calls for a close review of the unilateral powers currently accorded the chancellor and the mayor, to determine if more must be done to ensure that there is greater accountability, both to the council and to the people of the District of Columbia.

Nothing can give back to the teachers, the students and the community what was lost as a result of either malevolence or mismanagement of the budget. We must, however, take all necessary steps to ensure that it does not happen again.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

UPDATED 5:55 P.M.

Smoke billowed this afternoon from the roof of Eastern Senior High School, which is nearing the end of a $76 million renovation.

According to D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services, firefighters responded to reports of heavy black smoke coming from the building's roof shortly before 4:30 p.m. By 4:45, a second alarm had been called. East Capitol Street is closed east of Lincoln Park.

By 5:10, the smoke had stopped coming from the roof, and a police officer on the scene reported that the blaze was under control.

The school, built in 1932, has been closed since 2008 for a thorough renovation and had been scheduled to reopen this fall (although D.C. Public Schools officials recently backed off that timeline). Fire department spokesperson Pete Piringer said a "minimal amount of people" were in the building, which was quickly evacuated without incident. It's unclear if construction work was underway at the time.

Earlier today, a fire broke out at the Turner @ Green Elementary School, at 1500 Mississippi Ave. SE, causing damage to the school's playground and the building facade. Congress Heights on the Rise reported from the scene.

Photo, reporting by Arthur Delaney

UPDATE, 5:55 P.M.: The fire is out, Piringer reports from the scene. Construction crews were on the roof at Eastern today, he says, applying a waterproof rubberized membrane when the fire broke out; the roofers all escaped without incident. The blaze was contained to the roof, Piringer says, adding that any smoke or water damage to the rest of the building is "minimal."

The fire is likely accidental, Piringer says, and there looks to be no connection to the fire at Turner @ Green. That fire "totaled" playground equipment, while causing "superficial damage" to the building itself. The cause of that fire is under investigation.

UPDATED 7 P.M.

The D.C. Public Schools and the Washington Teachers' Union are set to unveil their long-awaited contract proposal, bringing to a close negotiations that have dragged on for the duration of Chancellor Michelle Rhee's tenure.

An announcement could come as soon as tomorrow, debuting an agreement that would offer city teachers significant raises plus the option to participate in novel "performance pay" plans, all funded in part with $64.5 million in private funds.

Preliminary details on the proposal come from draft internal documents obtained by LL; sources indicate that the outlines of the proposal are in place, though some details remain in flux.

The five-year contract, which would be retroactive to October 2007 and continue through September 2012, would mean an overall 21.6 percent rise in teachers' base salary rates. But the most discussed parts of the proposal stand to be performance pay and the process for "excessed" teachers (i.e., those laid off from an overstaffed school), as well as the novel funding stream.

Not all teachers would be eligible for performance pay. Those seeking to participate would have to "qualify in" using an teaching evaluation process that is yet to be finalized. Unlike the ill-fated "green tier" proposal, teachers who participate in performance pay would not lose tenure protections; however, they would lose some rights should they be excessed by DCPS.

As for those teachers not in the performance pay program, those rated "effective" or better under the IMPACT evaluation system would have three options if excessed and unable to immediately find a new DCPS position: take a $25,000 cash buyout; retire with full benefits if a teacher has 20 years experience; or take an additional year to find a placement with DCPS assistance, after which they would be fired.

Due process rights would be "streamlined" under the proposal but not ditched entirely. According to the documents, "teachers are entitled to due process that is fair, transparent, and expedient." The documents refer to a "system of checks and balances on the authority of school administrators."

Teachers who have moved past probationary status (i.e., in their third year at DCPS) will be protected from firing without "just cause." Those still on probationary status can be terminated for reasons "not arbitrary and capricious." The documents emphasize that those terms have "strong meaning in labor arbitration."

The base salary raises and performance pay initiative are funded via nearly $65 million in private donations gathered by the D.C. Public Education Fund—$10 million from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation; $10 million from the Broad Foundation; $19.5 million from the Robertson Foundation, and $25 million from the Walton Family Foundation. The money, according to documents, is devoted to the "recruitment, retention and rewarding of quality teachers."

Notably absent from that list is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has taken a keen interest in urban school reform and has developed ties with Rhee. One of the documents obtained by LL addresses its absence thusly: "The Gates Foundation has been incredibly generous, and, like all other funders, is donating substantial resources to a singular effort. The Gates Foundation is currently supporting innovations in teacher professional development such as the online platform, which is currently being planned, that will allow for personalized training for individual teachers."

As yet unaddressed: what happens in 2012, when the contract expires. Do the foundations have any ongoing commitment to funding DCPS, or would the city have to make up the difference, or would teachers face the possibility of a pay cut?

The contract proposal does address two extremely sticky areas of labor-management relations of late. One is the IMPACT teacher evaluation system, which is the foundation for much of what the contract proposes; the teachers union can have no direct say on evaluations under city law, but DCPS has agreed, according to the documents, to form a working group with WTU reps to "review teachers' concerns and suggestions regarding implementation of IMPACT....and to make recommendations to resolve issues and make improvements." IMPACT, additionally, will be subject to an outside review.

And then there's reductions-in-force, or RIFs—which occur when teachers are laid off to close a budget shortfall. Last fall, a DCPS RIF set off a political firestorm, with teachers, union officials, and politicians complaining about an opaque and arbitrary process that led to the firings of 266 teachers.

Under the contract proposal, new "checks and balances" would be instituted "to help members and the WTU deal with difficult personnel decisions and quickly challenge any arbitrary actions either at the building or district level." Specifically, there would be "consultation with WTU to discuss other possible options" prior to a RIF; "stronger language on the role of [local school restructuring teams]," which were supposed to play a crucial role in the fall RIF but in many cases did not; and "multiple hiring opportunities" for RIF'd teachers.

The contract proposal will be presented to teachers for a ratification vote; the contract would then go to the D.C. Council for final approval. A meeting of the WTU Representative Assembly has been called for tomorrow evening at McKinley Technology High School to discuss the proposal; expected to attend is Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, WTU's parent union, who has taken an key role in the negotiations.

The proposal, and teachers' reaction to it, stands to have a dramatic impact on the Washington Teachers' Union election later this spring, where President George Parker is facing a feisty challenge from longtime nemesis Nathan Saunders. The contract is also certain to have an impact on this year's mayoral race, with combatants Adrian Fenty and Vincent Gray already dueling over their approaches to education.

###

Here is a draft text from a Q&A prepared by DCPS and the WTU:

WTU Tentative Agreement – Questions and Answers

SALARY AND BENEFITS

1. How much is my raise?

The Tentative Agreement is for five years (Oct 1, 2007 – Sept.. 30, 2012), with base salary raises of 3 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent, 4 percent and 5 percent. Upon ratification, you will receive an immediate raise of 11 percent (retroactive pay of 3 percent for 2007-2008, 3 percent for 2008-2009 and 5 percent for 2009-2010). The total increase adds up to a realized increase of 21.6 percent. In addition to these significant base salary increases, there are substantial increases in benefit payments, administrative premiums and start-up allocations.

Special Note: Teachers who were separated or retired as a result of the November 2009 reduction-in-force (RIF) also will receive retroactive pay.

2. When the contract is ratified, when do I get my raise? When do I get my retroactive pay?

The WTU will work with DCPS to ensure retroactive payments are quick and accurate. (George Parker would have add here.

3. Is performance pay included in this Agreement?

A voluntary individual performance pay provision is included in this Agreement. Teachers must "qualify in" to participate in the individual performance pay system.

4. How do I "qualify" for individual performance pay? What are the consequences of participation? Will it be based solely on test scores?

WTU and DCPS will collaborate on the development and implementation of an individual performance pay program for the fall of 2010. The exact details regarding qualifications and standards for rewards have not been developed. The individual performance-based pay system, however, shall be on a voluntary, "qualify-in" basis that includes multiple measures of teaching practice and student growth for tested and non-tested grades and subjects. Most importantly, participation does not require teachers to relinquish their tenure.

In the event of excessing, permanent status teachers who elect to participate have 60 days to secure another placement in DCPS. If they do not find a placement, participating teachers are not eligible for the three options under performance-based placement (see Question #18) and may be subject to separation from DCPS.

5. How will the school-wide TEAM awards change? How much will they be worth?

The school-wide TEAM awards will now be based on the relative growth of student performance instead of a fixed amount of student growth. This will give many more schools and staff members a realistic chance of receiving an award. The amount of the awards will depend on the availability of funds and awards. All staff members will know the approximate amount of the TEAM award before the start of each year.

6. Where does all the money for the various monetary increases in the Agreement come from? What happens if the DCPS runs out of money?

Along with the traditional funding sources, DCPS has secured letters of support from a number of private funders to pay for base salary and performance components of this Tentative Agreement. Before the WTU a asked members to vote on the proposal, DCPS and the WTU received a written certification from DC's Chief Financial Officer that assures the financial viability of the proposal.

Failure to provide the funds to meet the obligations of the Agreement -pertaining to base salary, benefits and mutual consent is a material breach of contract by DCPS. The consequences of that breach will be settled by a court or an arbitrator, unless otherwise negotiated by the Parties.

7. How much do I get for "start-up" funds? How and when will it be distributed?

Start-up funds for the 2010-2011 school year will be $175, an increase of 75 percent. It increases to $200 for the 2011-2012 school year. The WTU will work with DCPS to create an effective distribution process that allows teachers to access the funds so they have the tools they need prior to the start of school.

8. What is the "Administrative Premium?"

(I have a good idea, but George should answer this on)

9. When do the increases in benefits kick-in?

The increases in benefits will be effective immediately upon ratification of the Tentative Agreement by members and approval by the DC City Council. (Check with George)

TENURE/DUE PROCESS

10. Does the contract force teachers to give up tenure?

No. This Agreement preserves permanent status and due process. Though tenure often is misconstrued and vilified, no one believes tenure guarantees teachers "a job for life." Everyone agrees, however, that teachers are entitled to due process that is fair, transparent and expedient. This Agreement provides that. It also strengthens language on due process and creates a system of checks and balances on the authority of school administrators—particularly as it relates to reductions-in-force. Moreover, teachers who volunteer to participate in any of the performance pay programs do not relinquish their due process rights.

11. Does the new contract include Red and Green?

No. Unlike the red and green proposal, all teachers' base pay is calculated using the same salary structure. New teachers and veteran teachers all are paid using the same base pay system. All of the base pay salary schedules can be found on the last pages of the proposed agreement.

12. What is the difference between "just cause" and "not arbitrary and capricious?" Why was this changed?

Permanent status teachers will continue to have the protection of "just cause." Just cause is a common standard in labor arbitration, and is included in the tentative agreement as a strong form of job security. Probationary teachers will not be "at-will" as is the case in most other states, in DC probationary teachers will have the protection of "not arbitrary and capricious." -It means a clear error of judgment or an action not based upon consideration of relevant factors. Both of these terms have strong meaning in labor arbitration and afford WTU members the protect they need and deserve.

13. How has the grievance process change? How is it better than before?

It is more streamlined. By removing one step and clarifying actions within each step, the process will work better for teachers and provide quick resolutions for all grievances.

REDUCTION-IN-FORCE/EXCESSING

14. Does the Agreement include the support and protection from arbitrary dismissals and RIFs?

The WTU was very concerned about the lack of transparency exhibited by DCPS over the past few years regarding dismissals and RIFs. The proposal has new "checks and balances" for evaluations, excessing and reductions-in-force. These new provisions will help members and the WTU deal with difficult personnel decisions and quickly challenge any arbitrary actions either at the building or district level.

15. How does the new Agreement address the uniqueness of B.C. law as it relates to RIF? Are there provisions in the new agreement to ensure a greater degree of fairness?

Under D.C. law, the Chancellor has unfettered authority to institute a RIF. This Agreement places some checks and balances on that authority and creates a process that promotes a greater degree of transparency and fairness. Additionally, it offers teachers affected by RIF and excessing options that were not previously available. (See Question 8.)

16. How will the contract stop DCPS from using a RIF to get rid of teachers?

The proposed Agreement cannot stop DCPS from implementing a RIF. RIF and Furloughs are part of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR). The proposed Agreement, however, has several new provisions to avoid many of the issues that led to the recent RIF. These include a clear policy regarding excessing and placement, consultation with WTU to discuss other possible options, stronger language on the role of LSRTs, and multiple hiring opportunities for teachers who have been RIFed.

17. How will excessing decisions be made?

Excessing decisions will be made using the rubric found on page 28 of the proposed Agreement. The following steps will be followed when DCPS determines an excess is necessary:

• The Local School Restructuring Team (LSRT) shall make a recommendation for the area(s) of certification to be affected.
• The Building Personnel Committee shall make a recommendation to the Supervisor as to the teacher(s) to be affected.
• The Teachers in the affected area may provide evidence to the Personnel Committee for their consideration.

If the Supervisor's final decision departs from the recommendations of the LSRT or the Building Personnel Committee, the Supervisor must prepare a written justification. Upon the request of the WTU President, the justification shall require the approval of the Chancellor prior to implementation of the excess at that school.

18. What happens if I am excessed? What happens if I can't find a placement? What happens if I can't find a placement after one year? Will I get help finding a placement?

When a teacher is excessed, DCPS will provide multiple hiring opportunities. If a teacher with an effective rating or higher is unable to secure a new position in 60 days they have 5 days to select from the following three options:

1. Receive a $25,000 cash buyout resulting in separation from DCPS;
2. Teachers with twenty (20) or more years of creditable service shall have the option of retiring with full benefits; or
3. An Extra Year to Secure a New Position.

Teachers who are unable to secure a placement will be provided additional hiring opportunities, professional development and temporary assignments. At the end of the year, any teacher who still has not secured a position may be separated from DCPS.

19. How do the three options work? What are the requirements?

Any teacher who receives an effective rating or higher will be eligible for the three options. Only excessed teachers with 20 or more years in DCPS have the option to select retiring with full benefits.

IMPROVING TEACHING AND LEARNING

20. When will all this professional development and new support for teachers be available?

Immediately upon ratification, the WTU and DCPS will take steps to provide teachers with the high-quality professional develop opportunities outlined in the tentative agreement. WTU will focus on the immediate professional development needs identified by our members to ensure those needs are met as soon as possible.

21. How will the new teacher centers work? Who will staff them? What will they do?

Work will begin to launch the new WTU Professional Development Centers as soon as ratification is complete. WTU will work with the teachers of the UFT Teacher Centers in New York City to help shape our centers locally. Their experiences will prove invaluable to the teachers of DC as we embark on a new area of teacher-led professional development in our city.

22. What are the school improvement models? Who decides what model should be used?

The Tentative Agreement includes three new models for school improvement. In all of them, teachers continue to be full WTU members with all of the rights afforded by the WTU contract. The actual details of the three models can be found on pages 20 -24 of the Tentative Agreement. Teachers, administrators and community members working with each school's Local School Restructuring Team (LSRT) will decide which model is best for their students.

WORKING CONDITIONS

23. Will the new contract help improve discipline in my school? If so, how? Will I be supported?

Yes. The proposed Agreement requires that every school align its school discipline policy with Chapter 25 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR). In addition, each school will form a Student Behavior Management Committee (SBMCJ that must design a school-wide discipline and behavior management plan based on the local school's disciplinary needs, and it must be consistent with Chapter 25. To ensure every school has a comprehensive and fully operating plan, the WTU shall develop a system-wide template that will include the required components of school discipline/behavior management plans, along with models of best practices.

24. When will the WTU template for discipline be shared with my school?

The WTU already has contacted the AFT to help develop the discipline template for our schools. Working with the best discipline experts from around the country, the new template will be a step forward in ensuring our students have the safe'and orderly learning environments they deserve.

TEACHER EVALUATION

25. How will my concerns about the new teacher evaluation system be addressed?

D.C. law prohibits the union from negotiating on teacher evaluations. WTU and DCPS, however, have agreed in writing to form a working group of members and administrators to review teachers' concerns and suggestions regarding implementation of the IMPACT evaluation system and to make recommendations to resolve issues and make improvements. Additionally, the new Agreement calls for an independent evaluation and an internal review of IMPACT.

26. What additional things were agreed to or clarified in negotiations?

There four side letters attached to this tentative agreement. They cover a variety of concerns not directly addressed in the agreement:

1. A "working group" of teachers and administrators to review teachers' concerns and suggestions regarding implementation of the IMPACT evaluation system and make recommendations to the Chancellor as she/he works to resolve issues and make improvements.
2. Mutually agreed upon experts to review the IMPACT system and make recommendations to enhance and improve the system.
3. Clarification that WTU has always believed that past practice regarding progressive discipline does not apply to situations involving sexual harassment or sexual/physical abuse by a teacher.
4. Teachers who were RIF'd in November 2009, will be provided opportunities to interview for any position for which they are qualified before external candidates are considered. (Must check on the exact language on this one!!!)

Here is the text of a separate Q&A, one that addresses the sources of the contract funding:

Framing Message and Q and A for Private Dollars

Framing Message:

In order to appropriately compensate teachers for the incredible job they do each and every day, we called upon a broad range of foundations with vast experience in the field of education philanthropy to help support a contract that will compensate DCPS teachers in a way that no other school system can match. The dollars from each foundation – $64.5 million total – will be dedicated to separate and specific areas of the contract. These foundations believe in education reform that recognizes and empowers teachers. We are extremely grateful that they stepped up when asked and are helping to launch a new kind of contract.

Q AND A:

Q: Are any private funds being used to facilitate the costs of this contract?

A: Yes. A significant percentage of this contract is being funded with private dollars from a wide and diverse array of foundations. This funding will allow DCPS to compensate teachers as the skilled professionals they are, with accountability measures that reward strong classroom performance.

Q: Which foundations are involved?

A: The Laura and John Arnold Foundation
The Broad Foundation
The Robertson Foundation
The Walton Family Foundation

Q: How much have they contributed?

A: Each organization stepped up to the plate with extremely generous commitments.
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation: $10 million
The Broad Foundation: $10 million
The Robertson Foundation: $19.5 million
The Walton Family Foundation: $25 million

Q: Are these private dollars going to anything specific or a general fund?

A: These dollars will go toward the recruitment, retention and rewarding of quality teachers.

Q: Why are these foundations contributing to the cost of a teacher's union contract?

A: All of these foundations have two things in common: they believe.in our vision for reform, and they all committed their support when asked by the DC Public Education Fund.

Q: What is the role of the DC Public Education Fund?

A: DC Public Education Fund's mission is to serve as a strategic partner to businesses, foundations, individuals, and community leaders in collaborating on and investing in high impact programs with DC Public Schools. This work includes attracting critical funding resources, managing key public-private partnerships, and acting as fiscal sponsor for all grants made on behalf of DC Public Schools.

For questions about each individual funder, refer media to the specific foundations.

Q: Is it appropriate to use private funds for public education?

A: Yes, we want to bring every available resource to bear for improving our public schools.

Q: Are there any strings attached to these dollars?

A: It is important to be clear that the District will control this money, rather than the funders. The conditions are that DCPS stay true to its mission of reform, and that these dollars be used to support excellence in teaching. There are no conditions that are atypical for a standard grant agreement.

Q: But what happens when these foundations decide to put their resources elsewhere other than the DCPS system?

A: Our partners are committed to the terms and for the duration of this contract. Beyond that, it is our goal to sustain this with public dollars.

Q: Why is the Gates Foundation not involved?

A: The Gates Foundation has been incredibly generous, and, like all other funders, is donating substantial resources to a singular effort. The Gates Foundation is currently supporting innovations in teacher professional development such as the online platform, which is currently being planned, that will allow for personalized training for individual teachers.

Q: Why are there no local foundations involved?

A: Many local foundations generously fund school-based programs throughout DC Public Schools. Large national foundations are the appropriate source for funding...

UPDATED, 7 P.M.: Parker calls LL to emphasize that the Q&A posted above is not a final version. "We've made a lot of changes, no doubt," he says. LL will post the final version as soon as it is available tomorrow.

On June 11th, Mrs. Obama will address the Anacostia Senior High School Commencement, a DC public school that Mrs. Obama visited in the spring of 2009 in conjunction with her Women of Excellence event and her early mentoring activities as First Lady.

Last year, FLOTUS spoke at the commencement for the Washington Math Science Technology Public Charter High School in Northeast.

As LL noted earlier this month, students will be expected on June 21 and 22—the built-in make-up days scheduled for the Monday and Tuesday after school was originally slated to end. In addition: Students will attend on March 19, originally a "professional development" day for teachers, and May 17, originally slated for parent-teacher conferences. And June 18, originally a half-day, is now a full day.

What DCPS didn't do: Add time to the school day, shorten spring break, or take away the Emancipation Day holiday. "[U]ltimately these scenarios were too costly," says a DCPS release.

You know what that means: Make-up days!

Spokesperson Jennifer Calloway says two make-up days have already been "built in" to the schedule—June 21 and 22, the Monday and Tuesday following the Friday when the school year was originally scheduled to end. Two more might be necessary, but "I don't think we've come to a conclusion on that," she says. A decision should be shortly forthcoming, she adds.

What we really want to know is what happened within the administration of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty between roughly 5 pm and 9 pm. At the former hour, his people put out the word that the D.C. public schools would open a mere two hours late. What ambition!

That shocker came on the heels of a blizzard of far more cautious announcements: Montgomery County schools would be closed until Wednesday. And the school systems in just about every other regional county were counting Monday out, easy.

So on what twisted logic did Fenty and schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee actually believe that they could get teachers and students past impassible streets and sidewalks and into their often out-of-boundary schools? That would be question No. 1.

Question No. 2, logically, is who screamed at them following the 5 pm two-hours-late announcement and talked some sense into them? Was it the teachers? Hard to suppose that this group would have swayed the powers that be. Was it parents? Doubt it—parents want the schools to stay open. Was it Peter Nickles? Again, doubt it—Mr. Hard Guy couldn't be expected to advocate for such softness.

We're waiting for answers.

The D.C. Public Schools announced today that the annual out-of-boundary lottery process has begun, whereby parents can apply to take their kids out of their low-performing neighborhood school and, through a lottery process, put them in better-performing schools, many of which are west of Rock Creek Park.

That, of course, is what Mayor Adrian M. Fenty himself has done for his own children. Except for that whole lottery process thing.

But he still wants parents to use it. In the DCPS press release, Fenty offers this endorsement: "When it comes to education, District families want and deserve choices....[W]e encourage current and prospective parents to look both inside and beyond their neighborhood to find out more."

A refresher: Last fall, Fenty's twin sons were enrolled at high-performing Lafayette Elementary School in Chevy Chase, not their neighborhood school, the somewhat less successful West Elementary. For days and days, reporters pressed Fenty to explain whether he used the out-of-boundary lottery process or used some other means; Hizzoner repeatedly and testily refused to answer.

The most definite explanation ever provided came courtesy of the Washington Post editorial board, which provided what they considered to be an "innocent explanation" for the transfer: Twins need to be in separate classes, and West had only one fourth-grade classroom, so Chancellor Michelle Rhee moved them to Lafayette, which has four. Later, Rhee went on WTOP to say "no rules were broken" in the transfer but nothing else.

But that explanation didn't hold a terrific amount of water, either. As LL pointed out, there are 14 other DCPS schools closer to the Fenty home than Lafayette where the Fenty boys could attend fourth grade. None of them had higher test scores than Lafayette.

LL's attempts since then to get to the bottom of the matter have failed. Under DCPS rules, Rhee is empowered to transfer children from school to school under her own discretion, so LL submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to get a list of kids moved under that authority. Here's what he got back: "In order to provide the data requested, DCPS would have to create a document, which is not required under FOIA."

Here's a question parents need to ask themselves before signing up for the out-of-boundary process this year: Is the lottery sound? Are the competitive slots in high-performing schools going to be available fairly to your child?

LL asked Fenty in August to reassure parents that the process was not subject to political meddling. He would not.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

A top union official isn't satisfied with Michelle Rhee's explanations thus far of her controversial comments to Fast Company magazine.

Yesterday, Rhee explained that when she described "teachers...who had had sex with children," she referred to a teacher that was being investigated for sexual misconduct at the time of the layoffs. But George Parker, president of the Washington Teachers' Union, says that, from what he knows about the case, misconduct charges were "alleged but not substantiated."

The disposition of the "sex with children" charge threatens to prolong the controversy over Rhee's comments. After all, teachers and politicos are already upset that Rhee painted 266 laid-off teachers with a broad brush that included unspecified child sex charges—what if those charges came to naught?

In an interview yesterday, Rhee declined to discuss the case beyond what she'd acknowledged in her letters. Parker, also, declined to discuss details. D.C. police have not confirmed any investigation, and the U.S. attorney's office yesterday evening was not able to confirm the existence of any sexual misconduct case against a DCPS teacher.

Attorney General Peter Nickles—who, based on past practice, has no doubt played a role in the lack of response—responds to Parker's claim simply: "That is not true. I won't have any further comment."

Parker says he was not aware of the teacher until Rhee made her comments last week. The teacher's field representative had been made aware of the investigation last year, but the union, Parker says, was never officially notified of any disciplinary action, as is usual practice.

How to move forward in the absence of any explanation?

Parker holds to a simple solution to the comments mess—"to reinstate all of the RIF'd teachers," he says. That probably isn't going to happen—particularly in light of a Superior Court judge's preliminary ruling upholding the basis for the layoffs.

Outside of blanket reinstatements, Parker counsels that the chancellor watch her mouth: "When we talk about moving forward, there needs to be a change in how the chancellor talks about teachers in general. The test scores are going up, but the respect for teachers has not increased....The chancellor needs to be the champion for DCPS teachers when she speaks in public. We haven't seen that."

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

The letter followed informal explanations provided to WRC-TV and the Washington Post editorial board.

"The comment I made to Fast Company was made some time ago -and in the context of explaining the importance of considering teacher performance, and not just seniority, in deciding which teachers would be let go during a reduction in force necessitated by a budget cut. I was describing the kind of conduct that was appropriate to take into account in implementing the reduction in force," she wrote.

As far as the "sex with children" comment, she writes: "One teacher against whom serious allegations of sexual misconduct had been made was terminated in the [reduction in force]. This teacher was immediately put on administrative leave and removed from the school as soon as the allegations came to our attention. This person was not in the classroom at the time of the RIF, and DCPS referred the case to MPD."

Full letter after jump.

January 26, 2010

Dear Chairman Gray and Councilmembers Kwame Brown and Barry:

I received your letters and emails and wanted to take the time to fully respond to the issues raised in each each, however, I believe it is important to address the common concerns right away. Student safety is our highest concern, and we have thousands of teachers, principals and staff members who share that commitment and treat our students with great care and respect every day.

The comment I made to Fast Company was made some time ago -and in the context of explaining the importance of considering teacher performance, and not just seniority, in deciding which teachers would be let go during a reduction in force necessitated by a budget cut. I was describing the kind of conduct that was appropriate to take into account in implementing the reduction in force.

The examples I gave involved a very small minority of the teachers who were terminated in the budget reduction.

One teacher against whom serious allegations of sexual misconduct had been made was terminated in the RIF. This teacher was immediately put on administrative leave and removed from the school as soon as the allegations came to our attention. This person was not in the classroom at the time of the RIF, and DCPS referred the case to MPD.

Below are some of the questions I received from you and other Councilmembers that I want to address head-on:

How many of the RIFed employees were accused of sexual misconduct/corporal punishment/time and attendance abuse and why weren't they fired before the RIF?

One teacher had been accused of sexual misconduct; again, this person was immediately put on administrative leave and removed from the school. The investigation was still pending at the time of RIF.

Six of the employees terminated through the RIF had served suspensions for corporal punishment. Two of the employees terminated through the RIF served suspensions for being AWOL on multiple occasions and several other employees had egregious time and attendance records.

The progressive discipline procedures contained in the applicable collective bargaining agreements prescribed suspension, rather than terminations, for these situations.

What is the process for reporting, investigating and acting on allegations of serious employee misconduct?

Principals are required to report all allegations of corporal punishment or sexual misconduct to the school's Contract Security Officer (CSO). The CSO then files an incident report and reports the incident to MPD, who reviews the allegation and determines whether a formal criminal investigation is needed.

When there are allegations of serious misconduct, are teachers immediately fired?

Not necessarily. For example, if a teacher has committed corporal punishment, depending on the surrounding circumstances, DCPS may not be able to fire the teacher on the first offense.

The RIF was a difficult time for DCPS, and we want to continue to work together as a school system to move past it and to remain focused on serving students. I will work to provide any additional information requested in your correspondence in a supplemental response as quickly as possible.

Sincerely,

Michelle A. Rhee
Chancellor

Cc: Mayor Adrian M. Fenty
All members of the Council of the District of Columbia

"Maybe we ought to just disband this council. Why did we spend hours working on a budget...only for you to second-guess us?"

—D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, Oct. 29

Michelle Rhee’s make-nice tactics ended on Sept. 16, when she announced that teachers would be laid off for the first time in years. When 229 of them got the boot on Oct. 2—at least some of them assisted by police—local legislators went nuts, none more than Gray. Exacerbating the conflict was Rhee’s insistence that the cuts were due to mid-summer budget cuts by the council; Gray insisted that he and his colleagues had cut only summer school, not teachers. What came out at an Oct. 29 hearing was that the school system’s budget woes were worse than the council knew: Millions in overspending were kept in the dark, and Rhee decided to cut teachers rather than summer school. And At-Large Councilmember Michael A. Brown became the first legislator to publicly suggest that Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's control of the school system be revoked. "It's time to think about reforming the reform," he said on the dais.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

More from LL's Quotes of 2009

WaPo's Bill Turque reported earlier this month that students at Wilson Senior High School would have to relocate while the city renovated their historic Tenleytown campus, and that the University of the District of Columbia would be a likely spot for their interlude.

Well, it's now official: Wilson principal Pete Cahall informed parents today in an e-mail that the kids will be housed in UDC's Building 52 next school year while the renovations at Wilson proceed. A groundbreaking, in fact, is scheduled for tomorrow.

The building, on the southwest corner of Connecticut Avenue and Yuma Street NW, is currently undergoing renovation to serve as UDC's business school, says university spokesperson Alan Etter. It's also planned to serve as the university's student center.

One political sidenote that LL will point out: That DCPS and UDC were able to come to an understanding, with UDC willing to delay the opening of its business school, might very well mark a thaw in relations between the Fenty administration and UDC—an institution Fenty has clashed with and made repeated attempts to assert more control over.

The university has been working closely with Allen Lew's school facilities shop on the deal, Etter says. DCPS is taking advantage of already-planned UDC-funded renovations at the building, but if any Wilson-specific changes need to be made, DCPS will foot the bill. "There's been a great working relationship," Etter says.

Despite the fact that work is proceeding post-haste—some Wilson classrooms will be closed next semester as the project begins, forcing students into temporary spaces—Turque noted that controversy persists over the plans for the Wilson reno.

Here's Cahall's note:

Good evening, Wilson Parents and Students...this is Principal Cahall calling with my weekly update.

I am pleased to announce that we will relocate our school to the University of the District of Columbia's campus for the 2010-2011 school year. We will be housed in Building 52, a five story building on Connecticut Avenue. The building is currently gutted and work will begin immediately preparing the space for our arrival in August 2010.

Our ground breaking ceremony will be on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 and work will begin at Wilson after the winter break. When school resumes on January 4, we no longer have access to the auditorium wing of the building including the rose garden. Classrooms are being constructed in the armory and displaced classrooms from the auditorium will be located there.

We will need your continued support and assistance as we work through this process. We need to keep the end in mind which will be a full modernized and state of the art school when we return in 2011.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery