Vacuous slogans, gimmicks still can’t justify AIO structure

By Tom Sharp

As the first anniversary of the reorganization of the Chicago school system from six “regions” into 24 “instructional areas” looms, more questions than answers remain about the controversial plan. Does the region reorganization represents a move towards “the next level” (as Board of Education jargonists like to render it, in the present buzzwords of business)? Or is it simply another game of musical chairs — and public relations — that neglects the underlying problems faced by teachers in the classrooms of most of the city’s schools?

At the end of March, the Board of Education quietly terminated the services of one of the AIOs (Lee Brown) after eight tumultuous months during which she threatened teachers, disrupted schools and classrooms, and created controversy involving everyone from local school councils to the Chicago Teachers Union. Brown remains at her AIO salary, but she is now performing other administrative duties for the school board. The rush to create the AIOs last summer — as part of a larger claim that Chicago was now in a “third wave” of “School Reform” — still simmers beneath the larger controversy that crosses the city when the AIOs are discussed.

Other changes during the winter include the addition of the highly paid Area Reading Coaches (or coordinators, in the way some people render the “ARC” title, which add a cost of more than $3 million to the overall price tag for AIOs and related staff). Whether elementary schools need outsiders to come in and enforce certain approaches to “reading” remains to be seen. And one of the great unanswered questions is how the high schools (especially the general high schools) still fill up every fall with thousands of semi-literate students, despite eight years of claims that the last “wave” of “School Reform” ended social promotion (and presumably ended the problem of semi-literate high school students as well).

As winter moved to Spring, one thing became more certain. AIOs are no longer as anonymous as they were even a few months earlier.

Since Substance reported in its February issue that Area Instruction Officers (AIOs) were virtually unknown to most Chicago public school classroom teachers, the Board of Education has conducted a stepped up massive public relations campaign in the schools. Most AIOs have conducted inservice sessions and held meetings with the schools’ administrators and faculty members.

The official AIO story — complete with Power Point and a video — was even presented to officers and staff of the Chicago Teachers Union by Board administrators and highly paid consultants.

On March 5th Chief Education Officer, Barbara Eason-Watkins, accompanied by two high-priced consultants from the University of Chicago’s “Center for School Improvement,” Sharon Greenberg and Jennifer McDermott, conducted a citywide “AIO Day” in the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) Merchandise Mart headquarters. They were there to explain to the CTU leaders, union representatives, teachers, and board administrators the duties and goals of AIO initiative, including specifics on the controversial “five-minute walk throughs.”

Following the lead of the school board’s version of history, Eason-Watkins began the presentation by explaining that “the AIOs represent the third wave of educational reform — Teaching and Learning” — in the Chicago public schools. According to that version, the first “wave” (1988 - 1995) was “Governance.” That was followed by the Vallas era (1995-2001) “Accountability — an End to Social Promotion”.

Nobody will provide the public with the qualifications of AIOs

Since the appointment of Arne Duncan and Barbara Eason-Watkins in July 2001, the official version of history says that Chicago is supposedly in the third wave of “School Reform.” This part is supposedly dealing with “instruction.” Just as promotion policies, reconstitution, reengineering, redesign, and similar programs were part of the “accountability” wave (and LSCs were characteristic of the first “wave”), now we have AIOs.

Without ever hinting that the ponderous administrative structures and destruction of much of the administrative infrastructure of the school system created by the Vallas administration were dysfunctional, Eason Watkins has said on numerous occasions that the AIOs were created to reduce the ratio of schools to area offices and administrators. There are now 24 AIOs in place of six regions. Eason-Watkins went on to say that the AIOs have been more visible in the schools than the Regional Instructional Officers they replaced. She added that the Management Support Directors (MSDs) had been created to alleviate some of the paper work and business functions required of the principals and certain teachers.

At the March 5 meeting for union leaders, Eason-Watkins turned part of the meeting over to Jennifer McDermott, one of the consultants from the University of Chicago’s Center for School Improvement. According to several people who were present, McDermott discussed the “five-minute walk throughs.” These are visits to classrooms where the teaching strategies and content are supposedly observed by a team of specialists (with the AIO and other teachers, usually selected by the principal) supposedly using a method that enables them — in five minutes — to make critical observations about the quality of teaching.

The controversial walk-throughs are one the prime strategies used to get teachers to see problems that need correcting, according to the AIO system. McDermott and another University consultant intended to show a videotape of a five-minute “walk through.” By that time, however, according to sources who were present, the audience said they wanted more time to get some of their questions answered and concerns addressed.

McDermott explained that prior to the walk throughs, teachers and principals attend a preliminary meeting to prepare them for what they will see and do in the classroom visits. During the visits teachers and the AIO team take notes and complete a checklist to note problems or good teaching strategies that might be copied elsewhere.

After the walk throughs a “debriefing meeting” is held to go over the findings of the walk throughs and address any problems that were found. McDermott said that the response has been mostly favorable to the walk throughs and several schools have already implemented changes in instructional strategies and methods used to convey them on both a school-wide and individual classroom level.

After the plan of the walk throughs was outlined, several people began to ask questions about the process itself and challenged what were characterized as the rosy scenarios and conclusions being presented.

Several asked how teachers were selected for the walk throughs. McDermott answered, “the process varies from school to school. Some use a rotation method to assure that all teachers get a chance, some teachers volunteer, others have the principal pick those teachers that might benefit most from the experience.” Sharon Greenberg added that, “it’s a good idea to get some ‘naysayers’ on your team...teachers find the experience valuable.”

Several questions were asked about the intrusion into classrooms and the belief that teachers were being judged unfairly. One union field representative from the far South Side noted, according to those present, that two AIOs — Lee Brown and Joyce Bristow — had, on several occasions made personal, derogatory remarks about individual teachers and their methods.

“ I am aware of the problems there,” Eason-Watkins reportedly responded, “We want to make sure this process works correctly. I’ve told the AIOs that they need to follow through.” As a result of the mounting criticisms, Brown was relieved of her AIO duties at the end of March. Bristow and the others whose controversial behavior has rankled teachers are still in office.

One teacher who was present for the meeting challenged the on-size-fits-all version of reality implicit in the “five minute walk through.”

“ I can’t figure out how this process works in the high schools,” a teacher complained. “There are no reading coordinators in the high schools. We like having visitors to our classes, but how do you modify this process when you’re in a building with between 100 and 250 faculty members?”

The complexity of the high schools has been a challenge to the “walk through” model from the beginning. Equally complex has been the fact that the AIO organizational scheme is centered around the reading curriculum, but since the “no social promotion” plan that accompanied “the second wave” of “school reform”, nobody is supposed to have gotten to high school without knowing how to read.

“ In this context, it sounds like the second ‘wave’ was a failure,” one teacher observed to Substance. “Why would you need area reading coaches for the high schools when every student knows how to read by the time he gets to high school, according to the official version of Chicago ‘school reform’?

At the March 2 session, McDermott answered that most high schools “address the process by individual departments.” Teachers pointed out that l;arger school had large departments, and that in some the “Science Department” might consist of separate departments for the different sciences taught. McDermott agreed that high schools represent a logistics problem, according to sources.

“I’m a representative of teachers and their rights. We’re being judged on perceptions gathered in five minutes. Who is in charge of the principals? Who is in charge of the MSDs? Where is the line authority here?” one field representative said.

Consultant Sharon Greenberg either misinterpreted the question or tried to change the subject by answering the rationale for a five-minute walk through. The attempt to steer the subject back to an academic discussion of ‘five-minute walk throughs’ has been an ongoing feature of the AIO debate.

In answer to repeated questions — “Who is in charge? Who is accountable? Who disciplines the AIO?” — Eason-Watkins now answers that Domingo Trujillo [Deputy Chief Education Officer in charge of the AIOs] makes a request of the Law Department to handle problems with the AIO.

Several union delegates and field representatives have asked about AIOs evaluating teachers. Eason-Watkins has assured audiences that AIOs would not judge teachers, only to be told that AIOs have directly told teachers and principals that that’s precisely what they will do.

The uneven activities of the AIOs as the school year enters testing season and draws to a close has been a constant subject of discussion.

“ [Many] West Side schools have no clue about what’s going on, who has what power,” a field rep has said. “We have received no feedback, no problems have been identified....The AIOs have had no impact on the West Side.”

As more becomes known about the AIO process and the walk throughs, the criticisms are becoming stronger. A number of teachers and principals are referring to the whole process as “just another miracle”, while many are critical of the superficiality of the concept itself.

“ You are only looking at superficial trends that can be seen in five minutes. I guarantee that not much is going to show up in five minutes...” one field representatives said. “I have schools where things are so bad there is no union representative. Who do the AIOs meet with in that situation? They should meet with me to get detailed information about these schools, but they haven’t. The biggest problem on the West Side is discipline. The AIO concept does not even address that problem.”

Under questioning from teachers and others, the supporters of the AIO reorganization continue to refer to the plan and offer Power Point overheads and a video. Many have mentioned the fact that the public information on the AIO and their related personnel has been insufficient or wrong. As late as March, the Board of Education was still providing the public with requests for information about salaries, qualifications, and powers of the AIOs (and their MSDs and ARCs) with materials that were factually untrue. Officially, the salaries of the MSDs, for example, are considerably less than what those administrators are actually being paid.

More and more teachers are expressing fear that “good schools” would slip through the process with their problems going unidentified because the problems in those schools are more subliminal and would probably not be picked up in the quickie walk throughs. “The veil is off...” Eason-Watkins says. “We devised this process to critique all schools, not just underperforming schools....”

Since the AIO plan was first unveiled last summer, CTU president Deborah Lynch has been highly critical of the plan. She reported to the delegate leadership training meeting on March 29 that the union was informed of the massive reorganization only minutes before it was announced to the public, and that most of the entire school year has passed with little union involvement in the program. “We are here this morning because this initiative was rolled out without input from the Teachers Union...” she said on March 5, according to sources who were present. “Our members did not ask for this help... I would have preferred that it had been brought about with our input.... Because procedures have not been laid out, this is being done in 600 different ways. Our rank-and-file do not have a clue about this. There is no model of professional community in most schools. In many cases the principal is picking what should be looked at with no input from the classroom teachers.

“We have 17 field representatives, 11 Quest Center delegates and 600 to 800 delegates. All could have provided valuable input. We have not attacked this model. We are neutral. We cannot afford another program that will fail. We are here now reacting to complaints from our membership. We will remain neutral if protections can be negotiated and our members feel safe.”

On March 29, Lynch elaborated, noting that there have been few reports of the “walk through” taking an interest in the problems teachers face daily — from insufficient books and supplies to discipline and security. Although by that date the word had spread throughout the union of the ouster of Lee Brown, more questions than answers remained regarding the AIO program itself.

The issues surrounding the AIO program have generated a discussion on issues not directly related to AIOs — systematic control and fair processes to meet state and federal requirements; principals who misuse and abuse authority; the absence of principal accountability; waivers; the employee discipline code, and others. Barbara Eason-Watkins has been telling most of the critics of the plan that she wants them to call her office and she will get back to them.

The only exception to that promise is Substance. Since last summer, Eason-Watkins has avoided an on-the-record interview with a Substance reporter, just as Arne Duncan has now refused for more than 18 months to be interviewed on-on-the-record, one-on-one.

Substance survey

By early February, a Substance survey of teachers found that fewer than ten percent of the teachers could identify their AIO. In March, Substance took its survey to what top administrators like to call “the next level” — the Chicago public schools’ teacher union delegates. At the last delegate meeting on February 26th, Substance distributed a one-page questionnaire to 220 randomly selected delegates. A total of 42 completed questionnaires were returned as of press time.

The union delegates were selected as a group because not only are they classroom teachers themselves, they also represent all teachers in their respective schools. In theory, delegates should be aware of the AIO and MSD visits to their schools — and any tasks performed by them.

Substance asked the following questions:

1) Can you name your school’s/area’s AIO? If “yes,” please provide the name.

2) Can you name your school’s/area’s MSD? If “yes,” please provide the name.

3) Has the AIO visited your classroom? If “yes,” list any services he/she performed.

4) Has anything changed in your classroom (e.g., your teaching methods, curriculum content, etc.) as a result of the AIOs visits to your school or classroom? If “yes,” list any changes that have occurred.

5) Has the MSD visited your school? If “yes,” list any services that he/she performed.

The results of the survey are as follows: 26 of the 42 respondents to the survey (64 percent) were able to name their school’s AIO. However, none of the respondents could name their school’s area’s MSD. One respondent said her school’s MSD “identified herself only as a “critical friend.” Another mistakenly thought the MSD was the “subject area specialist.” The “specialists” are actually part of the AIO’s team. Only two of the respondents said that they had changed their classroom procedures or curriculum content as a result of the AIOs work in their classroom or school.

The fact that 64 percent could name their school’s AIO may seem like a big percentage, but it is not very impressive. Almost every delegate should know the name of the AIO who was hired for the expressed purpose of helping teachers on the classroom level.

Nine different AIOs, from a total of 24 were identified by respondents to the Substance questionnaire. Several were identified by more than one respondent. The identified AIOs were as follows: Linda Pierzchalski from Area 19 was identified by 7 respondents; Norma Rodriguez from Area 22 was identified by 5 respondents; Virginia Vaske from Area 15 was identified by 4 respondents; Rich Gazda from Area 20 was identified by 3 respondents; Diane Zendejas from Area 10 was identified by 2 respondents; Rebecca De Los Reyes from Area 11 was identified by 2 respondents; Donald Pittman from Area 23, Lee Brown from Area 18, and Cynthia Baron from Area 24 were each identified by one respondent.

Only five teachers said the AIO had visited their classroom. Of those respondents, Joani Pena of Von Stueben High School, said that AIO Linda Pierzchalski “complimented me on my lessons and took samples. She was pleasant.” A teacher who asked to remain anonymous and was visited by Pierzchalski gave no specifics about the services performed. A third teacher visited by Pierzchalski, Geoff Carlson of Taft High School, said that “no services were performed by her or her staff.”

A teacher visited by the Area 22 AIO Norma Rodriguez asked to remain anonymous. “She took notes for a few minutes which were later shared with the department chair and principal. She also did a PSAE [Prairie State test] inservice for the entire department.”

Yet another teacher who asked to remain anonymous was visited by Lee Brown from Area 18. “She criticized my lack of a ‘word wall’ and my gradebook, but she praised my book collections.” Only 2 could identify any changes in their teaching procedures or content as a result of the AIO’s visits to their school or classroom. The “changes” noted by the teacher visited by Lee Brown were: “I have more paperwork and more record keeping.” A teacher who was visited by Pierzchalski said, “After she talked to the whole staff, I have incorporated more test prep procedures into my junior classes.”

Several AIOs ‘highly unqualified’

On February 21st, Substance filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Board of Education asking for the resumes and job descriptions of the 24 AIOs as well as the MSDs. As of press time, the Board had provided the same incomplete response that has been given to every request for the specific curriculum vitae of top officials. The Board’s response when asked for qualifications (specifically, a curriculum vitae for each top official) has been to reply with a brief biography prepared by the Board’s propaganda department and refuse to provide the curriculum vitae claiming it is confidential personnel information.

The Board also provides a brief “Bio” of each AIO on the official Board of Education, Area Instructional Officer website. Based on both the biographies on the website and what Substance knows (some of the information first hand from working with or under the individuals) about some of the AIOs, it is difficult to see how they qualified for their current positions. This has become an important fact in an era when nationally, the “No Child Left Behind Act” is demanding more strict “accountability” for teacher and even teacher assistant professional qualifications.

“Donald Pittman [AIO of Area 23] was a glorified gym teacher at Carver for decades,” a retired Carver High school teacher told Substance. “What makes him a expert in reading or curriculum?”

A review of Pittman’s Board website “Bio” shows he has a BA and MA from Chicago State, but his major area of study is not mentioned. According to the Board, he is currently a doctoral student at Nova University. This university is famous mainly for offering a fast track doctorate degree for minimal work. There is no mention of a reading or curriculum background. But this background is the core of the AIO’s duties, according to statements made by Deputy Chief Instructional Officer, Domingo Trujillo, to Substance last month (See February 2003 Substance).

It should be noted here that the Board of Education website devoted to the AIOs provides the following Mission Statement: “The mission of the new area offices is as follows: 1) Deploy instructional officers whose sole mission is to improve instruction in the schools; 2) Increase the interaction between schools and area offices by reducing the school to area office ratio; 3) Provide a better level of day-to-day operations service to the entire CPS community, including principals, teachers and parents.”

Within a few months, teachers across the city will find their names and qualifications posted for all parents, so that parents and community can determine whether they are fully qualified for their jobs. The refusal of the Board of Education to provide the same information about its most highly paid and most powerful administrations will become more of a scandal. By the summer of 2003, it will be two years since Substance first requested, under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, the actual resume (or curriculum vitae) of each of the top members of Arne Duncan’s administrative team, beginning with Duncan himself. The refusal of the Duncan administration to provide this information to the public regarding more than 100 individuals whose salaries ranges upwards from $100,000 per year is a growing scandal that could easily be avoided by the simple method of providing all the information to the public when it is requested.

MSDs a perfect mystery

Not one survey respondent could identify their Management Support DIrector (MSD). We ask that anyone seeing an MSD or knowing of any work performed by an MSD should report it to Substance immediately.

Substance took Eason-Watkins at her word and tried to call her to get answers to our questions about the AIOs and MSDs. However, all she did was refer our call to the “Office of Communications” (the Board’s propaganda office). Communications office staff called Substance (48 hours later) and asked us to repeat the question. Since we have asked the same question at least four times over the last two months — and a dozen times since July 2003 when Arne Duncan became the head of the third largest public school system in the United States (including two unanswered Freedom of Information Act requests on file with the Office of Communications), we unpolitely declined to repeat ourselves.

Seven months after spending millions of extra dollars to replace the old region offices’ bureaucracies with the area offices — including a $1 million annual bite out of the Chicago public schools’ budget by the University of Chicago’s ‘Center for School Improvement’ — the administration still can not prove to the Chicago Teachers Union, to public school teachers, to city taxpayers or to Substance that a discernible uniform plan is in place and operable regarding AIOs and MSDs.