 |
|
General News | June 2003 Issue
Duncan and Scott run out the clock...Doublecross and doubletalk doomed Flower High SchoolBy Joseph Guzman Sometimes, you can try do all the right things, hit the right notes, do all that’s asked of you, and like a domineering one-sided relationship that has gone sour, still fail. Such is the story of Lucy L. Flower Career Academy.
Flower Academy (as it is now called) is located at 3545 W. Fulton, across the street from the Garfield Park Conservatory. It is a tidy and organized building and has long been a center of community activity and community pride. In its halls, Flower proudly displays a recently restored Works Progress Administration (WPA) mural from the Great Depression (restored amid a great deal of publicity from the school board and city) and hosts many student run businesses. The businesses include a public café (restaurant and catering service) and a student run Credit Union, the first in the nation. Opened in 1911 as an all girls business and homemaker school, the school settled in its present location in 1927. In 1978, Flower became co-educational, and finally in 1997 became a “Career Academy.” But now, with a capacity for 1081 students, Flower only educates 158 high school senior students in its last year of regular operation, down from a high of 672 in 2000. An edict from the headquarters of the school system has prohibited Flower from accepting any new students since September 2000, without offering a neither proper explanation nor reason — or according to some staff and observers, offering reasons that changed every year until finally Flower could be closed. On May 27, the Chicago Board of Education voted unanimously to close Flower. The start of Flower’s demise begins in 1999, when then Board of Education Chief Executive Officer Paul Vallas and President Gery Chico announced that apprenticeships had been established in cooperation with Chicago trade unions for high school students. According to that plan, Flower Academy would be an ideal site for a city wide trade center, as a natural expansion to the current trade training classes at the school. Flower students were hired to paint C.P.S offices — including the office of Tim Martin, who was then in charge of the school system’s capital programs. Mayor Richard Daley also had a press conference at Flower, acknowledging the school-to-work programs that the students excelled in. A highly publicized visit by then-Vice President (of the United States) Al Gore praised Flower for its innovative work with inner city students. Flower was instructed to plan and prepare to open as a trade center in the fall of 2001. During that time, 250 students were recruited for the upcoming 2001-2002 school year. After acceptance letters went out to the applicants, however, Dr. Creg Williams, “Chief Officer of Education to Careers” under the Vallas administration (and now in Philadelphia with Mr. Vallas), informed the Flower staff that the students would have to select other schools. According to Williams (at that time) the delay was to enable the school board more time to plan for the Flower Trade Center. After the planning was done, Flower would be named “The Flower Construction, Engineering and Architectural Academy.” Frustrated Flower staff apologized to the applicants and complied with central office directions. As a result, Flower began to shrink. Without the ability to enroll new ninth grade students, Flower teachers saw the number of students in the building decline. Dorothy Williams, Flower Principal for 13 years (and part of the Flower staff for 39 1/2 years), started out as a shorthand teacher at the school. She told Substance in an interview that she believed all that the various Board of Education officials told her — and the school community — to improve the school. “ We had no reason not to believe them,” Williams said. “This was all a verbal agreement and trust.” But by 2003, the story line had changed. Arne Duncan replaced Vallas as CEO in 2001 despite his complete lack of experience or qualifications in education (Duncan would be barred from substitute teaching in any classroom in Illinois because he lacks even the most basic credentials). After a number of activities that Flower staff now view as deliberately misleading, Duncan announced to the media in April that Flower would be closed because it had so few students. “ I have gotten very little correspondence from C.E.O. Arne Duncan or Dr. Watkins to me as Principal,” Flower Principal Williams told Substance. But that’s getting ahead of the story. A meeting at Flower was held in the summer of 2000 to explain what was going to happen with the school. This was in response to statements from the C.P.S that Flower would be shut down, and after angry parents and community stormed a Board of Education meeting. At this Bd. meeting, the C.P.S officials told the parents that it was misunderstood, that Flower would not close, but remain open. During a subsequent public meeting at Flower, packed to capacity, it was again reiterated that Flower would stay open and a trade center brought in. The Flower leadership took it all in faith and trust, principal Williams told Substance. By that fall, however, some things became ominous. Mr. Wilfredo Ortiz, whose official title is Chief of the Office of High School Development, stood up to speak. He said to the audience: “I’m going to be honest with you all and want you to know that I have asked for the building to close, and if left up to me, I would close the building, but the powers that be don’t want to do that. It is not a neighborhood high school, therefore the students would not be greatly displaced.” Principal Williams told Substance that her staff and school supporters were shocked! “ But at least he was honest with us.” Says Cathy Notter, a Flower teacher. “We followed the chain of command. We exceeded all that was asked of us, and we just wanted to know where we stood.” In 2001, the concept plan changed again. Mr. Wifredo Ortiz presented a “Multiplex” concept design to Flower, a proposal that would include three “small schools.” By that time, the Vallas administration was out of power. Paul Vallas was on his way to Philadelphia after losing a bid for the Democratic nomination for governor, and Creg Williams, who had been head of vocational and technical education, left town with Vallas. Only Ortiz remained from the Vallas administration. So Arne Duncan was head of the school system, and Michael Scott had been appointed President of the Board of Education, replacing Gery Chico. For many people from the West Side, the appointment of Scott was viewed as a good thing. Scott’s political career had been rooted in his community organizing work on the West Side, where he also lives. Flower staff and community leaders couldn’t believe he would betray his own roots. The Flower staff and L.S.C. became heavily involved in the planning process for the new “small schools” thing. They researched demographics, community trends and future job outlooks. What started to emerge as a forerunner was a desire for careers in medicine. A survey of the community was conducted and a vote taken from Flower staff on whether to submit to the central office a Medical, Computer or Construction Academy proposal. The results were in favor of the Medical Academy 2 to 1. Staff and community leaders from Flower worked with Ortiz’s “high school redesign” office and the office of schools-to-careers (which are separate). They told Substance they worked every step of the way and completed a “Chicago High School Redesign Initiative Request”, for a Medical and Computer Academy. It was submitted prior to the due date, according to Flower sources. Flower was advised that a separate application was not necessary for a Medical Academy since Flower was a “Career Academy” already. The grant, if awarded, would cover design costs, but regular C.P.S. funding would be used to open the Medical Academy. These details became important in retrospect because they would be used by Michael Scott against Flower later. For September 2002, 500 students were recruited. But Flower was told again by C.P.S that it would not be accepting new students. Instead, school staff were told to concentrate on the upcoming and exciting “Medical Academy” for the 2003-2004 school year. On June 25, 2002 a consulting agreement was signed by the Office of High School Development, Flower High School, and the Executive Service Corps to develop a marketing plan. Several planning meetings were held in preparation for the annual High School fair held at McCormick Place in September. There, Flower was to present the new “Flower Medical Academy” to potential students. On August 2, 2002, Flower received notification from The Chicago High School Redesign Initiative, stating that “The board decided to postpone the decision regarding Flower’s proposal pending further exploration by the Chicago Public Schools of additional options for Flower. The board meets again on August 19, 2002. We will keep you informed on the progress.” The letter was signed by “Mrs. Pat Ford, Executive Director.” The Principal continuously attempted to reach Ford, but to no avail, and the school never was notified of a decision. As part of the marketing plan, Flower developed a comic book, refrigerator magnets, a brochure and a video. On October 7, 2002, a meeting was held at Flower with Dr. Barbara Eason-Watkins, Chief Education Officer, and Jean Nowaczewski, Director of the Office of Small Schools. At this meeting, Dr. Eason-Watkins encouraged Flower to proceed with the plans for the Medical Academy. Two weeks later, on October 23, 2002, Flower held a successful open house. Several medical professionals were on hand to present and inform students and their parents about the possible future careers in medicine. On November 20, 2002, a Counselor’s Breakfast was held, in which 975 students were recruited citywide. The acceptance packets, once again, were ready to be sent to the students. On February 19, 2003, Flower received via regular U.S. mail, a letter dated February 14th from the Chief Educational Officer, Dr. Eason-Watkins. To the surprise of everyone at Flower, Eason-Watkins’s letter stated that the proposal for the Medical Academy was not submitted in a timely manner, and that although follow-up assistance was provided, other requirements were not met as laid out in the meeting of October 7th. Therefore, according to Eason-Watkins, Flower was not going to be allowed to open as a Medical Academy. The letter also stated that due to severe budgetary constraints, all available funds had been allocated to other programs that were submitted timely. No further explanation was offered. Also, the letter stated that The Office of High School Development assured students that applied to Flower, that opportunities would be offered at other schools. It is unknown what assistance the office provided. Although Flower had 975 prospective students, it was barred from informing them that they could attend the school in September 2003. The stage was set for what the staff and community now view as the final betrayal, the closing of Flower because of “low enrollment.” “ It was this letter from the C.E.O., that we knew that after all the hard work we did, that it just was not going to happen. Up until this point, we were all gung-ho,” Principal William’s told Substance. “We had received submissions of prospective students — from all regions — that totaled 975.” When asked about the reaction of the L.S.C, Principal Williams said: “The council felt betrayed and were mad. We all wanted a meeting with Arne Duncan and Dr. Eason-Watkins, but it never materialized. I tried for days to arrange a meeting with them – and to say that there was something that we did not do, I have a problem with that.” April 24, 2003 saw a meeting at Flower attended by a number of high ranking Duncan administration officials, but now by Duncan or Eason-Watkins. Those at the meeting included Ronald Raglan (who has been appointed what staff and community now refer to as “overseer” of Flower), Catholic School Principal Mary Ellen Caron (who told people she was representing the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Arne Duncan), James Deanes (School and Community Relations), Johnetta James (Area 21 “Instruction Officer”), and Wilfredo Ortiz (still with the Office of High School Development). Also attending were representatives of the Bethel New Life (a community organization), the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, Flower staff and people from the Local School Council., It was at this meeting that the fate of Flower was first presented. The plan was to scrap the Medical Academy and close Flower. To reopen in September 2004 as two “small schools.” The next day, notice was sent out to Flower that a public hearing would be scheduled on May 7, 2003 at 3:30 p.m. Board of Education. The Board of Education also announced to the media that Flower was being closed because of its “low enrollment” but failed to inform the rest of the media that the “low enrollment” was the result of three years of actions by the Vallas and Duncan administrations. School Closing Hearing At 3:30 p.m., May 7th 2003, the Board of Education conducted the scheduled public hearing for the proposed closure of Lucy Flower Career Academy. Numbering about 25 and attended mostly by Flower staff, outside partners and community interests, the hearing opened with appointed Hearing Officer, Richard Travis, explaining the purpose, procedure and rules of the day. A handful of Bd. of Ed. personnel were present as well. Substance sat in the first row, recorded the proceedings and circulated. A polite and reserved gentleman, Travis explained that no decision shall be determined this day. As Hearing Officer, appointed by C.E.O. Arne Duncan, he was appointed evaluate and weigh all testimony and data collected, and present his recommendation to Duncan for consideration to close or consolidate at the next Board of Education Meeting which was scheduled to be held on May 27. Miguel Rodriguez, Associate General Counsel for the Board of Education. was the first to speak. Rodriguez presented to Travis a 12-tabbed notebook. The carefully prepared notebook contained: the policy on closing and consolidation of schools, hearing procedures, affidavits regarding notice of letters and notifications to the school and L.S.C. dated April 25 2003, newspaper notice regarding the closing of Flower, and a statement from the Board’s demographer, Dr. Giacomo Mancuso, in full support of the closure of Lucy Flower. Travis then allowed Alderman Ed Smith (28th Ward) to speak. Smith acknowledged the notices sent by the board with the intent of closing Flower. We are going to send out our own notices to the community” said Smith, “and that we are not going to close the school.” He continued, “For the record, this school is 100% black, and we should be building more schools, not closing them, and embellishing those already enrolled.” In conversations between the Alderman Smith, C.E.O. Duncan and Board President Scott, Smith shared that he felt encouraged that more discussion was in order before a final decision is made. “ I think that we have come to an agreement to sit and talk about this and we will not be cut off,” Smith continued. “We don’t need the Bd. of Ed. to tell us what needs to happen in our community.” In a final word, Smith emphasizes: “What the community says is what will be done…Lucy Flower will not close…. We are not going to close Lucy Flower school!”. Leo McChord, L.S.C Community Rep and staffer for Ald. Smith. was next. He asked a direct, but rhetorical question: “Why do residents and communities of color have to fight for everything that others have handed on a silver platter?” He informed the Hearing Officer that both Duncan and Scott told him that Flower would not be closed, but reorganized into two small schools that would allow for community input. He also met with Dr. Barbara Eason-Watkins, Chief Education Officer, and was assured that every effort will be made to re-open Flower Academy in 2004 - which would rival any school in the city. If indeed Flower is to be re-opened in September 2004, McChord and school community have questions: Will there be two principals and two councils for the proposed two-school concept, will the displaced faculty have the option to return to Flower and who is accountable if this fails to be? Giacomo Mancuso, C.P.S. Director of Capital Programming, addressed the Hearing Officer next. Board of Education “C.E.O. Arne Duncan has asked me to appear before you all and convey his reasons for proposing the closing of the school as well as the results of my enrollment projections and racial impact study for the closing.” Mancuso continued, “Mr. Duncan believes that closing Flower Career Academy will enhance the educational opportunities available for our students, while at the same time, resulting in a substantial savings for the Bd. of Ed.” The following specific reasons were provided by Mancuso: “Board policy states that if a school is closed, another school must be accessible with available space within 2.5 miles for it’s displaced students to attend. Flower has no attendance boundaries, it is therefore not considered a neighborhood High School…and the policy does not apply to Mr. Duncan’s proposal for closing Flower Academy for two reasons. Flower has not accepted new students for three years and all of its current students are graduating seniors. Currently the attendance at Flower is 158, with a total capacity of 1055. Duncan’s proposal to close Flower is temporary and is planned to reopen with a different educational focus for the 2004- 2005 school year. A final decision on the exact nature of the new educational focus has not been made, but before any decision is made, the Flower school community will be given many opportunities to have substantial input into the decision. Finally, the three year enrollment projections and racial impact analysis required by the board’s policy on school closings, has established that closing Flower will not adversely impact the ability of other schools to enroll students who might have enrolled in Flower, this is in compliance with the desegregation consent decree”. Mancuso concluded, “For the stated reasons, Mr. Duncan believes that it would be in the best interests of the students of the Chicago Schools to close Flower Academy and reopen in 2004 with a different educational focus.” Travis posed a question to Mancuso. He asked, “Is it the position of the board, that the sole and exclusive reason to close Flower is financial and not academic?” Mancuso replied, “Yes, it has to do with efficiency and utilization, as the school is only a senior class at the present time, and in no way does this reflect negatively on the education or student performance at the school.” Travis reiterated the three factors to Mancuso: “Low enrollment, senior graduating class and no new students. Mancuso concurred with the factors.” The floor was then opened to the public for testimony. Betty Johnigan, a Flower L.S.C. member, told Travis in a stern manner that when they stopped enrolling new students three years ago, she knew something was up. “Something ugly and nasty was in the air”. The Bd. of Ed. allowed Flower to accept applications two years in a row, from students who thought they would be attending Flower. “One year, we got 500 applications. Last year, we got 900. What do we tell our children? We know not to trust the Board of Education, as they want us out of here anyway,” said Johnigan Joanne Walker, staff at Flower stated that the Bd. of Ed. passed an edict three years ago, ordering them not to accept new students, without any explanation as to why. In addition, Flower has worked on the Medical Academy proposal since 2000, with diligent submissions of all necessary paperwork. But Dr. Eason-Watkins countered that by stating that they could not open the Medical Academy in 2003 because Flowers did not submit the proposal in a “timely fashion”. Flower worked with the Bd. and a contract signed by Mr. Wilfredo Ortiz, (who was not present at the hearing). The Bd. paid for and created a comic book regarding the medical academy. Walker asks: “Why then, if we did not submit in a timely fashion, did the Bd. spend the thousands of dollars to create this marketing tool?” In response, Rodriguez requested that the Hearing officer maintain the record open for 24 hours to accept a reply on the comic book question from Ortiz. Rodriguez also stated that certain content of the comic book infringed on the copyright of Marvel comic books, and therefore the Law Dept. did not approve of the project. Flower Academy disagrees and assures full cooperation with the Bd. was followed. Principal William’s presented the Hearing Officer with a chronological packet of events and details of the doomed Bd. of Ed.- Flower cooperative efforts. The details of that packet are generously included throughout this Substance article. Her heartfelt pain and questions as to why the Board of Education failed Flower landed on ears paid to hear, but not equipped to answer. “The Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, came to our school in recognition of our accomplishments,” Cathy Notter, Flower staff, spoke emotionally. “We have met every challenge that the board demanded, and have done wonderful things here, why do you want to rake that away?” Mildred Wiley, L.S.C member, felt “maneuvered and lied to” by her school system. “We will not go quietly into the night,” she said. Even the “corporate community” spoke on behalf of Flower. Jerry Calabrese, a vice president of the McDonalds corporation, strongly supported their partnership with Flower and praised the school. “Our own expectations were surpassed and these students are remarkable. They had to take three buses to reach our Oakbrook office…and never were late. I don’t know what criteria you used to reach this decision, but in the corporate world, we set objective goals, and they were hit every time here.” He concluded: “Why are they doing infrastructure work right now on Flower, if they are going to close? What do they have already planned?” Jacqueline Leavy, Executive Director of the Neighborhood Capital Budget Group presented next. “ The Chicago Public Schools Central Administration has violated the trust of the school community and repeatedly failed to acknowledge or respond to Flower’s good faith,” Leavy said. “By announcing this action so close to the end of the school year, the C.P.S. makes a mockery of the past three years of work by Flower. For all that time, Flower stakeholders had been constantly assured that they were part of the planning process and that the school would remain open. Instead, the C.P.S. created a self-fulfilling prophesy of declining enrollment by prohibiting Flower from accepting new students and letting the school die and declaring it dead.” Leavy’s views are shared by the majority of the Flower community — students, teachers, educational support personnel, administrators, and neighbors. “The C.P.S has invested $3.8 million in Flower without a Master Facility Plan not only for the school, but for the entire system. Why should the Flower,” she added. “The Board of Education has ignored and nullified the existence and role of the L.S.C.” The Hearing Officer, Travis, called for two recesses to accommodate any late comers or additional speakers to testify. James Deanes, Officer of School and Community Relations spoke next. “C.E.O. Arne Duncan has instructed us to convey to the hearing officer, as well to the Flower family that the development of Flower Academy, if it should proceed with his recommendation, will have full input from the local community,” Deanes said. “And I keep stressing full participation [his emphasis] from the Lucy Flower community. We are not here to refute, rebut or contradict any promises the has made in the past.” “ The issue before me is to recommend closure or consolidation of Lucy L. Flower Career Academy, for non- academic reasons,” the hearing officer concluded. “It is my understanding, based on the information brought before me, there is not an issue before me subjectively about the academics about that school.” The hearing concluded at 6:50 p.m. As they were leaving, many observers realized that by construing the issues on the basis of the narrow grounds outlined by Mancuso, the hearing officer would “rule” in favor of the Duncan administration, despite the vast amount of historical fact presented. The monthly meeting of the Board of Education on the May 27 brought no relief from confusion or exclusion. The Flower community was there in force with 12 area ministers and other community people to plead their case against closure, which was on the meeting’s agenda. But most of them never got to speak. A carefully organized campaign, arranged by James Deanes and others, ensured that a large number of speakers early in the agenda praised the Board of Education, Arne Duncan, and Michael Scott for closing the schools. Before the agenda reached the Flower community, the meeting was over. Scott tried to mollify his neighbors after he had helped orchestrate their betrayal, but few were offering the support they had given him in the past. The Board of Education meeting itself was an example of media manipulation. Supposedly, speakers sign up to speak on the day of the meeting and are then allowed two minutes to present their cases. But many who signed up to speak (or who were signed up) before Flower were allowed to present well over the two minute time frame. The result was that the clock was running out. Time in the public participation portion of the Bd. of Ed. meeting to conclude before Flower could be called. Suddenly, Board members voted to go into executive session, and as the members were leaving, Flower supporters rushed to the front to gain an audience with President Scott. Once again they talked about the situation for a while with him. Scott was once again sympathetic, but did not indicate any intention either way. The board later in closed session agreed with C.E.O. Arne Duncan’s recommendation and voted to approve the closure of Flower Career Academy, and reopen with a still undefined educational focus. Less than three hours after the Board went into executive session, it reconvened with almost nobody but staff present. In 18 minutes, with no debate or discussion, the Board of Education approved 140 resolutions, while Scott cracked jokes and members of the Board’s executive staff laughed. One of the resolutions (Board Report 03-0517-EX14) read as follows: “ THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDS: That the Board of Education close Lucy Flower Career Academy, located at 3545 West Fulton Boulevard, at the end of the 2002-2003 school year.” Flower found out the final determination and fate of the school through media sources. Principal Williams shares with Substance: “I read about it in the newspaper, I have not received a telephone call from anyone, no one has called. I feel as Principal of the school, I should have received the courtesy of a phone call. I think that’s appropriate, because I think that courtesy prevails at all times, from one professional to another” Conclusion With the “temporary closing” of the school, the faculty assigned at Flower must go elsewhere for the next school year. Notter told Substance that most of the teachers have already found positions. “Two days after we received the letter saying we were not going to be a Medical Academy, Human Resources from the C.P.S unexpectedly came to Flower, and told us that there was a High School Job Fair the next day at DePaul University. Now, wait, we just found out today about our situation, and you expect us to go and sell ourselves? Board of Education. We haven’t been able to get over the fact yet that…we don’t have a job! But they did offer us some workshops on employment skills.” When asked what Principal Williams will do now, she replies: “ I don’t know yet. I have some options, I can retire, but I don’t know. Board of Education New books of an agricultural subject matter have already been delivered to Flower. A source who doesn’t want to be identified says it’s all part of the plan: “Get them all out, bring all new in and start all over. With only seniors present, there are no angry parents to complain! It’s all figured out already.” I have seen countless people come in and out of the school. They say they are renovating the place back to its original look, for whom? Who’s coming?” Who is to blame? Flower doesn’t know. Notter says: “There were two different central administrations at work here. Did the first make the mistakes, or is the second one to blame? We don’t know. If we did, we would know who to hold accountable.” Principal Williams added: “I don’t feel that the powers that be really knows what is going on here in this building. They talk that small schools are better, but this is a small school. They don’t know about the programs that were dismantled and abandoned that gave our students self-esteem. About the nurturing and caring of our students and the close community relationships that we built. The powers that be just don’t have that feel.” When asked if Principal Williams had any final thoughts and advice for other schools targeted, she closes with: “There is no good reason for the school to close. Something that was said in the community meeting really sticks in my mind. Usually they close a school to alleviate a problem. What’s the problem being addressed here? But even if it’s about money, that’s not realistic, the students will go elsewhere. Document EVERYTHING, analyze carefully, jump up and down frequently.” Attempts by Substance to reach key board officials for comment were not successful. A total disregard for Flower Academy’s L.S.C and school community was clearly demonstrated by the unethical and unprofessional behavior by the C.P.S. But Flower is not alone in this, as other schools have been targeted as expendable tools of executive incompetence. This Substance reporter will join Flower in the last meal served before closure in June. Perhaps good guys do finish last, at least in this arena.
Joseph Guzman | ||||||
