Opposition to the SCPS rises to be recognized. – Photo by Andrew Firestone

SPCS brings out passion at debate

By Andrew Firestone

It was a packed house at the Somerville High auditorium this last Wednesday, December 14, more audience members than this reporter has ever seen at any public hearing. This circumstance, a hearing before the state Board of Secondary and Elementary Education, was one of the most divisive seen in years, as community members sparred back and forth over the proposal of a new charter school geared towards English Language Learners.

Every member of the school council that spoke, every teacher, every elected state official and Mayor Joseph Curtatone was against the proposal. At one point, a parent in Progress Together for Somerville, the group opposed to the Somerville Progressive Charter School (SPCS) asked those who opposed to stand. Around 90 percent of those attending stood and cheered.

“This proposal, mark my words, was made in a vacuum. It does not consider the consequences for the rest of the system,” said Curtatone.

The debate stems from the 2010 decision to reunify the Healey School, eliminating the “Choice” program that many parents enjoyed. School founders note the achievement gap between native English speakers and ELL learners continues to hamper the Somerville Public School system’s ability to raise its dismal test scores.

“I don’t think it would be a surprise to anyone in this room to say that Somerville is an underperforming district,” said founder Elizabeth Traumann, an immigrant from Brazil who works at the Cambridge Health Alliance. “We talk about it all the time. What we don’t discuss is why this district has not shown any improvement since 1999.”

“What [the SPS is] saying, is that considering all the low-income and immigrant students in Somerville, we shouldn’t be surprised that the City’s MCAS scores are in the bottom five percent statewide. They are telling us that kids like mine can’t be high achievers,” she said.

“They are setting and encouraging low expectations for immigrant children.”

Also speaking in favor was the proposed director of the Somerville Progressive Charter School, Heidi Lyne, who currently runs the Neighborhood House charter in Dorchester.

“I believe in making certain that children succeed,” she said. “All children should be able to master the skills required by the MCAS and educators are responsible for making certain this happens. No child should slip through the cracks.”

In Dorchester, “we’ve instituted a system of interventions to help struggling students succeed. We’ve worked consistently on differentiation. Our MCAS scores have risen consistently, and our children have advanced at a rapid rate,” she said.

Her speech was geared towards validating her status as a “proven provider” which is one of the criteria the state board of education will vote on when deciding the fate of the SPCS. Lyne was questioned by members of the statehouse delegation, including Sen. Pat Jehlen, herself a former teacher.

“The proven provider requirement isn’t met by Board leadership,” said Jehlen. “The schools the proven provider has worked for don’t serve comparable populations, or offer similar programs,” she said, adding that the Neighborhood House charter has less than 3 percent limited English proficient (LEP) students in their population.

The Somerville delegation was also saddened by the fact that their own legislation had led to this situation. Due to the incredibly low test scores, the state passed laws designed to encourage achievement by adding charter schools if MCAS scores were in the bottom 10 percent of districts statewide.

“This is a remarkable, heartbreaking thing,” said Ward 5 school comm. member Mark Neidergang. “It’s unfortunate that the charter school funding mechanism that the state put in place has turned us against each other in Somerville.”

Neidergang accused the founders of trying to manipulate the system by only pretending that the school was meant for vulnerable populations. “The ELL program at the SPCS was not originally a key component of the school design but was grafted on, because the applicants realized that without it, you would reject this application,” he said.

Parents and teachers, united by their desire to not see the public school lose the proposed $4.79 million in funds over several years, made their way to the podium to voice their complaints. One, Betsy Reardon was also the founder of the Unidos program, a special two-way immersion program designed to help teach students English using a 50-50 native/English teaching model.

“I am committed to seeing my taxes supporting the entire school-age population of Somerville,” said Reardon, who said her children did not speak English at home. “I am here to tell you that my son was well-served by the daily ELL support and services provided by the SPS.”

Perhaps the most bombast testimony came from David Sullivan, the PTA president at Healey. He openly accused the founding members of trying to use the charter school to get their children back into a program more like the “Choice” program.

“If the word progress means segregating and excluding a bunch of families and students from another group of families and students… and then wanting to leave after being asked to unify to create a stronger unit, then congratulations charter school supporters, you are well on your way,” he said.

“This isn’t a kid problem, this is an adults-acting-like-children problem.”

Many teachers stood to voice their feelings about the SPCS, talking about the dedication teachers across the district put into their work with LEP students. Among them was Lauren Huckins who works in the Sheltered English Immersion program at the Argenziano School.

“I am witness to the magic that teachers create in their classrooms everyday. Week after week, I see the each student’s English ability and confidence grow due to the dedication and hard work of our school’s classroom teacher,” she said. She added that seeing a student finally gain proficiency in English was an achievement that every SPS teacher was proud of.

Another was Alicia Kersten,  a parent and teacher of 12 years who works with the Welcome Center at SHS.

“Specifically,” she said. “I’m concerned that the proposed school does have the capacity to create programs of effective instruction for [special education] ELL students.” She said that the challenges these children face can only be met with highly trained and experienced teachers, which the SPCS could not provide.

One parent who spoke in favor of the proposed school was Julia Collins, mother of a fifth grader at the Healey school and a member of their site council. She described herself as a “lifelong supporter of traditional public schools.” When she found out her husband had helped start the SPCS proposal, she told him not to do it. He went forward anyway, and after watching their progress, she changed her mind.

“I’m here today to support both the Healey and the charter. I simply will not say that one precludes the other. I don’t believe that,” she said.

She continued: “the Healey has wonderful staff, teachers, families, but the unified Healey is not a progressive school; not if you think in terms of real cultural change which I think is needed in Somerville to handle one of the most intractable problems: the students who are not being served and met soon and fast enough and well enough.“

Attending the hearing was State Secy. of Education Paul Reville, who will have a hand in the decision in February.

“I also have a personal history in Somerville, I began my career here as a vista volunteer,” he said. “I was involved in the founding of the full-circle school.”

“I can say that the testimony that we heard tonight was passionate. It seemed for the most part well-informed,” he said. “It presented some significantly different interpretations of the intentions of the founders of the school and what the operation would be like. It’s obvious the community cares deeply and this is a tough issue for the community.”

On his upcoming decision regarding the SCPS, Reville said: “we have to exercise our responsibilities under the law which is to look at the quality of the proposed charter school application against the criteria that are laid out in law and regulation and make our best judgment about whether a proposed charter school conforms to those criteria. If they do we approve it. If they don’t we turn it down.”