First, sorry for the long delay in this post ... my semester starts in less than a week, so I've been swamped with course preparation and the newly arrived first year students (and of course with getting my own three kids ready to go back to school). I'll have the posting of the Amherst Meeting from last night up soon.
So, this was a VERY long (4 hour!) but I think extremely productive meeting -- and I'd encourage blog readers to try to watch it on ACTV (or at least portions of it) to really watch parts that interest them, as I'm going to hit the major business that we did. The bulk of the meeting was spent hearing the school improvement plans from the MS and the HS (these are typically presented in June, but were delayed this year), as well as a discussion on the superintendent search process (the law firm discussion was on the agenda but was delayed due to time pressures).
The school improvement plan for the MS was presented by Principal Mike Hayes (and you can see the whole report at: http://arms.arps.org/node/1636). As I said at the meeting, this was the single best school improvement plan I've seen presented at any SC meeting over the last 4 years. It was extremely detailed (lots of data provided -- both about the current state of the MS and goals for the future), covered each academic discipline, and included information on both strengths and areas for improvement. Specifically, it included goals around instruction (lesson planning, alignment, assessment), homework and grading policies, family-school communication, and academics (math, social studies, English, science).
I would really encourage readers to check out the whole plan on line, but I'll just give a few key things I noted in terms of areas for improvement we can look forward to in the upcoming year -- a greater focus on higher expectations for reading in English (as noted as an area of concern on the parent survey), a greater focus on consistent assessments across teams in social studies (as of now, only 2 of 11 assessments are common across teams), a stronger focus on experiments in science (with 48% of 8th graders not reaching proficient on science MCAS), and requiring all kids to do honors-level work in math for the first trimester (which is a shift from the past, in response to requests from parents). These all sound like great areas to work on, and I look forward to seeing how well these goals are accomplished later this year.
Mike also presented very interesting data on algebra in 8th grade. Briefly, 39% of all 8th graders take honors algebra, but that percentage really masks major sub-group differences: only 37% of girls (but 52% of boys) are in this class, only 15% of Hispanic and 12% of African American kids (but 46% of White kids and 50% of Asian kids), and only 9% of low income kids. This is extremely important data to examine, because it really shows that our current approach to allowing students to choose whether to complete extensions isn't really eliminating the achievement gap (and of course, kids who take 8th grade algebra are basically the only ones on track to take calculus in high school). As I've noted before, I would really prefer for us to require all kids to complete honors level work in 7th grade math (which has been shown in other districts to lead to a major reduction in the achievement gap), and I'm encouraged that all kids will complete this level of work at least for the first trimester this year. I will be interested to hear how this plan works out, and whether it increases the % of kids (from all backgrounds, but particularly girls/low income kids/kids of color) in 8th grade algebra.
Mike also noted that he would prefer to see 6th grade in the middle school (you can read the Gazette article on this topic at: http://gazettenet.com/2010/08/26/6th-grader-middle-schooler). I believe this is an idea that we definitely need to examine, particularly since moving to a three-year school was recommended by not only former superintendents Hochman and Rodriguez (and in the Hamer report last summer), but also was suggested by each of the superintendent candidates we interviewed in January of 2009. I hope we can form some type of a task force/subcommittee to examine the pros/cons of such a move this year.
The SC then voted unanimously (and I would say very enthusiastically) to approve this school improvement plan.
Next, we heard the school improvement plan for the high school from Mark Jackson. This plan included 4 goals: preparing for the NEASC accreditation (which will occur this year, and involves a fair amount of work/self-study), social/emotional needs and school climate (which was prompted by an increase in the number of students harming themselves), school/family partnership (largely focused on having parents have greater awareness of students' grades via an on-line system), and inclusion (better implement ion of special ed plans). You can read more about the frequency of self-harming in the Gazette (http://gazettenet.com/2010/08/27/amherst-high-principal-number-students-harming-themselves-goes-w).
Compared to the middle school improvement plan, the high school plan was significantly less detailed (with almost no data provided on the current state of the school or numerical goals for the upcoming year), and also included no specific goals related to any of the academic disciplines. The SC therefore requested some revisions to this plan before approving it (and will hear this plan again, and hopefully approve it, probably at the September 14th meeting).
We then turned to a discussion of the superintendent search process, and in particular how to go about hiring a search firm to assist with finding good candidates. There was a pretty lengthy discussion (mostly involving the issue of time-line and legal requirements in soliciting bids/requests from various firms), but ultimately the SC agreed unanimously to appoint a subcommittee to write a proposal to submit to four search firms. The members of this subcommittee are Steve Rivkin, Debbie Gould, and Irv Rhodes. They will submit a proposal to the entire SC for review at the next meeting. We also approved a timeline for a search, which starts with an application deadline of November 1st, semi-finalists interviews in December, and finalist interviews (in public) in January (with an offer out by late January). This timeline is a bit earlier than the one we used the last time, both because it was our experience last time that some candidates took offers prior to our interviewing finalists and that was the recommendation of the Union 28 superintendent.
We then conducted a few brief items of business -- agreeing to reconstitute the CBAC group (probably to examine per pupil expenses), accepting gifts, discussing goals for the upcoming year (which will be discussed/presented in September), and planning items for upcoming meetings.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
but 46% of White kids...Caucasian is the politically correct term..you do have a PhD.
To: Anon. September 1, 2010 8:10 PM: Wow, that was a thought provoking post to all the research Catherine just posted. Thanks anon. for your thoughtful input.
akab
Anonymous 8:10 - I used the term that was included in the MS improvement plan, because I was quoting that report. I am sorry if you were offended.
It sounds like a very productive regional meeting. And lacking the conflicts of the spring it seems. This posting is really encouraging to me.
On the middle school front, I am happy to hear the actual details on how students are doing in math -- and the concrete steps being taken to address deficiencies. As a person who feasts on facts, it's a relief to hear the details of how our kids are doing on tests and specific actions to be taken by the middle school. If we live in an era of heavy student testing, why not use all the information tests provide to improve the educational experience and achievement of our children?
On the middle school algebra front, no parent is going to want their child to miss getting a regular algebra class in 8th grade, just because the goal is a few years later to get all 8th graders doing honors algebra. That doesn't help kids in 7th and 8th grade this year or the next. Why not offer regular algebra to 7th and 8th graders who able to do the work, then work on getting those kids the advanced work of honors algebra the following year. Maybe the high school can offer a fall, one trimester honors algebra course to kids who have taken regular 8th grade algebra. Then these kids can take honors geometry for the next two trimesters. Maybe the high school and middle school math teachers can work together to plug this regular-honors algebra gap.
And speaking of working together better, some of the elementary school teachers are looking for more copies of the 7th grade Impact math books, study guides and CDs so 6th graders able to work at this level have the tools to do so. The suggestion was made to give each 6th grade teacher 4 copies of the Impact textbook, one study guide and 1 CD. Maybe the middle school and elementary school principals are talking about this, but maybe not.
If there is better alignment in terms of student skills and knowledge among the elementary schools -- and from elementary, to middle to high school -- all our students will benefit. Also, the call for 6th grade in the middle school might lessen if students enter 7th grade prepared to do the work. Information from the middle school on what students knowledge and skills need will greatly help. (A similar list from the high school also makes sense.)
On one hand, it's hard to imagine the elementary schools stuggling to keep their enrollment numbers up giving away a grade to the middle school. But strong improvements at the middle school could make that move more attractive to 6th grade parents.
Janet McGowan
I appreciate the MS administration's responsiveness.
I happen to agree with Catherine and others re algebra in
8th. If you remember the movie, Stand and deliver, about the masterful teacher Jaime Escalante getting a class of tough, inner city Latino kids to excel at calculus: actually, it wasn't lightening in a bottle as portrayed by Hollywood. The class was real enough, but it was the culmination of a longer term reform of the math program at that school led by Escalante, one cornerstone of which was high expectations starting with algebra for all students in 8th grade.
oops--forgot to type my name in--the last Anonmous post was mine
Has any of the discussion about moving 6th grade to the middle school specified the year when this move would take place?
My responses:
Janet - your post reminded me of what I didn't update in my blog -- that is that I also asked Mike re. why don't we have algebra in 8th grade that is NON-honors. His response was that it is better for students to be working at honors level than to take algebra, which I frankly don't really understand. After all, we don't teach "honors 8th grade" math, so kids who did regular algebra in 8th could still do honors algebra in 9th. It also seems like there is major tracking in HS math, at least in the traditional route (e.g., kids who do honors geometry are the ones who do honors algebra II, as opposed to a more fluid system). I'm still puzzled as to why we have no regular algebra in 8th (for 7th or 8th graders who are capable of doing this work) -- I haven't found another district that only teachers honors algebra.
In terms of the 6th grade thing -- I believe that having a strong MS would indeed increase interest in elementary parents in such a move. I also believe it would be great if each elementary school had 2 or 3 preschool classrooms, which would be a good use of space IF the 6th grade moved up (we talked about this at the Amherst SC meeting this week, which I haven't finished the blog post on).
Ken/Anonymous 6:52 - I think that movie is a great example of the power of high expectations ... ironically, that movie is being shown by the ARMS parent/guardian group this month! I think all kids benefit from high expectations, and there is certainly evidence this can be effective in increasing achievement.
Anonymous 2:25 - this is a VERY preliminary discussion. At both the Amherst and Regional level, there has been interest in forming a task force/subcommittee to examine pros/cons of such a move, which I imagine would include discussion of timeline (and logistics, budget, etc.). I think this will be discussed at the SC meetings in September (all of which will be shown live), so tune in to hear more!
Did anyone at the meeting talk about specific steps being taken at the middle school to close the gender, economic and ethnicity gaps in algebra? The differences in percentages are quite stark.
Post a Comment