I'm posting a review from the New York Times of a new documentary on failing public schools in America (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/movies/24waiting.html?src=me). The film is playing at Amherst Cinema and I encourage everyone interested in educational issues to see the movie. The documentary highlights the efforts of Geoffrey Canada, the founder of the Harlem Children's Zone, and Michelle Rhee, Chancellor of the Washington, DC schools, to reform public education in America.
The documentary brings up many controversial issues around and approaches to education reform, and is creating significant discussion across America. Amherst schools of course do not face the considerable problems seen in the NYC and DC public schools. However, the topics the film addresses, the achievement gap, charter schools, and the role of teacher evaluation and teachers unions in education, are all being played out in Amherst as well as the big cities.
I haven't yet seen the film, and I am not endorsing or criticizing any of the positions or politics explored in the film. Like anything that points out faults in our education system the film has been heavily criticized for being anti-teacher, anti-union, pro-charter school and all together too negative. On the other hand it has been celebrated for finally talking openly about the crisis in American education that should have been addressed years ago. I hope that the film might provide some insight and inspiration as we examine the issues around public education in our town.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
For an important counterpoint, go to:
www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/
You can always count on Ken to post a "counterpoint".
to 6:21- And for that I am grateful. Keep it up Ken!
Please read this link, don't just criticize Ken for sharing it.
Thanks for the link Ken - I did read it. This is a tough subject to truly understand. I think for some parents in big cities, getting their kids into a charter school is more a matter of wanting their kids to be in a school with other kids who are achievement oriented - as opposed to wanting to get them away from supposedly inferior teachers. It's encouraging to hear that 77% of parents rate their kid's public school with an A or B.
However, I just don't think that charter schools are going away any time soon -- it's something we are going to have to live with and address. The reality is that we have to compete now. So, instead of criticizing CS and the rest of the "activist" Amh SC for closing a school, redistricting, examining Union 26, calling for a review of IMP and math in general, and wanting a supt with a larger breadth and depth of experience - I wish the admin and the teachers wouldn't fight them every step of the way. Instead of debating fairly, this weeks Bulletin had 3 letters filled with petty sniping about a comment (grossly taken out of context) from Steve Rivkin - which had NOTHING to do with improved outcomes for students. When the admin and the teachers finally get it that we need to make significant changes and constantly work to improve, then I think we will be able to move forward and truly show that public schools can be better.
After reading this article and seeing Dr Chen's presentation last night, my solution is to totally scrap (most of) our teacher education programs at colleges and universities. I also think we should stay as far away as we can from the UMass school of Ed (and I have an MEd from there). I know Teach for America is not perfect but I have read that they have been collecting a lot of good data on what makes a successful teacher and are working on creating screening procedures and teacher training programs based on that data. I think it was described in the Atlantic a few months ago.
Anon 8:28--Thanks for your thoughts. I work with teachers at 2 Charter schools in Springfield, and knowing the really messed up state of affairs of the public schools there, how can I begrudge families having that choice? Charters are not going away soon, you are right. But I do also think the public should be presented all the facts, not just the pretty colored ones that are slickly packaged into a movie like Waiting for Superman, and feed public stereotypes that are not always true.
About Amherst, I am obviously not tied in as much anymore to the schools as I was when I worked there. But I still know teachers who work there. And as well, I juxtapose the reaction I have when I read some things on this blog and in the paper with what other teachers must feel. Folks on this blog don't like to hear about tone, and perceived agenda, but that IS what people responded to, or reacted to, when what you are calling "resistance" started manifesting in the schools. (I tested this out letting myself go about math a few weeks ago on this blog, and responses almost all got either cranked up in return because my tone had gotten very strong, or only addressed my tone.) A pall of gloom that had started settling over the schools a couple of years ago that has still not completely lifted because many teachers (I don't have a clue about administrators) felt attacked, and that there was agenda that was getting pushed on the schools they had no say in. I'll be as clear as I can on 2 things: 1) the notion that Amherst teachers are not interested in improving their practice or their instruction, or in trying to do what's best for all children, and therefore resist change for any of those reasons, is nonsense; 2) teachers and administrators are not in cahoots, creating some kind of united front.
Regarding the reaction to Steve's comments in the paper, again, people are reacting to tone. If you say to me, "Teacher x may be a teacher, but he doesn't have good enough experience for me because he is not a classroom teacher," therefore implying that being a classroom teacher is more valuable than being special education teacher, if I'M a special education teacher, of course my response will be negative. (And far from showing any kind of wait-and-see objectivity, it shows that he has made up his mind about her candidacy before the search had even officially opened.) Anyway, on this blog there are so many very negative posts that really have NOTHING to do with making education better, that it doesn't seem fair to highlight it on just one side on one side.
Again, thanks for your comments, and I hope my response addressed your points. For anyone else who wants to start knocking heads about tone or whatever, I am really not interested in that fight anymore, but I did want to simply state the facts as i know them.
To November 2, 2010 8:46 PM
I totally agree with steering clear of the UMass School of Ed. I think that's where a huge part of the problem exists.
Hi Ken-
I hear what you are saying about teachers feeling that directives for change are being foisted upon them without their "buy-in." I know from first hand experience that teaching is challenging and that teachers are vulnerable to criticism from many sources - so to a certain extent, I understand the sensitivity. And, I wouldn't think for a minute that teachers would not want to improve their practice. At the same time, when someone says that they would like an outside consultant or they want to see if we can find a supt with more experience than Maria has, why is that so bad? It doesn't have to be interpreted as diminishing her experience to say that they would like a seasoned veteran supt. who can navigate the school system in this, at times, difficult town. I think that we can debate how to proceed with change fairly and with reason rather than by (what I see as) trying to turn public opinion against SC members by accusing them of teacher/admin bashing, or evil intentions, etc, etc.
For example, when CS proposed doing an outside evaluation of the MS, 8-9 teachers wrote a letter to the Bulletin claiming that the MS was being unfairly singled out, etc. Then we did have an outside consultant come and say that the MS is fundamentally a good school and it could improve by focusing efforts toward a few important goals. From what the MS principal was quoted as saying in the newspaper, it seemed as though he was appreciative of the guidance and agreed with the recommendations and was enthusiastic about implementing them. If the SC had backed down and given in to teachers we never would have had the benefit of the Beers report. It turned out to be a win-win. If the SC had backed down only the teachers would have won. Is that fair to parents who want assurance that the MS is the place they want to send their child? Especially because they have other options now. Unfortunately, I don;t think that CS has EVER been forgiven for that heinous act.
Teachers have been under attack in the media for many years - so I understand the defensiveness. And I think they should also realize that every call for reform or change is not a personal attack on them. I just don't see CS and SR having any "agenda" other than making the system the most effective for the largest number of students. Schools are more than just the sum of the teachers who work there - good leadership is needed to coordinate everyone's efforts into a system that works to its maximum potential. I think that our system has been functioning well even without consistent leadership. But if we had the right leadership and people were willing to follow, we could be an even better system.
I just wish we could work together, trust one another, and believe that everyone's intention is to make the system better for students and teachers. And when we don't agree, let's TALK not vilify.
I'll just say briefly that I really appreciate the words expressed by Anonymous 8:28 and (perhaps the same person?) Anonymous 6:32. Those basically sum up exactly how I feel, and I am thankful that you wrote those things so much more eloquently than I would have done. So, thanks!
Ken,
Thanks for posting the link to the article. I read it and thought it was extremely thought provoking. I found myself agreeing with many points the article raised. It highlighted the multitude of factors that impact a child’s success in education. One of the issues that really struck home for me were the statistics on the impact of teachers vs. the home environment on a child’s success.
When I first moved to Amherst and enrolled my children in school, I chose not to give information on their ethnicity. I asked the Assistant Principle if I needed to include this data. She told me I did not but that it helps the district focus on areas of weakness if they see a specific ethnic group performing poorly. I thought that seemed like an admirable goal but in reality it ignores the fact that a bad home life, drugs, alcohol, or physical abuse have a profound impact that is not related to ethnicity. It also seemed arrogant to think that the 6 hours a day each child spends in school could overcome what goes on in the home. I really wondered how a school could overcome a bad living situation. It may improve it but overcoming it seemed far too difficult. There is only so much a school can do and therefore it makes the teacher evaluation process all the more critical for good education and teaching.
During the last superintendent search, I distinctly remember Dr Sklarz speaking to this issue during his public appearance. He described a program he started in an effort to address this specific issue in Hartford. He started an after school mentoring/ tutoring program but brought it to the homes of the children who were most at risk. I recall that the district rented an apartment in the complex where the high risk children lived thus providing better access to these services. He went completely outside the box to directly impact life outside of school and in fact achieved good results.
The Investigations curriculum was always presented to me as a different way to do math that reaches out to a broader group of students, both the highest and lowest achievers, regardless of race or socioeconomic status. It was this idea of reaching a broader group that makes Investigations quite appealing. Without evaluation we can all sit back and feel good about this change. However myself and many other parents found significant issues with Investigations 2 and had been voicing them for several years. These concerns were unfortunately never accorded importance, and many parents felt disenfranchised and ignored.
At the math presentation Dr. Chen spoke about implicit vs. explicit instruction, and that for struggling children explicit instruction has been determined as the key to success, not implicit instruction that is at the core of the Investigations curriculum. So imagine the simple changes we could make that would have a profound impact on teaching. Or imagine if we never did evaluations or assessment of our system, and what that would cost the community and our children.
The discussion about teacher evaluation is extremely critical. It does not mean we want to fire someone. Instead it seeks to analyze, assess, and evaluate what works and what does not work. We should aim to modify what has been done in the past to improve what will be done in the future. We may never be able to change the home environment for at-risk children but we can evaluate and change those aspects of education that are within the district’s control and influence. We should have an evaluation process that strengthens teaching in the classrooms and aims for higher standards and reaches children at all levels of achievement.
I think the article you cited was excellent, and I will go a step further and say that if you agree with it you are much more aligned with the views of CS and SR than you realize.
Thanks for being involved especially because we don’t always view things the same way.
The article Ken posted is indeed excellent. Makes you want to fight even harder for our public schools.
Anon 8:28
"Maria Geryk has not had experience as a regular classroom teacher.
I believe regular classroom teaching experience is particularly relevant for our districts at this time."
How do you take that out of context? Either one) Steve doesn't believe that special education teachers are "real" teachers or two) He has no idea what special education teachers do. Either one make me question his qualifications as a school committee member.
Here is an idea, since Massachusetts doesn't have a gifted/talented program students who are not "regular" qualify for an IEP this includes gifted and talented students, maybe we should put some of these accelerated students on an IEP. I bet Mr Rivkin's opinion would change pretty quick if that happened.
Anon 9:44
I don't think Steve's words have been taken out of context as much as twisted into implying some inflammatory comment he did not say. Just look at your reaction.
He did not say that SPED teachers were not real teachers, or that their job is not hard. He simply said he believes that regular classroom experience would be valuable in a superintendent. That is a perfectly valid opinion that is not an insult to anyone. Maybe you believe a superintendent candidate should speak Spanish, or should have certification in SPED, or should have been a superintendent before. It is perfectly valid for people to express their preference for certain experiential qualifications. It is not disparaging of anyone who does not have those qualifications. Yet that is how you, and others, have twisted Steve's comments. If you disagree with his comment then the appropriate reaction would be to simply state that you do not think regular classroom experience is important.
Two quick things:
Ken - great article -- thanks for posting the link.
Lise - very well said re. Steve's quote. Thanks.
Michael,
Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Myself, regarding education issues, I am from the school of thought of Mao's successor (his name escapes me at the moment), who said: "I don't care if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." My perspective is and always has been a student-first perspective; in other words, I have to understand my students well to be able to successfully teach them. Students that are "like me" culturally and linguistically take little effort to understand beyond their personality, but culturally and linguistically diverse learners take a lot of reflective effort to empathetically know beyond personality. Sometimes it leads me to go left, and sometimes it leads me to go right (I don't man politically). Some teachers/administrators/curriculum developers/theorists have a "going left is best" message, while others insist that we "go right." This cuts across all elements of education. I think it is counterproductive, and in the end against the needs of our most struggling learners, to gtround our thinking in anything but students, whether it is Investigations or reading or anything. I may, and do, agree with CS or SR on some things, and may not (and don't) on others. I don't feel in any way that my touchstone is agreeing with them or not--nor, I am positive, is agreeing with me, theirs! I just want there to be an informed discussion about students, based in who they are, without agendas, and grounded in a contextual understanding of all the available data, and not just some of it.
Ken - for the record, let me say that I agree completely with what you said. I don't care what we teach or how we teach it -- I just want it to work. Now, you may decide what "works" in a different way based on your experience (e.g., your experience as a teacher, working with kids and seeing what different kids get how/what/when) than I do (e.g., wearing a research hat and relying more on research studies and comparisons to other districts than by personal experience in a classroom). But I certainily share your belief that we want cats that can catch mice -- regardless of their color! Thanks for your thoughtful post, and for posting that link. I've thought about doing a longer blog post on that link, so if you have ideas of things you think are important to touch on, would you please send me an email (casanderson@amherst.edu)? Thanks!
Anon 6:32, I wanted to also acknowledge and thank you for your thoughtful response. If everyone took the perspective that you and Michael do, we'd be having far different discussions.
One tangential thing I would like to address in your post is how to work productively with families and disempowered elements of our community, whose children are pushing well up into the 30% of our student body range. It has NEVERR been a strong point of this district doing this well. This district has always been a district that responds to political pressure from the most empowered communities it serves. So in the past, we may have eliminated a helpful support program that served many struggling learners in tight budget times while keeping an advanced Russian course, say, that had 5 students in it. Why? Because of who would call SC members. There is not a fully staffed, cohesive, proactive outreach program--like there should be.
It continues--certainly this blog is a great example. What % of the community really uses it, but doesn't it seem that most of the conversation about the direction of the schools now reflects the perspectives and desires of the relatively limited number of parents affiliated with CS/SR and who actively use this blog. Not that this blog is a bad thing (when used well), it's just a question of to what degree certain segments of a community should have a disproportionate degree of influence over a school system, especially one as diverse as ours. I think it's a very legitimate issue to have an open discussion about, and not everyone will agree.
And even when there are helpful programs, it often has had a "we're doing this on your behalf" or "we're doing it to you" feel, rather than a proactive, collaborative "how can we collaborate around you think is important for your children in our schools," other than some mainly teacher-led initiatives that really reached out to communities. Many communities really feel they are not listened to at all simply because they are not comfortable communicating/being politically active in the dominant culture way. Yet their children go to our schools as well. I think many teachers (at least at the elementary level where i worked, which is what I know best, not to imply it also was not present just as strongly at the secondary level) felt like many of those things that had painstakingly been put into place over time to support struggling communities, in a collaborative way, were being ripped apart without having any say, by people who now "knew better."
Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
Anon 6:32, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful post. I actually typed in a reply about working with families, but it was too large to get sent, and disappeared. Sorry. I don't have time to reproduce it now, but I wanted to appreciate your post. If all posts on this blog were like yours and Michael's, it would be an extremely productive pl;ace to share ideas, all the time!
Ken - just for the record, I supported cutting Russian and German, precisely for the reasons you suggested (and I had good close friends with kids in both programs who pushed me to save them). I also pushed for closing Marks Meadow, in the face of HUGE pressure not to do so from many loud voices (and virtually constant personal attacks at meetings and in the Bulletin) because closing that school would allow us to save intervention support and small classes. So, I agree with you that the loudest voices often carry disproportionate influence, and I think many SC members are swayed by those. But if you read this blog over time, I think you can see that many of those who post are not my "natural allies" -- the posts criticizing my decision from many MM teachers/staff a year or so ago is a good example.
And let me be clear -- in terms of the things I've done on SC, most were NOT things "my fans" wanted: closing MM, redistricting, adding a preschool for low income kids. They were things that I thought were the right things to do for all kids. NONE of these things were the result of people with loud voices pushing me to do things (and in many cases, there were people with loud voices pushing me NOT to do them).
I believe this blog can be very useful at increasing dialogue among people from different groups - one of the reasons I haven't required people to register and use their names is that some people just don't feel comfortable doing so (especially teachers, but also parents). If you have ideas for things I could do, or the SC could do, to increase community involvement in these important discussions (on my blog or elsewhere), please let me know.
Anon 6:32--I see my first post did get through after all. But you deserved kudos twice anyway.
Catherine, first, I'm wondering if either (or both) of us should get nervous since you'd spoken of agreeing with just about everything I wrote in my previous 2-3 posts. Yikes, what does that mean?! :-)
In terms of your latest, I was mostly speaking historically, not specifically addressing this blog or you in everything I wrote, and I am aware that some things you've done have gone against the grain. MM is certainly a great example. When I did refer specifically to this blog, it was in the sense of a disproportionate level of certain segments of the community's influence on what gets discussed as in the best interests of the district, and how that carries over into the school district dialog. Not that you only do what some or many bloggers want. My point is not the blog per se, but how the district STILL runs--without proactively soliciting community involvement and collaboration from families who are not economically, socially or politically empowered, but who represent a growing percentage of our district, and whose children need to be thought the most about for them to do well. I am not blaming you or Steve about it, because this issue long predates your SC tenure.
Math is a great example. It may be that only 20% of the parents have a programmatic concern (I'm guessing) about math, but let's say for the sake of argument that 25% of parents feel that teachers don't understand their children's needs well enough, and that's why they don't achieve more highly. But they're not going to say it directly to teachers, and certainly not email or call administrators or SC members. What mechanism exists to figure that out? Is it worth taking time to figure it out? And would their concerns merit the time and energy needed to address their concerns even if we thought they weren't true or as valuable as what WE may think are their major needs? These are questions I'd like to see addressed by a SC (whether you are on it or not).
Hi, Ken,
So, four responses to your thoughtful post.
1. Perhaps great minds at times do think alike (e.g., in terms of our agreement)?!?
2. I share your concern that the loudest voices sometimes dominate the conversation, and I do think that's a problem (and a problem that exists in Amherst and elsewhere). This is actually an issue I talk about in my psychology teaching. I think your example of maintaining Russian/German for years is a perfect example of that ... and I think closing Marks Meadow is another example of the SC standing up to pressure from the loudest voices to do what was right.
I guess I'm not sure now who those "loud voices" are, however. You sort of identify them as my supporters, but if you read the Bulletin each week, it's pretty clear that I'm not popular (nor is Steve), and yet people email me and talk to me privately all the time telling me they appreciate what I've done/am doing, but can't say so since they'll get the same attacks I get. To me, the loudest voices now seem to be saying "things are great in our schools, so stop talking about problems." I find that unfortunate for many reasons.
3. I think perhaps where you and I agree is that we need to not listen to the loudest voices, and that it is OK to speak about problems. You and I might identify different problems ... but I think we both share a willingness to acknowledge problems that do exist.
4. In terms of math - I am concerned about math in Amherst, as is evident in my blog postings and various comments. But let me be honest -- my kids are doing fine in math (as you've correctly noted before). So, my concern about math isn't about my kids per se -- it is about the many kids who aren't doing well (e.g., the 3rd graders who are below the state average). Now, families with kids who are strugglig (who are disproportionally likely to be low income) may not feel comfortable or even know how to reach out to share their concerns -- the issue of access/mechanisms that you identify. But I believe the SC, principals, administrators, etc., need to be concerned EVEN if families don't write letters to the paper/talk to SC members/go to the principal with concerns. The responsibility of all of those in charge of the district is to worry/care about ALL kids, even if there aren't loud voices pushing us to do so. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better in terms of helping these families have a voice/say (and if you have ideas about how the SC could do that, I'd love to hear them), but it does mean that we shouldn't only address concerns that are brought directly to our attention -- we should also identify concerns (e.g., massive differences as a function of race/gender/income in 8th grade algebra) and address them EVEN if particular families aren't requiring us to do so.
Catherine. Now I'm getting REALLY nervous! We're agreeing WAY too much!
When I refer to "loud voices," I refer to communities of privilege which have existed before now, exist now, and will exist after now, and whose needs most often get met. So I am still speaking in generalities. Indeed, it would be hard to conceive of a notion of social justice without an understanding of how privilege works and therefore a willingness to take proactive steps to combat it.
My point relative to math is that maybe parents would say that their children struggle in math because they think their teachers don't understand them well so the issue is less math and more that. My question would be, "Does what we think by definition have more validity about these matters than what they may think?" Should I think and decide on their behalf because I know more or better, or find out what they think and want to decide?
Specifically, since you asked for suggestions, if it was me, I would find a mechanism to pull together teachers and other staff from each building who have put the most time into making positive, respectful connections with marginalized parent communities, and also to make overtures to leaders/representatives from those communities, and find out from them what steps they would recommend to engage families in a more proactive dialog about their children and what they perceive their needs to be, taking a respectful "listener" stance. And then, not just in a pro forma way to say it's been done, but to take active next steps based on what is brought forward.
That's what I'd do, anyway.
To Ken from Anon 6:32-
When you said the following...
"I think many teachers ... felt like many of those things that had painstakingly been put into place over time to support struggling communities, in a collaborative way, were being ripped apart without having any say, by people who now "knew better.""
...were you referring to the Cambodian program at Fort River?
I know that the program was lost due to redistricting, etc. Do you have any idea how things are going this year for the students who were formerly involved in the program? I know that there are staff members and others who are very angry about this loss.
I have very little knowledge of this program - it seems unfortunate that it was lost. Do you think that there was any way to save it? On the one hand, it sounds like it was a beloved program and on the other hand it seems unfair to spend resources on the Cambodian community when we don't offer those same resources to the Tibetan community or the Guatemalan community, etc. Also, as an outsider, I am skeptical about keeping kids segregated by ethnicity - but I also see that it can create a level of comfort.
As a teacher, what did you observe to be the benefits of clustering? Do you think that the new preschool for income eligible students and after-school/summer help programs could be effective at helping kids from underrepresented groups?
When I read the exchanges between you and Catherine it made me realize how the Cambodian program was a way that teachers created support for underrepresented groups in an atmosphere where the admin and SC were not willing to make the difficult choices that could have allowed us to offer help and support to those under-served communities.
What are your thoughts about the loss of the Cambodian program? What about cultural/language clusters?
Anonymous 7:01/6:32 - just for the point of clarity ... the SC voted to redistrict, but the superintendent ultimately controls all programs for particular populations. So, the superintendent could have decided, and could still decide, to maintain a particular program that he/she thought was best for any particular group of students. The SC doesn't control that. For example, kids with particular special education needs are still clustered at Wildwood, regardless of where they live.
Anon 7:01, yes that was in my mind as an example. Catherine is correct that it was not the SC's "decision." It was mostly a political/ideological position taken by the Superintendent, who simply had a different view about lnaguge learning, and he had some supporters in Central Admin. However, I will say that it seemed as though all th SC members with the exception of Anderson supported the move. The Superintendent used a bogus legal argument to justify the decision as well, which they announced at the community meeting (referred to below). As it was read at the meeting, it was phrased that all clustering by language/culture is against the law, while the legal opinion actually said that the exception is when it has been done within the context of duly constituted ESL programs, which ours were.
Relating to the exchanges between Catherine and I about families, this was a great example of that as well because after creating the above-mentioned community meeting supposedly so the families most affected by the social engineering moves (equlaizing %s of low income students across the schools, the dismantling of the language cluster ELL programs) could participate, say what they thought, after turning out in a remarkable outpouring of numbers and emotion, it turned out that the decision had already been made. Many of the parents were disgusted in that whole circus and many commented how much it just confirmed what they already felt, which was other than the staff who they knew were respectful of them and their children, they didn't feel like district decision-makers EVER listened to them.
I have heard second and third hand the Cambodian students are struggling a bit in their new schools. I don't know how the Cambodian parents feel now. I am also aware that there have been attempts to restart the very successful and important Cambodian afterschool at FR for all Cambodian students, but money has been an issue and I don't know if it has started/will start or not.
I will send part 2 to answer the rest of your questions in a moment.
To continue,
I'm not sure how much "extra" money we sspent. Numbers partly dictate decisions, and there were many more Cambodian students than Tibetan, for example, and Guatemalan students had the choice of the Spanish cluster at CF, which was also dismantled. There were several advantages:
*if our schools have a social connection, it would have been a value to maintain a program which for the Cambodian community--given all the trauma and cultural disruption in the recent historical past that they'd suffered--was perhaps the 2nd most important cultural institution for that community after the temples; it was where/how the younger generations were put most directly in touch with their cultural roots, and in a way that enabled their culture to be a) regenerated and b) cohesively transmitted; while we might say that's the parent's or community's job, just remember the circumstances that brought that community here, the experiences of the older parents (who had been cut off from their culture in the Killing Fields and refugee camps) and then the younger parents who came of age during the most difficult period of resettling here
*it was very valuable to have a school where so much effort had been put into creating knowledgable and empathetic relationships with parents; this took years to create, and will not easily be replicated in new situations, at least not quickly; as everyone knows, parent buy-in is crucial for academic success
*the time and energy--and therefore effectiveness--of our schools' marvelous Cambodian para and outreach worker, Seiha Krouch, could be maximized when the children and families were concentrated in one building
*it was valuable to have so many staff serving that community who had worked so closely with students and families, and so who realized how Cambodian students function academically in classroom learning spaces, etc; it really does matter since culture strongly affects learning style
*with the strong cultural presence in the school, the students and families felt part ownership of the school as a whole, and individual classrooms, which otherwise does not happen naturally as it would with my own (or yours, or CS's...) children
These are some of the major benefits that I saw. I hope I've answered your questions adequately.
To continue,
I'm not sure how much "extra" money we sspent. Numbers partly dictate decisions, and there were many more Cambodian students than Tibetan, for example, and Guatemalan students had the choice of the Spanish cluster at CF, which was also dismantled. There were several advantages:
*if our schools have a social connection, it would have been a value to maintain a program which for the Cambodian community--given all the trauma and cultural disruption in the recent historical past that they'd suffered--was perhaps the 2nd most important cultural institution for that community after the temples; it was where/how the younger generations were put most directly in touch with their cultural roots, and in a way that enabled their culture to be a) regenerated and b) cohesively transmitted; while we might say that's the parent's or community's job, just remember the circumstances that brought that community here, the experiences of the older parents (who had been cut off from their culture in the Killing Fields and refugee camps) and then the younger parents who came of age during the most difficult period of resettling here
*it was very valuable to have a school where so much effort had been put into creating knowledgable and empathetic relationships with parents; this took years to create, and will not easily be replicated in new situations, at least not quickly; as everyone knows, parent buy-in is crucial for academic success
*the time and energy--and therefore effectiveness--of our schools' marvelous Cambodian para and outreach worker, Seiha Krouch, could be maximized when the children and families were concentrated in one building
*it was valuable to have so many staff serving that community who had worked so closely with students and families, and so who realized how Cambodian students function academically in classroom learning spaces, etc; it really does matter since culture strongly affects learning style
*with the strong cultural presence in the school, the students and families felt part ownership of the school as a whole, and individual classrooms, which otherwise does not happen naturally as it would with my own (or yours, or CS's...) children
These are some of the major benefits that I saw. I hope I've answered your questions adequately.
To Ken from Anon 6:32-
It's probably very disheartening to see a program that you have worked hard to create get destroyed and feel as though you don't have control over it. The question is did this help Cambodian students succeed academically more than a high quality preschool and an extra-help program will?
I realize that staff poured their hearts into the program - and who wants to take away a good thing from a group that has been through so much? The Cambodian people have been through horrors that we can't even imagine - so it feels bad to challenge the fairness of this program. However, providing high quality preschool and offering after-school/summer help for struggling learners seems like a good thing too.
I also can't help but wonder if it is fair for school staff to expend so much effort to create community for one group based on ethnicity - when other groups could benefit from the same efforts? The fact that the Tibetan community is so small seems like a perfect reason to provide the same services - they too are refugees. Or, what about a community for kids whose parents don't have a college degree? Or, kids of single parents - or kids of GLBT parents? It seems like a slippery slope and I see why the admin didn't want to continue it - because it is setting a precedent for providing special services to special groups. Who gets to decide which group gets special services?
Although it may have been rolled into what happened due to the votes of the SC, it seems unfair to lay this particular issue on Catherine and Steve. And if it was their tone during the debates over closing MM and redistrict-ing that made it worse, I remember that they were in high defense mode due to the full-on attack that was being directed at them from all sides.
I hope the interested parties will talk with the supt about this now that the dust has settled from redistrict-ing and not see it as a reason to oppose CS and SR.
Anon, the effort, time and resources were poured into this community based primarily on need, not ethnicity. If SPED were not a legal mandate, would a school district not still need to fully fund and staff an appropriate program based on those students' needs, even if language and ethnicity were not involved as factors? The ethnicity issue was secondary. Also, there was "extra help" available at FR for them as needed, and clustering does not preclude the value of a pre school experience (which, by the way, many Cambodian students had also had).
I don't recall saying that the SC was responsible, only that I do not recall any support for those programs from an SC member other than Kathleen Anderson. I also recall some unfortunate statements by some SC members that were negative towards the programs and that community's needs.
Finally, if you want to make the case with Administration and/or SC that large scale programs (in both $$ and staffing) should be afforded to numerically small groups in the district, go for it!
I agree with Anon 1:32. I realize that the Cambodian program was great for those kids, but what about other groups who would have benefitted from understanding their own culture in a school-sponsored setting. As a FR parent, I understand how thoroughly the entire school was committed to the Cambodian culture and imagine how great it was for the Cambodian families. As non-Cambodians, though, my children often felt as if their culture was totally ignored and the entire school was focused on Cambodia. Learning about other cultures is very important, but I think all students should learn about all cultures. I am sorry to hear that some of the Cambodian students are struggling in their new schools. I wonder if they are struggling more or less than students from other cultures. Change is hard.
Anon 1:32, I'm sorry your children felt that way. Not knowing what culture(s) your children's background is, it's hard to know what else to say. Of course, there was never an intent to focus exclusively on Cambodian culture--nor did we. There has been the tradition of a 2-week Cambodian focus to the school around Cambodian New Year, which leaves 34 of the 36-week school year not focused on Cambodian culture per se, either programmatically as a school, or by individual teachers. All teachers should be bringing the culture of all their students front and center in their day-to-day instruction, and have been/are encouraged to do so, so all children feel ownership of their classroom learning space.
Ken
I respect your opinions and am thankful that you take the time to explain them here in great detail.
Unfortunately, your explanations about a FR program that had at its core a sensitivity to the needs of a particular group of students are diminished by the often-stated pronouncements of your former principal that only certain groups of students warranted staff concern/attention, and that some groups warranted inattention.
As I've followed this blog since its inception, I've often wondered whether the frustrations with "the administration" originated with
that situation.
This is a very civil and thoughtful dialogue on the former Cambodian program at FR, but I also find it a bit disturbing.
In his posts, Ken continually refers to "Cambodian students." There are also references to "Guatemalan students" and students from Tibet.
This is a fascinating way to describe young American school children. I believe that almost every "Cambodian student" at FR when my kids were there (up until last year) was born in the US. Many of their parents were graduates of FR, ARMS, and ARHS and some of those parents were born in the US. Many of these "Cambodian kids" are second generation Americans.
I know that the supporters of this program want only the best for these kids and their community, but in the name of helping them they diminish them. No one refers to my kids as the "Jewish kids" or my neighbors' kids as "the South Asian kids." By leading with their ethnicity, we diminish their citizenship and all the rights and responsibilities that flow from that. They are as American as anyone else born here (or naturalized).
This is a classic example of how people on the Right (Obama is African) and Left ("Cambodian students") exoticize the other. The Right does it purposely to diminish Obama. People on the Left do it to protect or promote those they see as needing help. Either way, it separates those people from the whole and narrows the definition of Americanness. That's something the Right is very comfortable with, but progressives should work against such a problematic narrowing of the nation and its concomitant social and potential political disenfranchisement of people of color.
That the grandparents and in some cases parents of some kids in the Amherst schools suffered unimaginable horrors in other countries may be part of their personal identity and something they bring to school with them, but it isn't the role of the public schools to define them through it. That is a family and community matter and something for these young people to embrace, forget, or think through as they grew intellectually and socially during their school years and beyond.
Joel:
I have NEVER agreed with anythin you have ever said..and usually find myself quite upset with the way you say things.
This time, however, I find myself in total agreement with all that you say and appreciate your thoughtfulness on the subject. Thank you for your post.
Anon 7:56, I feel responsible only for what I say and how I communicate the reality of circumstances as I understand them, not what others may say (or how what other's say may be understood).
Joel, I think to answer your post fully would take a lot more space and give-and-take between us than this blog format allows for. I'd be happy to meet with you some time to discuss it further if you'd like.
Don't do it Joel. It will be like talking to a wall.
I have to agree with Joel on this topic. When the redistricting process and the end of language clusters were being debated, I heard many generalizations (the Latino kids of South Amherst, the Cambodians from Fort River. etc...) that I frankly find a bit offensive and narrow-minded. As Joel said, many Latino and Cambodian kids were born here, and are as American as any other kid in their schools. What if we decided to divide all kids by ethnicity clusters? The Latinos in one school, the Asians in another one, the Jewish in a third, etc...that'd be seen as crazy, right? So why is it Ok to think that all Cambodians should be in Fort River and all Latinos in Crocker Farm? Or that this possibility, even if it's a voluntary option and not mandatory, should exist for these ethnicities specifically? That's prejudice, and in my opinion it goes against one of the great advantateges I see in a public school education: to allow a child to have contact with all kinds of kids from their early years. Call me an optimist, but I think the more diverse our schools are, the better this country will be in the future. We fear what we don't know, and that for me is in the origin of many of the wars we see in the world today. Let's keep our schools diverse!
I agree completely with Joel here. Celebrating the Cambodian culture (year after year over many occasions per year in one school, as opposed to celebrating a variety of cultures, or celebrating specific ones this year and others next year) - should be a family and community commitment, and not part of school curriculum.
Also, like Joel pointed out - not everyone wants to be identified first and foremost by their ethnicity. I hated growing up as the "asian kid." I didn't mind it when my parents took me to asian cultural events but I hated it when kids at school called me that. Maybe the cambodian or latino kid would rather be known as "the funny kid" or "the smart one" or "most awesome video gamer" or just Joe or Jane (or whatever their name is).
Post a Comment