First, there is an article from last week's New York Times on the differences in student achievement across cultures (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?emc=eta1). I certainly agree with Arne Duncan that these scores should be a wake up call.
Second, there is a fascinating article in today's New York Times on the high correlation between students' perceptions of teachers and student achievement (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/education/11education.html?_r=2&hp). I believe the research described in this article provides more evidence that we really should listen to what students say about the education they experience.
Third, I'm giving links to three pieces from the Hampshire Gazette.
- The first describes continuing discussions by the Northampton School Committee in terms of start times (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/10/discussion-continue-later-start-time-nhs), an issue that is also under discussion in Amherst (I'm not sure of the status of this discussion in Amherst, but will ask for an update at the next regional meeting).
- The second describes goals discussed by the Amherst School Committee at our last meeting (http://www.gazettenet.com/2010/12/10/class-size-offerings-issue-amherst-budget-talks). As noted in this article, we will have a preliminary budget presented at our December 21st meeting--I strongly encourage parents interested in issues with budget implications (e.g., Spanish language program, instrumental music, math curriculum) to watch and/or attend this meeting and share their thoughts with the School Committee.
- The third and final article describes the state of the elementary Spanish program in our schools (http://gazettenet.com/2010/12/11/amherst-spanish-program-receives-mixed-reviews). As noted in this article, I am really pleased that we have finally implemented a world language program in our elementary schools (something the community has requested for a decade), but am concerned -- based on comments made by Sean Smith, the head of world language in our schools -- that the current 40 minutes a week provided may not be adequate to achieve the level of fluency he believed was important. I look forward to getting more clarity on this issue, and the future plans for implementing this program, soon.
51 comments:
Yes, a wake-up call! This quote really stood out:
“I know skeptics will want to argue with the results, but we consider them to be accurate and reliable, and we have to see them as a challenge to get better,” he added. “The United States came in 23rd or 24th in most subjects. We can quibble, or we can face the brutal truth that we’re being out-educated.”
Catherine, I think you'll recall I once posted on the fact that there was a disconnect between the amount of time being devoted to teaching Spanish in the new program, and the expectations tied up in the concept "learn" as in "learn Spanish." At the time, you said that a committee had done research to determine what a minimum amount was for a successful program. I stood corrected at the time out of respect for the committee and their work, but I was quite skeptical, and am not at all surprised that now the feeling is that 40 minutes a week is not enough for ANY kind of meaningful
"learning" of a language, or even to get much meaningful value at all out of the experience.
Ken-
Maybe you'd feel differently if you were 8 years old, like my daughter is. She loves Spanish, looks forward to it every week and comes home singing songs in Spanish in a better accent than I'll ever have--because she got to start Spanish when she is young, rather than having to wait and wait and wait as her ability to learn languages grew more and more limited. Thanks to the School Committee for organizing this much awaited Spanish program!
Ken, can you say "puberty"?
It is far easier to learn a language -- and that includes learning it later -- if you are speaking it prior to puberty. And do you have any idea how young girls are going through puberty now?
I don't know what the objective of the elementary spanish program is, but the simple fact is that it is enabling kids to have near-native speaking ability that otherwise wouldn't have it...
And so what if they don't have enough hours a week to get the grammar down -- they likely don't know English grammar either....
It's a start. It's not perfect, but it's a start. It all takes baby steps.
Anon 9:59, I am glad your daughter likes Spanish. I think you should take up any concerns you have about changes to the program with CS and Sean Smith, both of whom expressed concern (CS based on Sean's concern) about whether 40 minutes a week was adequate for "learning" Spanish enough, and whose concerns I responded to in my post because I had questioned this model when it was first proposed.
Although I may not feel the same way as your daughter about this iteration of a foreign language program, I am hoping that my ability in 4 languages (including Spanish) and my 30 years in the field of language teaching enables me to have some small degree of informed opinion about what an adequate language program should look like.
Also, it actually is NOT the case that the older you get, the less ability you have to learn another language overall. The only element of language learning this holds true for is pronunciation.
Anon 2:18
Yes, it is a wake-up call to the US. However, not all states are the same, and as I have posted many times, the last international study where MA had its scores disaggregated from general US results (the 2007 TIMSS study, the most prestigious international education comparison), MA was near the top of the world, WAY ahead of US-as-a-whole results. And compared to all districts in MA by subgroup, Amherst does quite well--though there is significant disparity of achievement between subgroups, (which is the same issue just about everywhere), and which I still believe is the major issue that Amherst should be spending its energy and resources addressing.
So if you (and others) are implying at all that "See, things are bad here, just like we thought, and which we need this SC to rescue us from!", that would be a very inaccurate interpretation of the data. I stand corrected if you were not intending that implication.
Also, it actually is NOT the case that the older you get, the less ability you have to learn another language overall.
Ken, may I politely inquire as to what concept of educational theory you are basing this on?
Absolutely everything I have ever seen -- from child development to psychology, from student development theory to principles of adult education -- absolutely EVERYTHING says that there are essentially two types of learning.
Young children learn by memorization and experience. Adults learn by applying existing knowledge to new situations. At various developmental stages, people phase from one to the other but the simple fact is that the very young learn very differently from adults.
And one of the reason why the 13-23 year old cadre are so challenging is that they are in this transition.
Now, Ken, if you have this great body of research that says that everything I have seen for the past 30 years is wrong, well first why aren't you a professor and second cite it please!
And for a practical example of what I am talking about -- look at the driving skills of those who didn't learn as teenagers -- they never are very good at it, may be cautious but lack the instinctive control of the vehicle...
significant disparity of achievement between subgroups, (which is the same issue just about everywhere), and which I still believe is the major issue that Amherst should be spending its energy and resources addressing.
In other words, "teach to the bottom." This is like running laps around the track but saying that no one could run faster than the slowest kid -- it is not good for that kid and it is not good for anyone else either.
Lord, please save us from the soft bigotry of low expectations....
I had some information that I wanted to share in regard to Ken's comment about MA being so far ahead of the rest of the nation.
When Andrew Chen gave his presentation to the community he showed a graph comparing math scores for every state in the US that did in fact show MA ahead of every other state.
And then he showed raw averaged scores for each state with White, Latino, and Afr-Amer student scores separated. And although MA looked far ahead when the data was graphed, Texas (which was smack in the middle) had basically the same scores as MA. The TX raw scores for White students were marginally lower 242(TX) vs 244(MA) - but because TX's population is so dramatically larger than MA's, it exaggerated the 2 pt difference. And actually TX scores were higher for Latino students and the same for Afr-Amer students.
So, Andrew Chen's point is that when this data is presented it can be deceiving.
Someone please correct me if I have something wrong here as I am relaying this info from memory. I looked for copies of the Powerpoint slides but I couldn't find them.
I'm dazzled Ken, absolutely dazzled.
I couldn't open the first two Gazette articles, but could open the last one.
I'll just post an opposing view on spanish - my second grader (boy) does NOT like spanish, and finally brought home a folder of stuff that parents are supposed to look at. I asked him to tell me some of the stuff he's learned (based on the paperwork in the folder) - like days of the week, numbers - NADA. He couldn't remember a single thing in spanish. And his pronunciation was just horrendous.
As far as I can tell, spanish class is a waste of time for him. By the way, he is a capable kid - he is doing multiplication tables and reading Harry Potter in 2nd grade. So his lack of interest in spanish may be due to the subject matter or teacher/teaching style but - not to an inability to learn or apply himself.
We encourage him at home - I speak spanish myself but have never taught it to him (but we do talk about how great it is to learn another language, how spanish is so useful). He says he wishes he could speak another language. So it's not a message that he's getting at home that spanish is not fun. I think what he is doing in school wrt spanish is not fun for him.
I wonder if there is a gender bias or some other type of bias in terms of which kids like spanish and which do not. Or perhaps spanish is more fun at some schools than others.
Ed said:
"And for a practical example of what I am talking about -- look at the driving skills of those who didn't learn as teenagers -- they never are very good at it, may be cautious but lack the instinctive control of the vehicle..."
If this is is the type of research we're getting from the Ph.D's or Ph.D candidates ( can't figure out Ed's long time presence) who purport to have the answers, I'm not surprised we're having problems with education.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/12/12/stress-and-the-high-school-student
This is a link to a story in today's New York Times that takes a counterpoint position to the helicopter parents approach to hovering over every aspect of their child's life in the hope that the kid gets into the best college.
Have you read it yet? What do you think?
Here's a couple of ideas from it:
" Advanced Placement courses often just accelerate the worst sort of lecture-based, textbook-driven, “bunch o’ facts” teaching. (Realizing that harder isn’t always better, a growing number of high schools are eliminating A.P. courses.)
And there’s more. Some 830 colleges and universities have stopped requiring the SAT or ACT. Courageous educators are replacing letter and number grades with less destructive forms of assessment."
Thoughts?
Advanced Placement courses often just accelerate the worst sort of lecture-based, textbook-driven, “bunch o’ facts” teaching.
The question is if education is to convey facts or to make kids feel good about themselves. The question is if we are attempting to prepare people to live in an adult world as adults, or to teach codependency and group processes.
The lecture-based, textbook-based teaching method is the most efficient way to convey knowledge to the next generation. It also presumes that (a) the teacher knows more than the students do and (b) that there are facts which are either correct or not.
And there’s more. Some 830 colleges and universities have stopped requiring the SAT or ACT.
So that they can exhibit the bigotry that the SAT was designed to eliminate. See http://books.google.com/books?id=TXSRvghgRdkC&pg=PR26&lpg=PR26&dq=synnott+jewish+discrimination&source=bl&ots=5hcl5kfj3n&sig=SAmKOZz8ZcRwDopYIxkOaY7ARB8&hl=en&ei=YpIHTfHwAsqr8AaljdXZCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=synnott%20jewish%20discrimination&f=false
Courageous educators are replacing letter and number grades with less destructive forms of assessment.
And we aren't supposed to use red pens, either... And why don't we just have a basketball & football team that everyone can play and not keep score on that, either...
You know, folks, this is why boys are failing so very badly right now....
One more thing:
It really matters that the US Constitution was written in 1787 and not 1987. It really matters that Orwell wrote 1984 in 1948 and not 1984. It really matters that it is 1000 miles from Portland ME to the Florida State Line -- a thousand miles and not twenty nor twenty thousand.
It matters that this country is a Republic and not a Democracy -- in a Democracy, two wolves and a lamb get to vote as to what is for dinner and majority rules -- in a Republic, minorities have rights that the majority may not trample on.
Facts matter, damn it! I am so very tired of this new aged concept of emotions constituting facts -- that if you really feel strongly about something, that makes it true without either logic or facts to support your cause.
And this is what is behind the dump-the-SAT movement -- heaven forbid colleges admit kids who actually know things....
"in a Republic, minorities have rights that the majority may not trample on."
For gay people this country has been a democracy and not a republic. The majority have been and trampling the rigths of gay people for decades and they continue to do so. Look at all the states where the majority have voted to deny gay people the right to marry. This is just one of many examples of where the majority heterosexual class has long trampled on the rights of te gay minority.
Anon 1:44,
I applaud your ability to put words in my mouth. They're silly words, and bear no resemblance at all to what I wrote. But congrats on sticking them into my mouth.
Ed, you can either believe me about this or not. I don't really care if you do or not, and I don't consider it my lot to placate you about things.
But anyway, in my field, it is now understood that age matters for pronunciation but not much else in language learning. By the way, the 4 languages I learned I learned after I was 23 years old, 2 of them after 30. Uh-oh, I guess I was wrong!
Anon 1:50,
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I think in a way, you made my point that it's achievement disparities that matter most. Here's a link to the 2009 NAEP math results at grade 4: http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/gr4_state.asp?subtab_id=Tab_9&tab_id=tab1#tabsContainer. Here's a link for grade 12: http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/summary_g12.asp. Here's a grade 8 link: http://nationsreportcard.gov/math_2009/gr8_state.asp. Once you're on this NAEP site, you can navigate around to all kinds of interesting data.
I do think examining the data at 4, 8 and 12 in math and language arts will pretty clearly show where MA stands--overall high performance relative to other states, with disparities between performance of different groups.
I'll also re-post the link about MA and the international TIMSS study: http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.aspx?id=4457
By the way, the 4 languages I learned I learned after I was 23 years old, 2 of them after 30.
Then we can abolish the entire foreign language department at ARSH and save some money -- the kids call learn their the other languages after they graduate from college.
Hey, lets all rely on Google Translator while we are at it...
Uh, Curious Observer 5:11, you've taken my name maybe accidentally. Perhaps you can call yourself I Wish I Was Curious Observer.
83% of the other colleges still want to see an SAT score. And for your information, the kids who get into Ivy League and elite colleges are self-motivated, self-disciplined kids. Also, an SAT score helps to separate kids who are in schools with grade-inflation from kids who actually earned a good grade. AP classes are what get you into elite colleges. If you don't want to go to one, or don't want your kid to go to one, don't deprive the other kids of the opportunity.
Anon 7:26,
Lots of people on this blog react in bizarre ways and draw bizarre conclusions to things that don't just echo with what they already believe, and what is "accepted wisdom" in this space. Your post is a case in point.
Real Curious Observer: It's not your name. It's mine. Why are you posing as me?
Lots of people on this blog react in bizarre ways and draw bizarre conclusions to things that don't just echo with what they already believe
Ken, respectfully, you portray yourself as an expert in teaching yet other than saying that Amherst schools are the best of the best state in the best country, I don't seem to see a whole lot of specifics from you.
So what if Amherst does well on the MCAS -- I know a kid who was so bored that he wrote a Hikiu for his English MCAS and passed anyway....
The MCAS, like the drivers' exam, is the minimum acceptable standard. Not excellence, but mere competence.
First of all Ken never says that Amherst schools are the best in the best state. What he does say is that for the most part white (mostly), non-low income students do quite well in the Amherst schools as measured by MCAS, which is most important from a NCLB standpoint. and that MA students score quite well internationally. You can argue that point all you want but no one has stepped to his repeated requests for that all important data that says anything different. I had a very interesting conversation with my two high schoolers today about just how white and affluent honors and AP classes are.
Also I find the way you belittle his expertise a little offensive- would say that Steve Rivkin portrays himself as an expert in the economics of education?
RE: Larger classes for the older elementary school students
Years ago (1999)- Smaller classes were requested for the sixth grade because the elementary classrooms are too small for adult sized adolescents (at WW we had two children using wheelchairs- so the classrooms were packed!)
Something to keep in mind!
Great letter from Jim Oldham in the Bulletin yesterday.
Balanced and specific.
I think he has clearly listed the issues that many parents and residents have with Catherine Sanderson's style as a school committee member. I should also include Irv Rhodes and Steve Rivkin in there as well.
All of your performances in this capacity would improve if you listened to some of what Mr. Oldham states.
I think the Amherst faction of the regional committee, for the most part, defines the "bull in a china shop" adage.
I wonder if more of the changes you would like to see would be further down the road toward that change, now, if you had begun your tenures on the committee with less sword and more honey?
The majority have been and trampling the rigths of gay people for decades and they continue to do so. Look at all the states where the majority have voted to deny gay people the right to marry.
I realize this is a bit off topic, but I have to ask two questions:
1: How is denying gay adults the right to marry a same-sex partner any different from denying 18-year-old adults the right to consume alcohol. Gays can marry someone of the other sex, the 18 year old can drink three years later -- neither is having the right denied, only restricted as perceived for the common good.
The common good relative to a marriage license is children - and that is why you can't marry a sibling (gay or otherwise).
2: A marriage license is a license to create children. In an earlier era, unwed pregnancy was very much frowned upon -- more than a few brides may have been pregnant at the wedding, but they were married when the child was born.
A marriage was a legal commitment between two biologically different people with vastly different biologically different issues and needs. Before DNA testing, a man needed to know that the children he was raising were his (and society needed him to provide for them). And as to the woman, imagine what it was like to be pregnant in the 19th Century - in Amherst, in weather like this week.
Water had to be pulled up from the well in a bucket and weighed 8.3 lb/gallon, the toilet was a cold building outdoors, and there were no minivans with the tilt steering wheels and adjustable seats -- pregnant women needed men to help them in a way they don't now.
All of this, of course, was more directed at the children and providing for them - and not just financially - and while I personally know single mothers doing wonderfully for/with their children, I can show a direct (macro) causal relationship between single parenthood and every bad educational outcome there is.
Parenting is damn hard work and children really need a team. Boys truly need a male role model (and to their credit, many lesbians who have adopted find a male role model - usually heterosexual - for their son).
But the simple fact is that lesbians don't have accidental pregnancies and guys don't have a vagina. It is the heterosexual single mothers that marriage is needed for, it is the heterosexual (not gay) men who need to stay with the women they get pregnant and help raise the children they helped create.
Pioneer Institute did a study and found that the average tenure of the live-in boyfriend is 17 months -- that the adult men in these children's lives come and go with frequency, told to treat as a father this week, never seen again next week.
I am not a fan of gay marriage because I see it as an obligation between biological parents and to their offspring, a contract with the next generation.
for the most part white (mostly), non-low income students do quite well in the Amherst schools as measured by MCAS
My car is currently getting 28MPG which would be good for many cars, except that it is a subcompact and ought to be getting quite a bit more.
First, let's start looking at what family income really is and stop using the "free lunch" divide -- lets go with median income and standard deviations from that statistic.
So, the rich kids -- who elsewhere else would be in the top percentiles of excellence, are merely proficient in Amherst. These are professors kids, largely home schooled (all parents do to some extent) and their educational outcome should be a combination of what the parents put in and what the school put in -- if they aren't excelling, the school isn't doing anything.
Ken and others seem to think that since they are merely proficient we can ignore them. Fine - why can't we also tell them they can stay home and sleep late? Why can't we lay off the teachers that are going to be ignoring them?
You either help a child to his/her/its full potential, or you are merely babysitting the child.
I had a very interesting conversation with my two high schoolers today about just how white and affluent honors and AP classes are.
And what you need to do first thing on Monday morning is pull your two children out of all their honors & AP courses and tell the school that you want their two seats to be filled by minority children. That you want your two children (who apparently have the ability to excel) to be in classes taught far below their abilities.
I am really tired of those who "talk the talk" but don't "walk the walk." Catherine does - Gazzette reports she has a child in Fort River which is the lowest performing school in the district.
You think the Honors & AP classes are too affluent and too white -- fine, tell your children that they are not entitled to that which they have earned via their merits, and that their abilities have to be suppressed for your political agenda...
To Anon. December 17, 2010 2:46 PM
Yes, that smile and go along to get along worked real well in the past. Can you say "portables at Marks Meadow"?????
"Less sword and more honey"
Now there's a principle for government oversight if I ever heard one.
Is it "Be Nice To A Public Employee Week"? And when is
"Be Grateful for Your Government Check Week"?
Anybody checked what life is like for many people in the private sector lately? Ever talk to anyone working in, say, retail???? Now there's a worklife without gratitude.
New Curious Observer/Anonymous 2:46 - as a member of the SC, my goal has been improving education for kids ... because I believe that is the most important aspect of being a member of the SC. So, I don't judge my effectiveness as a member of the SC in terms of whether Jim Oldham likes me, or in terms of whether an anonymous poster on my blog supports my efforts. I am entirely focused on whether education is better for kids as a result of my efforts.
Do I think elementary kids have benefitted from saving a million dollars a year by closing Marks Meadow so that we can continue to fund art/music/PE/small classes? I do.
Do I think high school kids have benefitted from spending less time in study halls because I pushed for the elimination of mandatory study halls? I do.
Do I think Crocker Farm has benefitted from not being the school in which we clustered all low income kids? I do.
Do I believe elementary kids benefit from early exposure to Spanish language? I do.
Do I believe middle school kids have benefitted from the findings revealed by Barry Beers in the evaluation I requested? I do.
Did I get those things accomplished by "using honey"? No -- and you clearly fault me for that. Do I believe those things would have occurred without someone pushing and pushing (remember, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these things happened against the will of the administration)? No. I share your view that it would have been lovely if all of things could have been accomplished "with honey." But I tried, and other parents tried, that approach for years ... with no changes. And thus I felt, and I continue to feel, that a different approach was (and is) needed.
I am very proud of what I've accomplished during my two and 1/2 years on the School Committee -- because I see the very real benefits that kids in our system are now experiencing every day. To me, that is what matters -- it's about the kids ... not the adults.
Well said Catherine!!!! NOTHING got done with the previous school committees. If you hadn't gone in and pushed and pushed hard, we'd still have that black hole we were sinking money into called Marks Meadow, and Crocker Farm would still be the school no one wanted their kid to attend. What a black eye on all of you who were on the previous school committee. Shame on you, each and every one of you. Thank you Catherine for all that you do. My kids didn't benefit from it, but future kids will. akab
Is Fort River really the lowest performing school in the district now? Across the board? I didn't know that. Catherine, will you keep us updated about the principal's return?
Catherine,
Thank you for citing the actual positive impacts of changes accomplished by the School Committee during your tenure. Keep up the great work, all of you.
Ed,
I share your view and straight talk on the SAT and honors predicaments, and the decimation of students' potential under a feel-good mentality that has watered down many districts' performance, including this one's, to the detriment of the US' standing and future potential. You won't get the honey award either, but who cares?
Keep striving for excellence for all students.
I should have read the Jim Oldham op-ed before commenting above. If I had, I'd have added this:
Diplomacy surely has its place, but the hand-wringing over comity among the School Committee members and with the administration is both overblown and misplaced. What I see in an article such as Mr. Oldham's are the usual dodges and logical fallacies that some resort to when they can't muster the facts and strength of argument to carry the day:
When you don't agree with me, you are either "not looking at the big picture," or "not listening to others," or "not showing sufficient sincerity/compassion," or not "trying to get along."
Phooey.
Ed- I really debated about responding to your completely asinine response to my post and had decided it wasn't worth the effort until some agreed with you.
First- you are making a HUGE assumption not only about my socio-economic class but also about the color of my skin.
Second- I challenge you to find anywhere in my post anything to suggest that I think that affluent white students shouldn't be allowed to take AP or honors classes. And no- I don't think that they should be ignored. that I think that we should we should be teaching to the bottom.
Third- you still haven't provided ANY evidence to refute Ken's evidence that shows that non-low income students in Amherst are doing well on the whole.
Fourth- I grew up in one of the ugliest, meanest housing projects in NYC. So please spare me the "walk the walk" nonsense.
Sorry- bad proof reading on my part in the previous post- that should have read:
Nor do I think that we should be teaching to the bottom- we should be working to raise expectations for all students.
Nor do I think that we should be teaching to the bottom- we should be working to raise expectations for all students.
Agreed. But the problem is that you already have some kids that are at (or beyond) the point where you hope to get other kids. And what do you do?
What we are doing is letting the kids who are higher up rest on their laurels and not challenging them -- or if we do, only via quantity of extra work and assignments (eg extensions) which is inherently unfair.
Take two kids - one can run fast and one can't. What we do is force the kid who can run fast to only go as fast as the other kid -- and then ask him to take an extra lap around the track at the slower speed.
Fourth- I grew up in one of the ugliest, meanest housing projects in NYC. So please spare me the "walk the walk" nonsense.
This is the same thing that a nasty element of the Republican party likes to say. And I say here the same I say to them: What is your CURRENT income? Not what did you have as a child but what do your children have now?
A significant percentage of the children in the district exist at 20% of the poverty level -- not at twice the poverty level where the school defines "low income" but at a FIFTH of the poverty level.
Are you at a fifth of the poverty level (now)?
What I have observed is that once a person of color's income crosses the six digit threshold, he/she/it becomes white. I am not going to name names but thinking of specific current/former black female UMass administrators and whom they let their children play with and whom they did not.
The whole issue of Mark's Meadow was that parents didn't want their children playing with the them and that is racist regardless of your skin color.
The term is "nouveau riche" and it is not a compliment....
In all professions but two (Education and Psychology, which are closely linked) the lay person both has full access to the same level of knowledge as the professional and the legitimate right to criticize the professional.
Why is it that only members of the club are permitted to criticize (or evaluate) teachers and psychologists? Why are these two professions exempt from the general presumption that all knowledge is public and that anyone has the legitimate right to hold members of the profession to its knowledge base?
I am not an electrician but I can read the electrical code and tell people that things are in violation of it (and did for five years in this town). I am not a doctor but I can get my own lab results and pull up all kinds of literature about what they may or may not indicate, I can walk into a meeting with my doctor sometimes knowing more than he does (and handing him a recent journal article).
Why is it that we are still evaluating education with Midevil Mysticism? Jim Oldham says that we should simply listen to what the teachers and administrators (the guild) say and I ask why? We aren't willing to let any other professionals get away with this level of unaccountability.
Would we be willing to say that only licensed engineers have the right to talk about the quality and cost of our public works? Are all the folk commenting on that soccer field debate licensed landscape architects? Are all the people talking about American war policies military leaders?
Of course not. And why is education different???
Three other things about Jim Oldham's piece. First, what is wrong with multitasking? We do it to the children, teaching them multiple subjects concurrently and why can't we as the administrators to address multiple issues at the same time.
Second, those are serious charges he throws at Catherine and they need to be explained. You don't have the same right to attend a school if you rent rather than own? (That is illegal and in this town would be a lawsuit almost instantly.) And it ought to be said that the Spanish & Cambodian parents are upset that we have desegregated the schools -- back in 1975 they had riots when Boston did this...
And third, Oldham implies that the kids in the study halls are advanced students taking AP courses and such. Has he any quantatitative data to validate this -- my gut feeling is that the opposite is true.
My gut feeling is that there would be a direct relationship between number of voluntary study halls taken and poor educational outcome -- and Catherine, perhaps someone ought to ask for this data to be generated.
It would be very simple to pull this out of the student database -- plot number of study halls relative to any measure of educational outcome (lets just take GPA and number of suspensions).
I want to chime in here and say thank goodness for Catherine, Steve & Irv. We have had more positive changes in our school district in the last 2 1/2 years, than in almost a decade since.
Prior school commmittees almost always went along with what teachers and administrators wanted to do, with very little questioning. Now, our school committee is looking at district-wide inequities, and trying to provide the best education possible to all the districts' kids. To those like Jim Oldham who wish these School Committee members would imporve their tone --oh well. Previous school committee members may have had a nice tone, but nothing got done. Is that the way you want it? The status quo for all? Well, that's not good enough for many of us, and we appreciate the hard fight and personal attacks these SC members have had to put up with, to get the job done.
Having outside consultants objectively look at our curriculum and program is EXACTLY what is needed to move forward. These reports compare our district to what other districts are doing in these areas. Amherst needs more of this, and less curriculum that is developed by in-house teachers.
New Curious Observer 2:46: sad, sad. Please just go find a new name.
Re: Jim Oldham's colum -- maybe he should just come out and tell C. Anderson to wear a skirt, cross her legs at the ankle and speak in a gentle voice to avoid upsetting folks. So upsetting. Or maybe he should just come out with it and tell her to zip it. At least it would be honest.
All the work he mentioned is not being done by the school committee but much is underway because so many things are finally being addressed. Less on tone (so unfeminine!) and more on substance. People need to debate the issues with facts and ideas, not on how it sounds to easily offended, gentle ears.
tell C. Anderson to wear a skirt, cross her legs at the ankle and speak in a gentle voice to avoid upsetting folks.
No, actually, he would like to tell Steve & Irv to do this.... :)
Catherine Sanderson is not Ann Coulter -- I have met both women and there is just a tad of difference between the two...
Is this all nothing but sexism? That the "guys" (and I believe that all the principals are male) aren't willing to listen to a woman. That they like Maria G. because she smiles and never says anything, and they hate Catherine because she actually does.
As a guy, I am offended. Even if women have a smaller brain (OK, it was in the movie Anchorman and I have no idea if it is true or not) -- if a woman says something intelligent, I am willing to listen. Not all guys are, and I am starting to think that perhaps that is the problem with this district.
That the issue people have with Catherine Sanderson is not that she is saying things, but that she is a woman saying them -- folks, that is sexism...
All the "honey" talk from Mr. Oldham is really cover for what he's actually saying:
"Be a lady."
That's before we get around to the disapproval of Mr. Rivkin and what's really going on underneath that.
It's ok for minorities to "be themselves" on our elected committees, but, for the others, it's a straitjacket. We have our models, so the Sandersons and Rivkins must conform or else. It's the bigotry of the enlightened, but it's still bigotry.
Ed,
You may have met Ann Coulter; why you'd want to tell anyone is beyond me, but have you read Sanderson's piece telling the schools they need to take some constructive criticism?
I doubt it. If you had read it you'd realize that your argument is shallow at best.
Why is ok for her to tell the schools that and it's not ok for Jim Oldham, in a very respectful tone, to tell the SC the same thing?
Is the SC beyond listening to constructive criticism?
You play the gender card. Wow! That does a lot for women. Is that the card you and your ilk will play every time some one steps up the alimighty amherst bloc of the SC?
"Why is ok for her to tell the schools that and it's not ok for Jim Oldham, in a very respectful tone, to tell the SC the same thing?"
That's easy.
That ~tone~ speaks for an ever growing block of angry Amherst taxpayers who've felt elbowed out and silenced for YEARS... who are completely FED UP and questioning so MANY things about this little town including paying higher and higher taxes for "administrator" salaries (HUGE salaries)... Administrators who (as only one TINY example) not only send their kids to private schools (talk about a vote of confidence!), but who have been USING our kids, who have been spending OUR tax dollars (and inflating the schools reputation/needs) for SO many years! And for what?!
Their own selfish social and greedy economic (salary) agendas, that's what.
Why don't you want to understand this?!
And Oldham, shame on you.
Exactly who are you serving, Jim?
Jim???
Post a Comment