First, the contract with Maria Geryk has now been signed and is official. You can read the Gazette story at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/16/geryk-signs-amherst-schools-superintendent.
Second, I was interviewed by as part of the "Conversations" series on ACTV, and my interview will be shown tonight at 7 pm (you can read the Gazette story on this interview at: http://www.gazettenet.com/2011/02/17/outgoing-amherst-school-board-member-be-interviewed-tonight-actv). I don't know if the interview will be re-broadcast or available on demand.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
76 comments:
---
You look so relaxed and happy in that picture, Catherine, good for you.
In the words of the great Robert Hunter and Jerry Garcia,
"Long is the road
We must travel on down.
"I wish I knew for sure
Just where we're bound,
What we will be doin'
And what we're gonna find.
"Wherever we go, there will be birds to cheer you,
Flowers to color in the fields around.
"You can't get lost when you're always found."
Congratulations on your success, you make moving mountains look easy. We will miss you.
Cheers,
Kevin
---
I notice in today's Bulletin that projected enrollments for Fort River and Wildwood next year are 80 students apart (366 and 446). Given that the two schools have identical square footage, I hope you will address this gross inequity before leaving the board.
Kevin - thanks much for the kind words! Much appreciated!
Anonymous 3:51 - enrollments at Fort River are far below projections (this year as well as next year), which is definitely unfortunate. I'd be glad to hear your thoughts about how to remedy this situation.
Do these projections represent an under-enrollment at Fort River, an over-enrollment at Wildwood, or both? And what is the projected enrollment at Crocker Farm? Is that on target?
FR Parent - WW enrollment was as predicted ... FR enrollment was quite low (esp. in kindergarten) ... CF was lower than projected but not by that much. Overall there were 44 students than projected, and most of those were at FR (some at CF). Of course, next year's projections are just projections - we don't know whether those projections will be accurate or not. However, it is striking to me that all of the schools will only have 2 kindergarten classes next year - which is a first EVER for WW (and happened for the first time this year at FR). And it isn't just the elementary schools - the HS is projected to have fewer than 1000 students in just a couple years. The nature of our district is really changing, given these drops in enrollment at all levels.
So what did Maria settle for a salary? And is it a 3 year contract or a two year contract? Is anyone looking into weening out any administrative positions that may be doubled...people doing what someone is already doing, but with a different title? Where did the 60 grand come from if the budget was so drastically depleted that you closed down a school? Honestly--I'm trying to make sense of this all....the superintendent's salary was raised...so are we to believe that the school budget is hurting or what??? What is the difference in the progress of the elementary schools now that poor children get to sit beside rich children? Surely they have records...surely there is some statistic you can dig up to prove your motivation for all the chaos caused by all the drastic moves that were made in your time on board...
Anon 3:51 back again
It seems a look at how these projections were/are being done deserves another look, especially since a cornerstone of the closing of MM/redistricting process was equity - and that clearly does not exist now between WW and FR. Was the projection process and/or the redrawing of district lines somehow flawed?
Secondly, some consideration needs to be be given to staffing equity next year. For instance, will the budget lines for WW nurse, librarian, custodial staff, secretarial staff, arts team, counseling staff, etc, etc. vs FR reflect this continuing and significant inequity in student population? Not to mention a principal and vice-principal who are responsible for responding to the needs of the families of an additional 80 students.
Anonymous 6:31 - Maria's salary will be $140,000 as has been widely announced in the press, and is a two-year contract. Closing Marks Meadow saved one million a year, which is much more than the money spent on a one-time search. The MCAS scores aren't yet available, but will be in the fall, and that should be informative as to the results of the redistricting. Certainly data from other districts would suggest avoid a cluster of poverty is a worthwhile goal in terms of increasing achievement.
Anonymous 7:40 - the goal of the redistricting was actually to equalize the % of kids on free and reduced lunch, and the three schools this year are actually virtually exactly the same (e.g., 37 to 38%), which is a big improvement. I share your concern that more families are opting out of Fort River than the other schools, and this concern has been noted by the SC on several occasions. The issue is that kindergarten families opted out of Fort River at much higher rates than the other schools - so this couldn't have been predicted by redistricting since these kids weren't ever in our schools. Staffing is always proportionate to number of kids/classrooms - that has been true for years in terms of lower staffing at MM and CF compared to FR and WW, and is true this year and will be true next year (w/ WW having more staff than FR, who will have more staff than CF). Ultimately the superintendent (based on recommendations from the principals) make these decisions, however, not the SC. Each building also houses different special programs (AIMS at WW, BB at FR, preschool at CF), so the needs of the kids in these programs are also taken into account when considering staffing (and these numbers aren't reflected in the projections). There is a budget hearing on Monday, February 28th, so you should definitely come and share your views about staffing at each of the schools.
Anon 3:51 and 7:40 again
I'm not sure you are getting my point. I'm not talking about equity re: free and reduced lunch. I'm wondering if you think it is "fair" (a word frequently used on this blog) that WW has will have 80 more students than FR in the exact same square footage? Isn't that inequity of another sort?
Anonymous 9:52 - I share your concern that Fort River is very under-enrolled, and yes, far below projections when the redistricting was done. If you have ideas about how the SC and the superintendent should handle the lower than projected enrollment at Fort River, please send an email to: schoolcommittee@arps.org and gerykm@arps.org. I look forward to hearing your thoughts about the best solutions for handling this situation.
How can you make such an outrageous claim--one million dollars saved...uh, come on now...please be realistic...or better still please show proof of this inflated figure. Couldn't you get an 'unofficial' feel for the progress that has been made now that poor children have the privilege of sitting beside rich children...I mean honestly--MCAS scores will take what a year--2 years to come out and compare?? It is half a school year of this movement already in place, and so surely--this must be some 'progress' that has been noticed or recorded by some teacher somewhere???...I noticed you did not address my question of who is weening out the administrative overload in these fine schools?
WW is bursting at the seams (25 kids in each 2nd grade class, and no physical room to put in a 4th 2nd grade). There are already 4 classrooms of 1st grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade, and 6th grade. I'm worried that of the 7 proposed classroom teacher cuts, 5 of them will come from WW (thus reducing all grades to 3 classrooms and the Kindergarten to 2 classrooms). I heard through the grapevine that only 1 of the proposed teacher cuts will come from CF (and that will most likely be the 6th grade as there is only 1 5th grade class right now).
On a separate issue (unrelated to number of classroom teachers in the budget), to even out the numbers of total students at the two schools, maybe all of the WW kindergarteners can go to FR (on a special bus that takes them to and from FR and WW) next year.
Are there any other area trends (lower hiring of university staff in recent years due to poor economy) that can account for lowering enrollment numbers? Does the census for Amherst reveal anything about lower number of kids in town?
Anonymous 7:24 - I've gone through the figure about the savings from closing Marks Meadow about 200 times on this blog, and I'm not going to do so again. It is clear it saved this much; it is also clear that you don't believe it.
I am a volunteer on the SC - I don't work in the schools, and therefore I have no idea how the redistricting has influenced kids' performance at this point. If you have questions about that, they should be directed to the superintendent: gerykm@arps.org. I'm just not given that type of information.
I also don't control any decisions made about reducing central office costs. If you have suggestions about how to make cuts (these are also the responsibility of the superintendent), they should be directed to her and/or the entire SC at: schoolcommittee@aprs.org. You could also come to the public budget hearing on February 28th and share your thoughts.
What happened to the budget FY12 that was posted on the arps.org website yesterday? Today it is no longer available from the front page, and I could not find it through the search engine.
Anyways,I was going to look in the budget to see approximately where some of the money is saved from closing MM (you can see for each subject, like PE or Library or Computers or Administration that the line items under MM are now "zero" versus the amount in the budget last year).
Anonymous 7:39 - as of now, projections are to reduce classes in CF from 17 to 15, FR from 21 to 19, and WW from 25 to 22. All schools would have class sizes between 19.3 and 20.5. You could certainly suggest sending all WW kindergarteners to FR - although I can imagine that would be pretty disruptive for families (having kids at different schools) and disruptive for those kids (having to change schools after a year) and expensive (it would certainly add bus costs, which would come from somewhere). If you believe this makes sense, you should email the superintendent and whole school committee to share this idea.
I haven't heard of any major changes that would result in this drop. There are two issues at work. First, enrollment projections are based on the census, and it is certainly true that there are fewer kids being born. Second, each year our enrollment is below the projections based on this census (by 44 students this year, 85 students the prior year), which indicates that some students are opting out of our schools. In addition, it seems that this opting out isn't equally distributed across the schools - more families are opting out of Fort River than the other schools (the projections are substantially off at this school, although the census data is examined by elementary district).
You've stated many times that your goal in serving on the school committee has been to improve education for "all" children in the district. You've been willing in countless instances to speak quite forcefully to staff and administration about changes you'd like to see in the schools.
I'd feel better about things said in this thread if, in that same spirit, you said something like, "There has been this year and may well be next year a significant discrepancy in the number of students attending two schools that are identical in size, FR and WW. This places an unfair burden on the children and staff at WW. I will ask at an upcoming SC meeting that the administration place a high priority on exploring and suggesting to the SC remedies to that situation."
Suggesting to posters that they make suggestions or attend meetings feels like a very passive response from you. It doesn't seem to match the passion you bring to problems you care about.
Anonymous 10:58 - I have to be honest: I have no idea what concern you actually have here. There is no burden on Wildwood, a school that has had more than 446 kids for many years. You are ONLY concerned because Fort River has fewer kids, and that is what strikes you as the problem - so, if we add 80 kids to Fort River, all of a sudden you see no problem? Can you describe one specific negative consequences that you believe will result to children in WW from having 446 and 22 classrooms, which is what I believe is the salient point? Do you believe that negative consequence would go away if an additional 80 kids entered Fort River next year?
So, two reactions:
1. Wildwood will have proportionately more staff than FR, just as FR will have more staff than CF. That has always been true and always will be true. You are caught up in square footage per child, which seems like a much less relevant issue than staffing.
2. I don't see this as a problem in terms of WW having 3 more classes than FR. I see this as a problem in that FR is having many families opt out of this school - that to me is the problem that needs to be fixed! Fort River showed reductions in MCAS scores in all subgroups and the aggregate in math and ELA last year - Wildwood showed increases and got an award by the state!
So, I don't see the problem that you see - I see a different problem, and that is the problem I will address passionately and repeatedly (and already have). But if you see a problem that is different (e.g., you are obviously very concerned that WW and FR don't have precisely the same number of students based on their square footage), then you need to bring that problem to the SC on your own. I continue to get complaints on this blog about closing Marks Meadow, but again, I don't agree with those complaints so I'm not bringing them to the SC myself.
Having worked at FR when it had 600 students and WW had 450, I completely agree with Catherine about the FR-WW issue. It's unrealistic to think kids will be moved back and forth across districts year after year to equalize school enrollments.
Catherine--I would appreciate your direct comment on something: I think we agree there are 2 different issues in Amherst's schools--the achievement gap, and the perception (whether true or not, which is a different discussion) that the schools do not serve some of the districts higher achievers well, so those families are opting out. At other times on this blog when I raised the issue of the achievement gap as being the main issue facing our schools (which I believe you might agree with), some posters dismissed it as, in a way, pandering to the lowest achievers and dumbing down things even more. My guess (only a guess) is that that perspective is from the same cohort of parents that thinks of moving children out of the district because even as it is now, those parents may feel too much attention is being focused on struggling learners, and not enough on their children. I think it is inevitable that as the % of the school population that is racially, socioeconomically, linguistically and ethnically diverse rises, it becomes more of an issue. The future of our schools rests in how this is addressed and discussed.
These 2 things seem to be in direct opposition: the need to spend even more time/resources/energy/thinking on struggling learners on the one hand, and more well-to-do parents who feel the needs of their children aren't being met so they are opting out on the other. How would you specifically propose to reconcile them? It is the gorilla in the room that no one talks about, and discussions about the future of our schools will remain schizophrenic and "never the 'twain shall meet" until it is tackled directly. Just platitudes aren't helpful, nor would "we've started a preschool" fully answer this question. In fact, while it's an important start no doubt, it's only that.
I'm not asking this out of a challenge to you personally, but because it's the crucial question facing our schools, and no one wants to discuss it, and I believe/hope it's not a question you would shy away from.
Ken - I appreciate the question, and I am glad to tackle it - and to hear yours/others' thoughts.
I have to say that my response to this question is different now than it was when I started on the SC ... when I started, I had the perception (based on my own kids' experience and those of my friends' kids) that the schools did serve some kids well, but they didn't really serve our kids well. That is, of course, a gross generalization because many individual teachers did serve many kids (all kids) very well, but this would be a general feeling that I'm trying to describe.
Then I got elected, and all of a sudden many people who weren't my friends started talking to me - parents of color, low income parents, parents of struggling students, parents of kids with special needs, etc. And it became clear to me that all groups had the perception that the schools ignore their own kids' needs but do address other kids' needs (e.g., parents of color think white kids are well served, parents of special needs think other kids are well-served, parents of not-special needs think special needs kids are well-served, etc.). So, this was a major revelation for me and certainly has changed my thoughts/goals as a SC member.
I guess I think that all kids - low achievers, high achievers, special needs, kids of color, etc. - benefit from evidence-based approaches that have been used successfully in other districts, and that these approaches should be implemented and evaluated in our schools. I don't think kids in Amherst face different needs than those in other districts -- I just think our district has been less willing to learn from the experience of other districts in addressing these challenges.
(I am going to run out of space so will do another post right away).
So, I guess I think the first strategy is to figure out what has worked in other districts - to raise achievement for struggling students, to decrease the racial/income achievement gap, to increase satisfaction/success in special education students, etc. I believe there are districts that are experiencing success in these areas and we should learn from them.
I also think it is not such a zero-sum game as many think - that if resources are given to special education students then others suffer, or if implement interventions for struggling students than we ignore high achieving students. I believe all students benefit from having all children arrive in kindergarten ready to learn - so I believe a universal preschool program for low income kids benefits all kids (even mine, although mine already had preschool I paid for). I believe a math curriculum that challenges and engages all students benefits all students. I believe differentiated instruction benefits all students.
So, I agree with basically 100% of what you say - it is the gorilla in the room, and it is the core of what we need to be talking about. I believe that is part of what I was trying to do on the SC - to focus on improving outcomes for ALL KIDS (including special education kids and low income kids even though my kids weren't in those categories), and I believe that efforts to really focus on improving education for all kids (not just some kids) would lead more families of means to stay (which I do believe is really important - I believe our schools will suffer in many ways as families of means continue to opt out).
Catherine-
I have a concern with some of your recent words, even as you prepare to leave office. Your words and actions do carry much weight for many people so I wish you would consider both carefully. This time should indeed be about garnering real for progress in the schools, not fishing for the "poor little-old-me" vote.
In your recent words in "support" of the superintendent you refer to the "immense" problems of the schools. I have seen that printed a couple of places already.
I know the schools have challenges, and while they are working on them, things might not be changing as fast as you want.
As someone who likes to mention other school districts wouldn't you agree some of Amherst's challenges are universal to other districts? Don't other districts have an acheivement gap, especially if they truly have the economic diversity Amherst has? Don't many have test scores they wish were higher? Don't other districts have parents concerned at all levels? Find me the district that does not have some parents of high level students seeking more rigor, some parents of low level students seeking more support, some SpEd parents wishing for more attention for theirs, while some non-SpEd parents think too much of the pie is going in the SpEd direction.
Find me districts not battling budgets forcing tough decisions,
or mixed reviews on various curricula, at various levels. etc etc etc Point being,I think you will just as often find parents in other districts who think they are not being listened to because they can't get the boat turned in their own personal favorite direction.
(And BTW I think Amherst does have an unusually high number of parents who feel they are experts in how things should be done differently, and an unusually low willingness believe that the shcool professionals might know what they are talking about)
So, do these other districts have "immense" problems? Or do they have very real challenges of educating a wide variety of kids from a wide variety of backgrounds within a limited budget?
Amherst has real challenges, yes. To label them as "immense" problems really bugs me, though (as you can tell). It is another example where I think your choice of words is creating an impression to others who read them that is making it seem like the district is a lost cause. Then you scare, and mislead people who react to these words as fact and it spirals from there.
Anonymous 2:07 - I guess it is a matter of perspective - I see things as immense problems that you don't.
I have actually been looking, and I can't find another district in which the % of kids on free and reduced lunch has climbed from 29% to 52% in 6 years. If you know of a district with this rate of increase, please post it on my blog. I see this as an immense problem, and really unlike other districts are facing.
I believe the trimester poses immense challenges - because kids have huge gaps in learning material. Both the HS principal and assistant principal said at this week's meeting, this is an expensive and complicated schedule and they wish they had the opportunity to change it (but the don't). The trimester system is quite rate - I believe there is only one other district in MA (North Andover) that is using it. So, this isn't a problem other districts face.
Although all districts (or at least most) face gaps in achievement as a function of income, our gaps are actually larger than other places: On the 3rd grade math MCAS, 71% of low income students in Amherst failed to reach proficiency, and 81% of low income 4th graders failed to reach this mark. In contrast, fewer low income children in Brookline (53% in 3rd grade, 68% in 4th grade) and Newton (43% in 3rd grade, 65% in 4th grade) fail to reach proficiency, although the Amherst elementary schools have fewer students per teacher (10.4) compared to these other districts (13.2 in Brookline, 16.7 in Newton). Again, we are not doing as well as other districts in educating low income kids AND we have more of them!
So, you may not see this rapid increase in low income kids, or the big gaps in learning on the trimester, or the poorer performance of low income kids as problems, or you may not see them as immense problems. But they clearly are NOT problems that are seen in other districts in the same way they are seen here.
And one more thing - this isn't about budgets. We spend WAY more than other local districts: we pay our HS principal more than the superintendent in Northampton, and we have higher teacher steps/raises than Northampton which costs about a million a year.
Catherine-
When you talk in your last post about the rise in % of kids on free and reduced lunch as a district problem, isn't it more of a reflection on a changing town sending different students to the schools over the last decade or so?
Hasn't the harsh economy forced more families into this particular measurable category?
Doen't the lower income housing available in Amherst result in different income level family coming to town, and as a result more children in the schools from those lower income levels?
I think this shifting in demographics in town and school is a challenging situation, but you make it sound like it is a problem the schools have created, rather than has been forced on them.
Isn't this the gorilla you and ken were discussing?
Anonymous 2:35 - well, the number of kids we are projecting will enter our schools is higher than those who actually attend our schools. So, some families are choosing not to enter our schools. As Rick pointed out at the last meeting, the number of kids who are low income is staying the same - it is the number who are not that is decreasing. It is hard to imagine any type of low income housing that would attract only kindergarteners - those families could also have 2nd graders or 6th graders - so I don't understand how change in economy or change in low incoming housing would lead to such changes. We also don't see this type of demographic shift in Belchertown or Hadley or Northampton.
So, yes, I believe this is a problem that is caused by families feeling dissatisfied with the schools and thus making other options - private school, choice school, charter school, homeschool. Those families tend to be higher income because these options all involve other costs (e.g., parent at home to homeschool, parent with flexible schedule to drive child to/from school, etc.).
Catherine:
Any comments about all the new programs Maria has started to address some of the issues our schools are facing - achievement gap, AYP, etc. Programs she has begun to improve the education of all the kids in our schools. Any comment?
Anonymous 3:12 - I believe the Achievement Academy started by Dr. Rodriguez is a step in the right direction, as was the preschool program he started for low income kids, and the summer school program for struggling students. I believe these are all important steps towards raising achievement for low income kids, and I'm glad that Maria will be keeping these programs.
Catherine:
I am not referring to things Dr. Rodriquez started. I am referring to all the new programs Maria has instituted: Instructional Rounds; Professional Learning Communities; Response to Intervention; Universal Screenings leading to real time assessments; Positive Behavioral Supports, etc. These are all programs instituted by Maria to improve learning for all kids. What is your opinion about these?
Please, for my humble sake, address the savings of MM closure for the two hundreth and first time. Where exactly--in writing can one find these savings?? And now it's each year...So hoorah, hooray, we should jump for joy at these savings--but on a serious note who has written it down, in some kind of concrete proof? As usual--when dealing with the system the hat gets passed around--as you are by directing me to ask some one else for this data. And please, Dr. Rodriguez, did not start preschool nor summer school for struggling or poor students...these programs have been in place for many years in Amherst. One more question--does the BB program still isolate students in closets?
Sigh...I wish you wouldn't keep comparing Amherst to demographically very different districts. Brookline's % of free-reduced lunch is 12.2% and Newton is 10.7%, while K-6 we are over 30%. Please compare Amherst's scores only to demographically similar districts--AS DESE WANTS DISTRICTS TO DO--or else you are being VERY misleading to those who are not as well versed in how to analyze this data as you.
Anonymous 3:44 - I believe Maria has instituted a number of programs. The SC hasn't been given any data or research showing the effectiveness of these approaches, so I really can't comment on whether these programs would be effective. If you know of research showing the effectiveness of instructional rounds on increasing student achievement, please post links - I'm sure that would be of interest to my blog readers.
Ken - I'll just say it's pretty disappointing to me that I post a lengthy response to your question, which I gave a fair amount of thought, and your response is a quick criticism of the districts I used to compare Amherst (which was actually in response to a totally different poster/question).
I may be dense, but I'm pretty aware of the fact that your data was in response to a different post. I didn't realize i was confined to replying to one thread only. But I think you'll find that I sent you quite a long reply to your response as a private email this afternoon.
But even if I hadn't responded, what does whether I replied to your answer or not have to do whatsoever with a misleading use of data? Yikes!
Thank you for your comments, Catherine. We'll just have to wait and see how the PLCs, RTI, PBIS, Universal Screenings, real time assessment, instructional rounds, etc, affect student achievement in Amherst. I have great hope for these new programs to really make anbig improvement in learning in Amherst.
I'm Anon 10:58.
I have to honest and say that your response (just look at the first paragraph) feels hostile and dismissive to me. Sorry I bothered to address a situation of unfairness that you don't/can't understand! My mistake.
I'm Anon 10:58.
I have to honest and say that your response (just look at the first paragraph) feels hostile and dismissive to me. Sorry I bothered to address a situation of unfairness that you don't/can't understand! My mistake.
Anonymous 10:58 - as I said earlier, you didn't identify a single negative consequence of the extra 80 kids at WW versus FR, and I remain at a loss as to how WW kids are impacted by the number of kids at FR. I am not going to share your concern with the SC when I don't understand it, so I have suggested you send an email to the whole SC, which you apparently aren't comfortable doing. I would suggest that if you are seriously concerned about this issue, you would want to convey your concerns to those who could make a difference - the SC and the superintendent. I'm sorry that this request to convey your concerns yourself, when those concerns aren't clear to me, is seen as hostile.
Catherine: WW will have proportionally more staff than FR...That has "always" been true...
Ken: Having worked in FR when it had 600 students and WW had 450...
Huh???
It's pretty straightforward--in the late 1980's/early 90's, FR was stuffed to the gills and WW had significantly fewer students, and the numbers I noted are roughly correct. So I'm not quite sure what part of that you find strange, or whatever your "huh???" is referring to.
Catherine, clever how you avoided ever addressing my concern about your continued misleading use of data (always slanted towards the negative, BTW) by accusing me of something that turned out not to be true...and then never actually responding to the real issue I raised.
Ken - I have a full time job and three kids ... and it is the weekend, and I guess my priority at the moment isn't to fully respond to all blog posts related to my soon-to-be-ending volunteer job. I'm sorry if I'm not able to fully respond to all posts immediately. I'm doing the best I can.
Here is one example of how it is detrimental to have WW be so crowded. Chess club was unable to be formed in the fall because of a lack of space (that was the official reason told to the volunteer who offered to run the club). (The former conference room used in previous years has now been converted into teaching space). However, they are starting chess club again very soon with a new volunteer, I have no idea what space they found for it.
Here is another example: morning entry into the school is so crowded that the fifth and sixth graders are diverted to the cafeteria for 5 minutes before school starts so that the younger kids can get their coats off, backpacks onto hooks, and out of the hallway.
Another one: the parking lot at pick up and dismissal has become crazy (and perhaps unsafe - I've witnessed one fender-bender already). Parent-pick-up is also extremely crowded.
Another example: the lunchroom is just more crazy with that many more kids. Plus if you are one of the last ones in line to buy lunch, you sometimes don't have enough time to eat.
Another: you still have one PE teacher, one librarian, one computer teacher - and so these staff must be stretched thinner than before (and stretched thinner than their counterparts at the other schools) if they have to teach at least 4 more classes (4 classes of 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th). The PE teacher writes all of the grants for field trips too - so it's got to be harder for her to accomplish everything that she used to.
If you look at the budget line for 2011-2012 for these subjects (PE, Language, Tech, and Library) you can see that equivalent amounts were allocated to FR and WW, and in many cases, also similar to CF. (In fact, Language, Tech, and Library are all allocated the MOST money for CF, presumably because these employees are more senior). So you can see that it doesn't seem "fair" for the same number of staff in these subjects to be serving either 315, 400 or 471 projected # of students at CF, FR, and WW, respectively. It suggests that the staff at CF might have more time to prepare for lessons or address specific needs whereas I imagine that the staff at WW might be more harried.
Another issue I see is that a fourth second grade classroom could not be considered as a possibility in the fall because there was absolutely no room for another classroom. So there are 25 kids in each of the three second grade classrooms. Perhaps there was no money in the budget anyways to consider a fourth classroom - but there was also clearly no space.
In summary, I don't see an issue with different schools having a different number of kids, except for when either the staff are stretched too thin or when lack of space is limiting activities or education.
Ken
Did WW "always" have more staff than FR, even when FR student population outnumbered WW by 150? It's the word "always" that is the source of my concern, because it suggests that in the days you refer to that a gross injustice was done to FR.
And still Catherine does not respond to Ken's query about her misleading use of data. Ken did not ask for a long response, just an acknowledgement that you, Catherine, use data in a misleading way.
I don't think it is misleading to post accurate data from Newton and Brookline - two districts that are in our comparison group, that are in MA, that are in MSAN (Brookline), and that are part of the data our curriculum director has presented in terms of MCAS data - on how well low income students do in these districts compared to Amherst. I think it is highly relevant data because it suggests low income students are doing better in these districts than in Amherst. Ken calls it misleading because there are more low income kids in Amherst than in other districts ... but I didn't post data on aggregate scores on MCAS in these districts (which would be misleading since these districts have far fewer low income kids than Amherst) - I posted data on how low income kids ONLY do in these different districts.
As Ken knows, it is impossible to find a perfect comparison for Amherst, so we can spend huge amounts of time dismissing other districts (e.g., Northampton has fewer college professors, Longmeadow has fewer low income kids, Hadley is too white, etc.). So, again, I post data showing that (a) we have a unique trimester system that others don't have, (b) we have nearly doubled the % of kids on free and reduced lunch in our elementary schools in 7 years and there aren't other districts showing anything like this increase, and (c) our low income kids do worse on the MCAS than those in Newton and Brookline ... but the first two of these points will be ignored, and the third point will be disregarded by Ken because those districts have fewer low income kids ... and I'll be criticized for not responding to these critiques fast enough on a weekend. Frankly, I had intended to spend some serious time examining MCAS scores in other districts and posting a long and thoughtful follow-up to Ken's point - but that was going to take some time and I hadn't gotten to it in the last 24 hours ... and it seems clear that I shouldn't bother since (a) I would be accused of using the wrong districts, and (b) any data showing Amherst isn't doing as well as other districts will be ignored.
But think on the bright-side - in 5 weeks, my blog will be gone, and our schools will then automatically return to being perfect.
Catherine said: "But think on the bright-side - in 5 weeks, my blog will be gone, and our schools will then automatically return to being perfect."
Catherine, it is comments like these that people are fed up with. NO ONE in this town, on the schools' faculty, in the administration, on the SC, either Amherst or Regional, have ever said the schools were perfect. On the contrary, many have said there are many ways they can be improved. The Superintendent's District Improvement Plan is based on a philosophy of continual improvement. She has outlined a multi-faceted plan to improve the schools. She has never said the schools were perfect. Ken has never said they were perfect. Again, NO ONE has ever said they are perfect. What people have said is that they are working hard to improve the schools. For some reason, you cannot acknowledge that the Superintendent, administration and entire staff are doing just that - working hard to improve the schools.
People are just plain tired of listening to you tear down the schools. People are just plain tired of you not acknowledging that many many people are working hard on school improvement. People are just plain tired of your know-it-all attitude. Is there any chance of you ever admitting that maybe you just don't have all the answers.
Anonymous 3:24 - I have never said I have all the answers. I have said that we can learn from the experience of other districts, and that we should evaluate what we do. I don't see much (any?) evidence of either of those things occurring in our schools, and I believe continual improvement involves both of those things. Again, my blog will be gone in 5 weeks, and so you won't have to read these annoying comments I make.
Anon 2:11--I don't think I used the word "always." In those days FR used to have more students year after year. Then towards the late 1990s (if I recall accurately) WW and FR sort of equalized out. Now the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way. In those days FR staff felt undermanned...but things equal out over time. And WW is not overcrowded now (in response to another post)--I believe 500 or thereabouts is the optimal target number for both FR and WW.
Catherine, it's ironic that on the one hand you tout the article that cites research showing that low income students do better in schools with more high income students (and of course, the decision you championed to move low income students around Amherst), and on the other, wonder what the problem is comparing low income student scores in Amherst to low income students in towns with such DRAMATICALLY higher number of upper income students. It's way too disingenuous. And did you compare Amherst's low income scores to any other of our comparison towns (of which there are what, between 7 and 10)? No--just to Newton and Brookline.
Hmmm, I wonder why...
As far as the comparison of Amherst's math scores to other towns which include Newton that Ms. Graham did, I believe she was specifically ASKED to include Newton--at least that's what I recall from a conversation I had with her about it. While you are correct that there are no towns that demographically match Amherst, I'll give you a list of 5 that are fairly close, combining % of low income with second language and racial/ethnic diversity: Marlborough (the closest to us of the 5), Haverhill, Medford, Waltham and Westfield (at the less similar end). I have not looked at their MCAS scores and have no idea how they did. Whether we are higher, or lower, or the same as them in different subgroups, I don't have any idea--but those are the districts that are the most valid to compare us to. (And if you do look into it, please don't just look at 3rd and 4th grade math, because there's 5th and 6th grade math too, and 3rd-6th grade language arts.)
At one time comparing Newton, Cambridge and Brookline to Amherst was reasonable, but as the dramatic demographic shifts you, yourself, have pointed out have occurred so rapidly (and you pointed it out as an "immense problem," an "immense problem" which neither Newton nor Brookline have), it is an invalid comparison now.
Ken - the research from The Century Foundation examines low income kids in a predominately low income school versus a school with fewer low income kids (40%) - they don't show any effects of income on any level of income between 1 and 39%, meaning we are in the same boat at Brookline and Newton in terms of benefits for low income students. If you know if research that shows low income kids to better in a school with 10% low income kids than 30% low income kids, please attach a link - I'm sure we'd all be interested in reading it.
Cambridge and Brookline are used as comparisons because they are part of MSAN, as is Amherst - these are the only 3 MA districts. Thus, these are districts that care about decreasing the achievement gap, which I think does make them salient comparison points.
I'd love for you to look into what the MCAS scores are like for those other towns - or anyone else on this blog. That would be interesting to see.
Ken:
I never said you used the word "always". It was Catherine's use of the word that caused the problem.
Please go back and look at her use of the word and see if you agree, disagree, have another view of it.
The way I read her use of the word implied that something unfair had happened to FR in the years you mentioned.
As you know Catherine, things are not as simple as you portray them. Because we have nearly double the percentage of ELLs as Brooklne and even greater than that re Newton, and many ELLs are low income, the data is slanted. Plus, as you also know, DESE strongly recommends that SGPs (student growth percentiles) be used to compare scores, because students don't all start at the same place. Then we see something interesting--between 4th and 6th grade, our low income SGPs are HIGHER than Newton's in 4 of the 6 tests (LA and math, 4th through 6th). Brookline low income subgroup SGP is higher in all 6 tests than than both Amherst and Newton. So one could say that Amherst's low income students are, overall, somewhat better than served than Newton's, though less well than Brookline's.
But the real issue is the complexity of data analysis that you portray so simply, in particular glossing over or ignoring almost ANY data (and I've presented lots) that contextualizes Amhert's performance, and particularly if it shows Amherst in a good light.
I am well aware of Amherst's achievement gap, and have been quite vocal about it, as I think you know. So this isn't about pretending Amherst is la-la land. It's got some serious work to do. But unless good data analysis drives decisions, and stays immune from politics and agendas, the best decisions won't get made, and things won't really improve over the long term. Plus, partial, slipshod and slanted portrayals of the data from a School Committee member only feeds the growing negative feelings about the schools, and keeps the spiral of negativity going. One can easily point out what needs improving even while not going overboard--and people can hear it more easily that way, too.
Ken - I'm going to stop doing any data analyses in the near future, so again, no one is going to have to worry about my simplistic presentation. You clearly feel better about how things are going in our schools than I do ... and that is totally your right.
I would make two points:
1. I've seen lots of criticism from you about my presentation of the low income kids not doing well on MCAS in Amherst compared to other districts. But I haven't seen you respond to my either points - that we have nearly doubled the % of kids on free/reduced lunch in 7 years and we have a trimester which means kids have interrupted learning on all subjects (which hardly seems to benefit achievement). These are both unique to Amherst ... and I think would be very hard to interpret as simply a result of my misleading presentation.
2. You seem to imply that I spend lots of hours trying to prove the Amherst schools are bad ... and I'm just wondering if you can offer any idea of my motives for doing such. Do you think I want people to leave our schools so my kids have more attention? Do you think I'm receiving some type of stipend from local charter/private/choice schools for recruiting more Amherst families? Do you think I'm starting my own charter school and want to drum up business? I am just curious - because I have three kids in our schools, and I am on the SC and working my behind off for our public schools, and have been for 8 years (since my oldest started in our public schools). I certainly believe people have the right to disagree about the state of the schools - and we all probably have different standards/goals/aims for what counts as success - but I am puzzled by the accusations you make that I'm doing this somehow deliberately because I want to believe our schools, which my three kids attend, are bad.
If you start a charter school I'm going to have more children so that they may attend! ms. margolin
2 quick points, catherine. As often happens, you make biased assertions, and move on. I never meant that you spend hours trying to prove that our schools are bad. How silly! I mean you may gravitate towards choosing data quickly that conforms to the quite public stand and opinions you've voiced. I don't accuse you of plotting it, I just say it naturally drives your thinking. Second, I also said that I agreed with you that in some respects Amherst is unique demographically and that there is no exact match. Then is the alternative to take any match at all? If it was me, I'd be extra careful about matching MCAS scores, ESPECIALLY being on the SC.
Finally, I know MSAN well. I presented at their first national conference and heard their first presentation of their very interesting data. However, just because schools are MSAN members does not make them compatible. I play chess and once was a member of the US Chess federation. I got to an expert's rating, but that didn't mean I could be compared to grandmasters who were also members.
Ken - at the last Amherst SC meeting, the superintendent gave numbers that showed the dramatic increase in % of kids on free and reduced lunch: 52% for kids in kindergarten versus 29% for kids in 6th grade. I didn't look for, I didn't find it, I didn't ask for it - it was provided at a public meeting to all SC members. So, I have remarked on it, on my blog and in meetings, because I think it is a really important fact. I have now started to look at other districts nearby to see if they are experiencing the same growth (they are not). This isn't choosing/searching for/finding ... it is stating a fact that the superintendent presented to the whole SC.
In terms of MCAS - our elementary schools have an AYP status ... Fort River is in its second year of this status. We can blame it on many different things (MCAS tests are bad, we have lots of ELL students, we have lots of low income students, etc.), but that doesn't matter - there are state sanctions for schools and districts that fail to make AYP. I could ignore that ... but given that our district will face consequences for continuing to fail to make AYP ... I don't think that would be very wise.
Trying to pin the increased number of low income students on one reason is simplistic at best. Maybe there are multiple reasons for the increasing number of low income students. Other districts have seen increases in the F/RL students in recent years because of the downturn ( take any district in Franklin County for example). Maybe the constant negative drumbeat about the schools ( and the elementary schools in particular) coming form the SC has had an impact. Could be the Town's insistence on building low income housing projects targeting families with children. Maybe all three and then some.
In my opinion, many folks move to Amherst (especially in the just post (9/11 era) because they like the lefty, liberal politics and they've heard that the schools are good and "diverse" which we all know is a code word for " my white middle class kids will go to school with poor children of color". But since most of these folks have themselves spent most of their lives in environments that are predominantly white and middle or upper middle class they have no clue as to what sending their kids to a "diverse" school actually means. And when they find out: resources diverted to remediation and special ed, discipline and classroom management issues, focus on the low achievers rather than their own ( in their opinion) high achiever- the classic liberal dilemma: I believe in a quality education for all and support the public schools but not at the expense of my own child's future. And so we now have these folks pulling their kids from the schools.
Anonymous 12:10 - I agree with some of your points. I will say two things:
1. I don't think anyone pulls their own kid who is having a great experience in our schools for private/charter/choice school because there is a "negative drumbeat." These options clearly have major costs - transportation and money most clearly. I just don't believe anyone says "my kid is having a great experience, but that SC says the schools aren't good, so I am going to pull them."
2. I don't think the issue is that a "diverse" district has to look like ours in terms of what happens in the schools - that is what is so disappointing. You point out things like discipline and management and special ed and intervention, but those aren't the concerns at all I hear from parents. I hear concerns about heterogeneous math in 7th (and extensions) which are unlike any other district (virtually all districts have grouped math in 7th, many in 6th), I hear concerns about ecology/environmental science in 9th (many diverse districts have biology or physics in 9th), and I hear concerns about trimesters (virtually all diverse districts have semesters). Again, these aren't issues inherent in a diverse district - these are issues that reflect the choices being made by adults in our system who like them, even when some parents (and students) find them problematic. That's why people leave.
We don't have to have the district we have based on our demographics (race, income, special education, etc.) ... we are choosing to do so, and that is what is really sad. And we have this district because we as a community haven't valued comparison to other districts and evaluation of what we are doing.
Catherine, you have never,ever not once, never, provided any shred of hard objective evidence to show that any of the three things you mention in your response to my post have had any harmful impact on white, non-low income students academic success. All you have done for the last three years in response to requests for that evidence is to say "well I hear from parents......." On the other hand there is plenty of evidence to show that white-, non-low income students in Amherst do very well which you always choose to ignore or minimize.
Show me the evidence that the middle school math program is along term impediment to success in math. Show me the evidence that having Environmental Science/ecology in some way harms student academic success. Many parents that I talk with say that their kids really got a lot out of the 9th grade science program ( my own included).
Anonymous 2:23 - I'd be glad to share with you the information I have about the impediments of having long breaks in learning an academic discipline, having to take environmental science/ecology instead of a core science in 9th grade, and creating a system in which parents have to hire tutors or teach kids pre-algebra concepts in 7th grade in order to gain access to 8th grade math. Those are all uniquely Amherst, and there is no evidence that any of these in fact leads to better outcomes than the alternatives chosen by other districts - which is why other districts (where adults presumably also care about kids) have virtually all made different choices. But I've gone through each of these pieces about 800 times on my blog and I'm not willing to spend the time necessary now to do so again with an anonymous poster. If you email me privately (casanderson@amherst.edu) to share your thoughts about these programs, I'll be glad to have a dialogue (in which both of us are identified) and you can then post the entire thread on this blog (and even cut out your name so you can remain anonymous). I will look forward to hearing from you.
Another clever dodge, Catherine.
Anonymous 2:46 - yes, it is clever of me, isn't it! I am offering to have a lengthy discussion with someone and have them post that entire discussion on my blog! That is really dodging effectively! It strikes me as giving this person (and hey, maybe this is you?) an opportunity to really discuss these issues at length ... which I have to assume he/she really wants ... and I am certainly willing to do.
Catherine, as my grandmother frequently said, "Oy!" I said I well understood the rapid growth of our % low income students, and you throw that particular data back at me as and example of data that you aren't cherrypicking--implying that I disagree with it. The second "oy!" is implying that I don't think we should do anything to address AYP. Please! This simplistic distortion and caricature of any view that doesn't conform to yours is exactly what makes dialog so hard now.
Anon feb 19, 7:19--Oops, my bad, I'd missed your question to me. Sorry. Looking back, I'm not sure what Catherine's "always" meant, so I can't really comment on the veracity of it. I'm more likely to put it that over the years that I was there, there was never exact equality of staffing and student-teacher ratios at the elementary schools, either as a whole or for specific programs. But I don't think it was always the same school that always got the better of it in all ways.
Ken
You now understand that Catherine's comment, combined with yours, is contradictory. The bottom line is that people have to be cautious about accepting
absolute statements as facts.
How long would we have to wait on changing the trimester system before we would have that much hallowed "buy-in" as defined by Candidate Appy? What would it take? How would we get there?
I know that there is much criticism when we don't get "buy-in" before embarking on change. So how do we get it?
Is there an application that I have to fill out? I don't want to be seen as negative.
Just how hard is this thing called "buy-in" by those who work in Amherst schools? Is it harder than "world peace" and easier than, say, "natural childbirth"? When was the last time we saw it? Is it more common than, say, the ivory-billed woodpecker? When was the last time we had "buy-in"? What did it look like?
Anon, my only caveat to what you said is while I am very sure about staffing never being exactly equal, I am not 100% sure about whether all schools at one time or another didn't come out "ahead" in staffing ratios. I don't have the actual data to look at and my increasingly Swiss-cheese-like memory can only guess. That's why I wrote my post as i did.
Catherine, I finally got to find that Century Foundation report, which does look quite interesting. I was particularly curious as to how, by your interpretation, from 1 low income student out of 100 to 39 out of 100, there would be NO difference, but then 1 more low income student shows up, and now that it's 40%, KABOOM, things would go south achievement-wise. I only got up to page 6 before I stumbled across this: "The academic returns from economic integration diminished as school poverty levels rose." It goes on to explain how low income students in schools where the level was under 20% did best, and by the time it rose to 35%, those low income students did no better than students in schools whose low income student % ranged from 35-85%.
So I'll ask you to reconsider whether Brookline and Newton, with overall low income student rates under 12%, can be fairly compared to Amherst whose rates last year were 33+% and this year over 36%. And I respectfully reiterate my plea for you to be more considered and careful in your public (especially) use of data.
For anyone who thinks the numbers at WW aren't a problem, I'd invite you to go visit the school. There are numerous ELL teachers squeezed into one room divided into 5 sections. There is ONE librarian and ONE computer teacher and they are both teaching 25 classes (compared to 17 at CF) as well as servicing the entire school. It takes weeks to get something fixed on the computer at WW because there is only ONE person dealing with WAY MORE STUDENTS/STAFF than CF. Has any other school had to turn the staff lounge into a SPED teaching space?? Has any other school given up the Principal's office so there would be a place to have meetings AND a place to teach string lessons? The string teacher has had to leave that space on numerous occasions for important meetings and it becomes her task to find some little place to teach because there is no space for the string program at WW. I really wish people (including you, Catherine) would stop making generalizations that things are fine when they are not. The inequity between WW (the largest school) and CF (the smallest school) is absolutely making it impossible for students in those schools to have an equitable learning environment with equal time available from Library/Computer in particular. The whole idea of redistricting was to make the education for all elementary students "equitable" which I totally support. If you think that is really happening, you're not living in the real world. I'd invite folks to go look at WW's overcrowded building and then draw your conclusions rather than saying things are fine, or saying FR's population used to be larger than WW's therefore it's okay. Those seem to be extremely shallow statements based simply on opinions rather than real knowledge of the REAL situation. If you really care, go take a look!
Anon, no one said it was easy, just that it's not unusual. MM used to have to hold small group sessions in the halls! At FR I had to move 5 times in 4 years because of space issues, and once taught groups of up to 20 in a room that comfortably sat 8. I shared teaching spaces, as have other specialist teachers of various kinds at FR, as well as Crocker and WW. At times, FR had classes of 25-28 in the upper grades, while other schools had high teens, low 20s, in the same grades. When it happens at the school we have our OWN children at, it is a BIG deal (and my son went to FR when it felt like a sardine tin, and I didn't like it), but seems less of a big deal to us when our kids are not similarly affected.
No one (at least not me) is saying that it's ok, or that inequity should be the district's goal, or even right. I am saying it is certainly not unique to ANY one school consistently, that ALL the schools have experienced this on more than one occassion in the past, and that even if the WW enrollment is 450 now, it has been even higher in the past. The problem is that the space and staffing "inequity" migrates over time from school to school, sometimes in the space of a couple of years. Here's the cut-to-the-chase question: will you volunteer your child to be in the group of students that moves back and forth across the district to better equalize numbers in different schools in different years?
Anon 9:48, I think if you are that upset over the WW population you should be bringing it up to the Super and not to someone who will be leaving the school committee in a very short time. Or better yet, send your concerns to the entire school committee and Ms. Appy who will be sitting in the hot seat shortly.
Two things:
Ken - thanks for digging through the Century Foundation data. I guess this makes me even more concerned about how low income kids are doing to do in Amherst as we climb from 24% kids on free-reduced lunch a decade ago to 37% now to clearly more in the future, based on the kindergarten numbers. It also seems clear based on data you presented that some districts have more success with low income kids than others - e.g., Brookline versus Newton (when those are pretty similar in % of low income kids).
My point is two-fold: first, we need to see who is having success with low income kids (because other districts in/not in MSAN do have low income kids and there are varied degrees of success with this population), and second, we need to evaluate how well we are meeting the needs of all groups (including this one). As a member of the SC for nearly 3 years, I've seen no evidence that we are doing either of these things.
Anonymous 9:48 - so, I think there are a few things here.
First, if things aren't good at WW, you should just say that - but saying things aren't good at WW BECAUSE FR has fewer kids isn't particularly compelling - since adding kids to FR wouldn't change the reality of WW.
Second, as Ken notes, different buildings have had more/less kids in different years and of course that means there is some inequity. All kids at WW had Chinese for several years, whereas no kids at any of the other schools had any world language. Currently, WW and FR and CF all have one librarian and one computer teacher, but FR and WW have more PE and art FTEs than CF (and I believe WW has more art than FR).
Third, next year WW will be MUCH less crowded than it is now - estimates are that there will be 22 classrooms versus 25 now, so the crowding should clearly be much less. That is just one more classroom than WW had in 2009-2010 (21). In 2008-2009, WW had 21 classrooms and 406 students, and FR had 462 students and 23 classrooms. In 2007-2008, WW had 23 classrooms and 418 students (meaning a class size of 18.2), whereas FR had 22 classrooms and 468 students (meaning class sizes of 21.3). In 2006-2007, FR and WW both had 22 classrooms, but FR had 476 kids (same as WW right now) and WW only had 437 kids. In 2005-2006, FR had 475 kids (and 24 classrooms) and WW had 433 kids (and 23 classrooms). So, I think this fits with Ken's point - there are changes in each building in each year, and if you look historically, FR has had more classrooms and more kids and the same staffing as WW, meaning larger classes. This year, following redistricting, there is a change.
My thought is that WW will be closer to projections than the other schools since a greater % of this school comes from U Mass housing for grad students/post docs, who are less able to opt out for other choices (e.g., school choice, private school, charter school) since new families arrive in the summer after these deadlines have passed. A greater % of families at the other schools are thus more able to explore options, which means projections are going to be off more. This is my theory about why projections were right on this year for WW, but off for both CF and FR.
What about the exit surveys for parents leaving the district? What reasons did people give for leaving and where did they go?
Uh-oh Catherine, now I'm worried, because we seem to agree! :-) At least to some extent. The data for Amherst has to be well understood in terms of weaknesses AND strengths, separating out as best as we can what is particular-student-cohort related from what is general-trend-related. My experience has been that in districts that struggle with AYP, the more intense it gets (and I work with some Level 4 schools), the more important it is to create a positive environment around this discussion. Our district has to build on its strengths and support or revamp the identified weaknesses. There are teachers in our schools who get great results with different groups of students, and they should become models, resources and peer mentors for other teachers. And certainly the district has to look to what works in other places with similar levels or greater of demographic challenge, both inside and outside the state. For example, if one of those 5 or 6 districts I listed earlier gets better results than we do with particular subgroups, I'd send a study team there tomorrow!
I once reminded you of the so-called 90-90-90 schools, where 90%+ of the students are low income, 90%+ kids of color, and 90%+ passing their state's assessments. So nothing about achievement is etched in stone. If teachers are trained in how to work effectively with different populations of learners, with the very strong staff in our schools, there should be few obstacles to progress. For this, administration has to show greater openness, awareness and flexibility than they have in the past.
Ken (at 4:23) - not to really freak you out, but I agree with all you just posted. Do you have names of districts that are in the 90/90/90 cohort? I know some districts with great results do things that we likely can't do (e.g., intensive preschool for all kids, longer school day, year-round school, etc.) ... but if there are things that we could implement in our districts with proven results from other districts, I'd be all for it (and I'd be glad to advocate for such changes even as a civilian, not on the SC).
I particularly like two things you note:
1. "There are teachers in our schools who get great results with different groups of students, and they should become models, resources and peer mentors for other teachers." So, my impression is that Roger Wallace at FR has achieved this kind of success (there may well be other teachers - I've just heard lots about Mr. Wallace) ... and if we could use these teachers as models/mentors, that strikes me as a great idea. I don't know how easy it is to identify those teachers, however, or if it would create bad feelings among staff to have such differentiation.
2. "If teachers are trained in how to work effectively with different populations of learners, with the very strong staff in our schools, there should be few obstacles to progress. For this, administration has to show greater openness, awareness and flexibility than they have in the past." I whole-heartedly agree with this point, in that this type of training should benefit ALL kids (again, no zero-sum game) and there would need to be more openness/awareness/flexibility than we've typically seen in Amherst administrations.
"If teachers are trained in how to work with different populations of learners..." YES!
But, please not more of the divisive guilt trips that were presented during the mandated 24 hours of BMSS workshops. That was not "training".
Catherine,
Now you're giving me palpitations! My head is spinning...!
One program I got trained in that I was able to use to great effect in small groups, and also in an inclusion classroom where at year's end, ALL students' MCAS math (and I believe LA) scores went up, with the lowest students going up the most, I highly recommend. I know that three other teachers at FR are now getting trained in it. I'm referring to the Feuerstein Instrumental Enrichment (FIE) program. It is used in over 70 countries and there are 300+ studies (in a number of languages) showing its efficacy when correctly implemented. It's for use in grades 4 and up through adults (grade 3 is possible, but sometimes a stretch), tho there is an early childhood version I have not been trained in for younger kids. I HIGHLY recommend it. If you're interested you can read more at icelp.org.
Another program that I think the pre-school at Crocker is using this year is Tools of the Mind. It has both a pre-K and K iteration. It is an excellent program that helps kids develop executive function capacity in addition to literacy and numeracy skill. I recommend it for our kindergartens, too. It is a program exploding in popularity across the country because it is so successful.
A good "starter" article on the 90-90-90 schools is: http://www.leadandlearn.com/90-90-90
I raised the 90-90-90 schools more as proof that higher %s of low income students is not a barrier by definition to achievement, nor an obstacle to good teaching. It's teacher, administrator and community beliefs and practices that make that so, or not. There is some interesting stuff in the 90x3 schools, though how much of it in detail is directly applicable to this particular town is less clear.
Once this blog shuts down, where are the teachers going to go to get their message out?
Post a Comment