tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post6797099665076405981..comments2023-09-29T06:32:16.005-04:00Comments on My School Committee Blog: Waiting for SupermanCatherine A. Sandersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-68939683975806206342010-11-10T15:48:30.676-05:002010-11-10T15:48:30.676-05:00I agree completely with Joel here. Celebrating th...I agree completely with Joel here. Celebrating the Cambodian culture (year after year over many occasions per year in one school, as opposed to celebrating a variety of cultures, or celebrating specific ones this year and others next year) - should be a family and community commitment, and not part of school curriculum.<br /><br />Also, like Joel pointed out - not everyone wants to be identified first and foremost by their ethnicity. I hated growing up as the "asian kid." I didn't mind it when my parents took me to asian cultural events but I hated it when kids at school called me that. Maybe the cambodian or latino kid would rather be known as "the funny kid" or "the smart one" or "most awesome video gamer" or just Joe or Jane (or whatever their name is).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-47166248526940205172010-11-10T13:34:44.595-05:002010-11-10T13:34:44.595-05:00I have to agree with Joel on this topic. When the ...I have to agree with Joel on this topic. When the redistricting process and the end of language clusters were being debated, I heard many generalizations (the Latino kids of South Amherst, the Cambodians from Fort River. etc...) that I frankly find a bit offensive and narrow-minded. As Joel said, many Latino and Cambodian kids were born here, and are as American as any other kid in their schools. What if we decided to divide all kids by ethnicity clusters? The Latinos in one school, the Asians in another one, the Jewish in a third, etc...that'd be seen as crazy, right? So why is it Ok to think that all Cambodians should be in Fort River and all Latinos in Crocker Farm? Or that this possibility, even if it's a voluntary option and not mandatory, should exist for these ethnicities specifically? That's prejudice, and in my opinion it goes against one of the great advantateges I see in a public school education: to allow a child to have contact with all kinds of kids from their early years. Call me an optimist, but I think the more diverse our schools are, the better this country will be in the future. We fear what we don't know, and that for me is in the origin of many of the wars we see in the world today. Let's keep our schools diverse!TCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-53148275482154031602010-11-09T17:49:27.577-05:002010-11-09T17:49:27.577-05:00Don't do it Joel. It will be like talking to ...Don't do it Joel. It will be like talking to a wall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-84851604932014067022010-11-09T17:18:31.404-05:002010-11-09T17:18:31.404-05:00Anon 7:56, I feel responsible only for what I say ...Anon 7:56, I feel responsible only for what I say and how I communicate the reality of circumstances as I understand them, not what others may say (or how what other's say may be understood). <br /><br />Joel, I think to answer your post fully would take a lot more space and give-and-take between us than this blog format allows for. I'd be happy to meet with you some time to discuss it further if you'd like.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-2286014063681622752010-11-09T10:01:29.835-05:002010-11-09T10:01:29.835-05:00Joel:
I have NEVER agreed with anythin you have e...Joel:<br /><br />I have NEVER agreed with anythin you have ever said..and usually find myself quite upset with the way you say things.<br /><br />This time, however, I find myself in total agreement with all that you say and appreciate your thoughtfulness on the subject. Thank you for your post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-46838749641863796572010-11-09T09:24:40.916-05:002010-11-09T09:24:40.916-05:00This is a very civil and thoughtful dialogue on th...This is a very civil and thoughtful dialogue on the former Cambodian program at FR, but I also find it a bit disturbing.<br /><br />In his posts, Ken continually refers to "Cambodian students." There are also references to "Guatemalan students" and students from Tibet.<br /><br />This is a fascinating way to describe young American school children. I believe that almost every "Cambodian student" at FR when my kids were there (up until last year) was born in the US. Many of their parents were graduates of FR, ARMS, and ARHS and some of those parents were born in the US. Many of these "Cambodian kids" are second generation Americans.<br /><br />I know that the supporters of this program want only the best for these kids and their community, but in the name of helping them they diminish them. No one refers to my kids as the "Jewish kids" or my neighbors' kids as "the South Asian kids." By leading with their ethnicity, we diminish their citizenship and all the rights and responsibilities that flow from that. They are as American as anyone else born here (or naturalized).<br /><br />This is a classic example of how people on the Right (Obama is African) and Left ("Cambodian students") exoticize the other. The Right does it purposely to diminish Obama. People on the Left do it to protect or promote those they see as needing help. Either way, it separates those people from the whole and narrows the definition of Americanness. That's something the Right is very comfortable with, but progressives should work against such a problematic narrowing of the nation and its concomitant social and potential political disenfranchisement of people of color.<br /><br />That the grandparents and in some cases parents of some kids in the Amherst schools suffered unimaginable horrors in other countries may be part of their personal identity and something they bring to school with them, but it isn't the role of the public schools to define them through it. That is a family and community matter and something for these young people to embrace, forget, or think through as they grew intellectually and socially during their school years and beyond.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-22799361115303326552010-11-08T19:56:02.948-05:002010-11-08T19:56:02.948-05:00Ken
I respect your opinions and am thankful that ...Ken<br /><br />I respect your opinions and am thankful that you take the time to explain them here in great detail.<br /><br />Unfortunately, your explanations about a FR program that had at its core a sensitivity to the needs of a particular group of students are diminished by the often-stated pronouncements of your former principal that only certain groups of students warranted staff concern/attention, and that some groups warranted inattention.<br /><br />As I've followed this blog since its inception, I've often wondered whether the frustrations with "the administration" originated with<br />that situation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-87595690320012753532010-11-08T16:01:23.150-05:002010-11-08T16:01:23.150-05:00Anon 1:32, I'm sorry your children felt that w...Anon 1:32, I'm sorry your children felt that way. Not knowing what culture(s) your children's background is, it's hard to know what else to say. Of course, there was never an intent to focus exclusively on Cambodian culture--nor did we. There has been the tradition of a 2-week Cambodian focus to the school around Cambodian New Year, which leaves 34 of the 36-week school year not focused on Cambodian culture per se, either programmatically as a school, or by individual teachers. All teachers should be bringing the culture of all their students front and center in their day-to-day instruction, and have been/are encouraged to do so, so all children feel ownership of their classroom learning space.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-20892740594216240202010-11-08T06:35:26.043-05:002010-11-08T06:35:26.043-05:00I agree with Anon 1:32. I realize that the Cambod...I agree with Anon 1:32. I realize that the Cambodian program was great for those kids, but what about other groups who would have benefitted from understanding their own culture in a school-sponsored setting. As a FR parent, I understand how thoroughly the entire school was committed to the Cambodian culture and imagine how great it was for the Cambodian families. As non-Cambodians, though, my children often felt as if their culture was totally ignored and the entire school was focused on Cambodia. Learning about other cultures is very important, but I think all students should learn about all cultures. I am sorry to hear that some of the Cambodian students are struggling in their new schools. I wonder if they are struggling more or less than students from other cultures. Change is hard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-71299105933985867162010-11-07T15:09:31.763-05:002010-11-07T15:09:31.763-05:00Anon, the effort, time and resources were poured i...Anon, the effort, time and resources were poured into this community based primarily on need, not ethnicity. If SPED were not a legal mandate, would a school district not still need to fully fund and staff an appropriate program based on those students' needs, even if language and ethnicity were not involved as factors? The ethnicity issue was secondary. Also, there was "extra help" available at FR for them as needed, and clustering does not preclude the value of a pre school experience (which, by the way, many Cambodian students had also had). <br /><br />I don't recall saying that the SC was responsible, only that I do not recall any support for those programs from an SC member other than Kathleen Anderson. I also recall some unfortunate statements by some SC members that were negative towards the programs and that community's needs. <br /><br />Finally, if you want to make the case with Administration and/or SC that large scale programs (in both $$ and staffing) should be afforded to numerically small groups in the district, go for it!kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-36729237555020325962010-11-07T13:32:34.136-05:002010-11-07T13:32:34.136-05:00To Ken from Anon 6:32-
It's probably very dis...To Ken from Anon 6:32-<br /><br />It's probably very disheartening to see a program that you have worked hard to create get destroyed and feel as though you don't have control over it. The question is did this help Cambodian students succeed academically more than a high quality preschool and an extra-help program will? <br /><br />I realize that staff poured their hearts into the program - and who wants to take away a good thing from a group that has been through so much? The Cambodian people have been through horrors that we can't even imagine - so it feels bad to challenge the fairness of this program. However, providing high quality preschool and offering after-school/summer help for struggling learners seems like a good thing too.<br /><br />I also can't help but wonder if it is fair for school staff to expend so much effort to create community for one group based on ethnicity - when other groups could benefit from the same efforts? The fact that the Tibetan community is so small seems like a perfect reason to provide the same services - they too are refugees. Or, what about a community for kids whose parents don't have a college degree? Or, kids of single parents - or kids of GLBT parents? It seems like a slippery slope and I see why the admin didn't want to continue it - because it is setting a precedent for providing special services to special groups. Who gets to decide which group gets special services? <br /><br />Although it may have been rolled into what happened due to the votes of the SC, it seems unfair to lay this particular issue on Catherine and Steve. And if it was their tone during the debates over closing MM and redistrict-ing that made it worse, I remember that they were in high defense mode due to the full-on attack that was being directed at them from all sides.<br /><br />I hope the interested parties will talk with the supt about this now that the dust has settled from redistrict-ing and not see it as a reason to oppose CS and SR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-66679280001424578312010-11-07T08:11:42.207-05:002010-11-07T08:11:42.207-05:00To continue,
I'm not sure how much "ext...To continue, <br /><br />I'm not sure how much "extra" money we sspent. Numbers partly dictate decisions, and there were many more Cambodian students than Tibetan, for example, and Guatemalan students had the choice of the Spanish cluster at CF, which was also dismantled. There were several advantages:<br /> *if our schools have a social connection, it would have been a value to maintain a program which for the Cambodian community--given all the trauma and cultural disruption in the recent historical past that they'd suffered--was perhaps the 2nd most important cultural institution for that community after the temples; it was where/how the younger generations were put most directly in touch with their cultural roots, and in a way that enabled their culture to be a) regenerated and b) cohesively transmitted; while we might say that's the parent's or community's job, just remember the circumstances that brought that community here, the experiences of the older parents (who had been cut off from their culture in the Killing Fields and refugee camps) and then the younger parents who came of age during the most difficult period of resettling here <br /> *it was very valuable to have a school where so much effort had been put into creating knowledgable and empathetic relationships with parents; this took years to create, and will not easily be replicated in new situations, at least not quickly; as everyone knows, parent buy-in is crucial for academic success<br /> *the time and energy--and therefore effectiveness--of our schools' marvelous Cambodian para and outreach worker, Seiha Krouch, could be maximized when the children and families were concentrated in one building<br /> *it was valuable to have so many staff serving that community who had worked so closely with students and families, and so who realized how Cambodian students function academically in classroom learning spaces, etc; it really does matter since culture strongly affects learning style<br /> *with the strong cultural presence in the school, the students and families felt part ownership of the school as a whole, and individual classrooms, which otherwise does not happen naturally as it would with my own (or yours, or CS's...) children<br /><br />These are some of the major benefits that I saw. I hope I've answered your questions adequately.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-35910340877276209142010-11-07T08:11:24.164-05:002010-11-07T08:11:24.164-05:00To continue,
I'm not sure how much "ext...To continue, <br /><br />I'm not sure how much "extra" money we sspent. Numbers partly dictate decisions, and there were many more Cambodian students than Tibetan, for example, and Guatemalan students had the choice of the Spanish cluster at CF, which was also dismantled. There were several advantages:<br /> *if our schools have a social connection, it would have been a value to maintain a program which for the Cambodian community--given all the trauma and cultural disruption in the recent historical past that they'd suffered--was perhaps the 2nd most important cultural institution for that community after the temples; it was where/how the younger generations were put most directly in touch with their cultural roots, and in a way that enabled their culture to be a) regenerated and b) cohesively transmitted; while we might say that's the parent's or community's job, just remember the circumstances that brought that community here, the experiences of the older parents (who had been cut off from their culture in the Killing Fields and refugee camps) and then the younger parents who came of age during the most difficult period of resettling here <br /> *it was very valuable to have a school where so much effort had been put into creating knowledgable and empathetic relationships with parents; this took years to create, and will not easily be replicated in new situations, at least not quickly; as everyone knows, parent buy-in is crucial for academic success<br /> *the time and energy--and therefore effectiveness--of our schools' marvelous Cambodian para and outreach worker, Seiha Krouch, could be maximized when the children and families were concentrated in one building<br /> *it was valuable to have so many staff serving that community who had worked so closely with students and families, and so who realized how Cambodian students function academically in classroom learning spaces, etc; it really does matter since culture strongly affects learning style<br /> *with the strong cultural presence in the school, the students and families felt part ownership of the school as a whole, and individual classrooms, which otherwise does not happen naturally as it would with my own (or yours, or CS's...) children<br /><br />These are some of the major benefits that I saw. I hope I've answered your questions adequately.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-51156395470270852542010-11-07T07:53:39.655-05:002010-11-07T07:53:39.655-05:00Anon 7:01, yes that was in my mind as an example. ...Anon 7:01, yes that was in my mind as an example. Catherine is correct that it was not the SC's "decision." It was mostly a political/ideological position taken by the Superintendent, who simply had a different view about lnaguge learning, and he had some supporters in Central Admin. However, I will say that it seemed as though all th SC members with the exception of Anderson supported the move. The Superintendent used a bogus legal argument to justify the decision as well, which they announced at the community meeting (referred to below). As it was read at the meeting, it was phrased that all clustering by language/culture is against the law, while the legal opinion actually said that the exception is when it has been done within the context of duly constituted ESL programs, which ours were. <br /><br />Relating to the exchanges between Catherine and I about families, this was a great example of that as well because after creating the above-mentioned community meeting supposedly so the families most affected by the social engineering moves (equlaizing %s of low income students across the schools, the dismantling of the language cluster ELL programs) could participate, say what they thought, after turning out in a remarkable outpouring of numbers and emotion, it turned out that the decision had already been made. Many of the parents were disgusted in that whole circus and many commented how much it just confirmed what they already felt, which was other than the staff who they knew were respectful of them and their children, they didn't feel like district decision-makers EVER listened to them.<br /><br />I have heard second and third hand the Cambodian students are struggling a bit in their new schools. I don't know how the Cambodian parents feel now. I am also aware that there have been attempts to restart the very successful and important Cambodian afterschool at FR for all Cambodian students, but money has been an issue and I don't know if it has started/will start or not.<br /><br />I will send part 2 to answer the rest of your questions in a moment.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-83160826208940843172010-11-06T20:40:20.074-04:002010-11-06T20:40:20.074-04:00Anonymous 7:01/6:32 - just for the point of clarit...Anonymous 7:01/6:32 - just for the point of clarity ... the SC voted to redistrict, but the superintendent ultimately controls all programs for particular populations. So, the superintendent could have decided, and could still decide, to maintain a particular program that he/she thought was best for any particular group of students. The SC doesn't control that. For example, kids with particular special education needs are still clustered at Wildwood, regardless of where they live.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-34093798736425990282010-11-06T19:01:31.179-04:002010-11-06T19:01:31.179-04:00To Ken from Anon 6:32-
When you said the followin...To Ken from Anon 6:32-<br /><br />When you said the following...<br /><br />"I think many teachers ... felt like many of those things that had painstakingly been put into place over time to support struggling communities, in a collaborative way, were being ripped apart without having any say, by people who now "knew better.""<br /><br />...were you referring to the Cambodian program at Fort River? <br /><br />I know that the program was lost due to redistricting, etc. Do you have any idea how things are going this year for the students who were formerly involved in the program? I know that there are staff members and others who are very angry about this loss.<br /><br />I have very little knowledge of this program - it seems unfortunate that it was lost. Do you think that there was any way to save it? On the one hand, it sounds like it was a beloved program and on the other hand it seems unfair to spend resources on the Cambodian community when we don't offer those same resources to the Tibetan community or the Guatemalan community, etc. Also, as an outsider, I am skeptical about keeping kids segregated by ethnicity - but I also see that it can create a level of comfort.<br /><br />As a teacher, what did you observe to be the benefits of clustering? Do you think that the new preschool for income eligible students and after-school/summer help programs could be effective at helping kids from underrepresented groups? <br /><br />When I read the exchanges between you and Catherine it made me realize how the Cambodian program was a way that teachers created support for underrepresented groups in an atmosphere where the admin and SC were not willing to make the difficult choices that could have allowed us to offer help and support to those under-served communities. <br /><br />What are your thoughts about the loss of the Cambodian program? What about cultural/language clusters?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-70894212947972984492010-11-06T13:44:26.658-04:002010-11-06T13:44:26.658-04:00Catherine. Now I'm getting REALLY nervous! W...Catherine. Now I'm getting REALLY nervous! We're agreeing WAY too much!<br /><br />When I refer to "loud voices," I refer to communities of privilege which have existed before now, exist now, and will exist after now, and whose needs most often get met. So I am still speaking in generalities. Indeed, it would be hard to conceive of a notion of social justice without an understanding of how privilege works and therefore a willingness to take proactive steps to combat it. <br /><br />My point relative to math is that maybe parents would say that their children struggle in math because they think their teachers don't understand them well so the issue is less math and more that. My question would be, "Does what we think by definition have more validity about these matters than what they may think?" Should I think and decide on their behalf because I know more or better, or find out what they think and want to decide?<br /><br />Specifically, since you asked for suggestions, if it was me, I would find a mechanism to pull together teachers and other staff from each building who have put the most time into making positive, respectful connections with marginalized parent communities, and also to make overtures to leaders/representatives from those communities, and find out from them what steps they would recommend to engage families in a more proactive dialog about their children and what they perceive their needs to be, taking a respectful "listener" stance. And then, not just in a pro forma way to say it's been done, but to take active next steps based on what is brought forward. <br /><br />That's what I'd do, anyway.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-18814562732986870612010-11-06T13:00:52.762-04:002010-11-06T13:00:52.762-04:00Hi, Ken,
So, four responses to your thoughtful p...Hi, Ken, <br /><br />So, four responses to your thoughtful post.<br /><br />1. Perhaps great minds at times do think alike (e.g., in terms of our agreement)?!?<br /><br />2. I share your concern that the loudest voices sometimes dominate the conversation, and I do think that's a problem (and a problem that exists in Amherst and elsewhere). This is actually an issue I talk about in my psychology teaching. I think your example of maintaining Russian/German for years is a perfect example of that ... and I think closing Marks Meadow is another example of the SC standing up to pressure from the loudest voices to do what was right. <br /><br />I guess I'm not sure now who those "loud voices" are, however. You sort of identify them as my supporters, but if you read the Bulletin each week, it's pretty clear that I'm not popular (nor is Steve), and yet people email me and talk to me privately all the time telling me they appreciate what I've done/am doing, but can't say so since they'll get the same attacks I get. To me, the loudest voices now seem to be saying "things are great in our schools, so stop talking about problems." I find that unfortunate for many reasons. <br /><br />3. I think perhaps where you and I agree is that we need to not listen to the loudest voices, and that it is OK to speak about problems. You and I might identify different problems ... but I think we both share a willingness to acknowledge problems that do exist.<br /><br />4. In terms of math - I am concerned about math in Amherst, as is evident in my blog postings and various comments. But let me be honest -- my kids are doing fine in math (as you've correctly noted before). So, my concern about math isn't about my kids per se -- it is about the many kids who aren't doing well (e.g., the 3rd graders who are below the state average). Now, families with kids who are strugglig (who are disproportionally likely to be low income) may not feel comfortable or even know how to reach out to share their concerns -- the issue of access/mechanisms that you identify. But I believe the SC, principals, administrators, etc., need to be concerned EVEN if families don't write letters to the paper/talk to SC members/go to the principal with concerns. The responsibility of all of those in charge of the district is to worry/care about ALL kids, even if there aren't loud voices pushing us to do so. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do better in terms of helping these families have a voice/say (and if you have ideas about how the SC could do that, I'd love to hear them), but it does mean that we shouldn't only address concerns that are brought directly to our attention -- we should also identify concerns (e.g., massive differences as a function of race/gender/income in 8th grade algebra) and address them EVEN if particular families aren't requiring us to do so.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-53292165359801669642010-11-06T11:22:14.877-04:002010-11-06T11:22:14.877-04:00Anon 6:32--I see my first post did get through aft...Anon 6:32--I see my first post did get through after all. But you deserved kudos twice anyway. <br /><br />Catherine, first, I'm wondering if either (or both) of us should get nervous since you'd spoken of agreeing with just about everything I wrote in my previous 2-3 posts. Yikes, what does that mean?! :-)<br /><br />In terms of your latest, I was mostly speaking historically, not specifically addressing this blog or you in everything I wrote, and I am aware that some things you've done have gone against the grain. MM is certainly a great example. When I did refer specifically to this blog, it was in the sense of a disproportionate level of certain segments of the community's influence on what gets discussed as in the best interests of the district, and how that carries over into the school district dialog. Not that you only do what some or many bloggers want. My point is not the blog per se, but how the district STILL runs--without proactively soliciting community involvement and collaboration from families who are not economically, socially or politically empowered, but who represent a growing percentage of our district, and whose children need to be thought the most about for them to do well. I am not blaming you or Steve about it, because this issue long predates your SC tenure. <br /><br />Math is a great example. It may be that only 20% of the parents have a programmatic concern (I'm guessing) about math, but let's say for the sake of argument that 25% of parents feel that teachers don't understand their children's needs well enough, and that's why they don't achieve more highly. But they're not going to say it directly to teachers, and certainly not email or call administrators or SC members. What mechanism exists to figure that out? Is it worth taking time to figure it out? And would their concerns merit the time and energy needed to address their concerns even if we thought they weren't true or as valuable as what WE may think are their major needs? These are questions I'd like to see addressed by a SC (whether you are on it or not).kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-25331660210962571062010-11-06T10:14:30.662-04:002010-11-06T10:14:30.662-04:00Ken - just for the record, I supported cutting Rus...Ken - just for the record, I supported cutting Russian and German, precisely for the reasons you suggested (and I had good close friends with kids in both programs who pushed me to save them). I also pushed for closing Marks Meadow, in the face of HUGE pressure not to do so from many loud voices (and virtually constant personal attacks at meetings and in the Bulletin) because closing that school would allow us to save intervention support and small classes. So, I agree with you that the loudest voices often carry disproportionate influence, and I think many SC members are swayed by those. But if you read this blog over time, I think you can see that many of those who post are not my "natural allies" -- the posts criticizing my decision from many MM teachers/staff a year or so ago is a good example. <br /><br />And let me be clear -- in terms of the things I've done on SC, most were NOT things "my fans" wanted: closing MM, redistricting, adding a preschool for low income kids. They were things that I thought were the right things to do for all kids. NONE of these things were the result of people with loud voices pushing me to do things (and in many cases, there were people with loud voices pushing me NOT to do them). <br /><br />I believe this blog can be very useful at increasing dialogue among people from different groups - one of the reasons I haven't required people to register and use their names is that some people just don't feel comfortable doing so (especially teachers, but also parents). If you have ideas for things I could do, or the SC could do, to increase community involvement in these important discussions (on my blog or elsewhere), please let me know.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-76642742624935602742010-11-06T09:26:26.842-04:002010-11-06T09:26:26.842-04:00Anon 6:32, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtf...Anon 6:32, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful post. I actually typed in a reply about working with families, but it was too large to get sent, and disappeared. Sorry. I don't have time to reproduce it now, but I wanted to appreciate your post. If all posts on this blog were like yours and Michael's, it would be an extremely productive pl;ace to share ideas, all the time!kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-42323459577806333592010-11-06T09:22:43.924-04:002010-11-06T09:22:43.924-04:00Anon 6:32, I wanted to also acknowledge and thank ...Anon 6:32, I wanted to also acknowledge and thank you for your thoughtful response. If everyone took the perspective that you and Michael do, we'd be having far different discussions.<br /><br />One tangential thing I would like to address in your post is how to work productively with families and disempowered elements of our community, whose children are pushing well up into the 30% of our student body range. It has NEVERR been a strong point of this district doing this well. This district has always been a district that responds to political pressure from the most empowered communities it serves. So in the past, we may have eliminated a helpful support program that served many struggling learners in tight budget times while keeping an advanced Russian course, say, that had 5 students in it. Why? Because of who would call SC members. There is not a fully staffed, cohesive, proactive outreach program--like there should be. <br /><br />It continues--certainly this blog is a great example. What % of the community really uses it, but doesn't it seem that most of the conversation about the direction of the schools now reflects the perspectives and desires of the relatively limited number of parents affiliated with CS/SR and who actively use this blog. Not that this blog is a bad thing (when used well), it's just a question of to what degree certain segments of a community should have a disproportionate degree of influence over a school system, especially one as diverse as ours. I think it's a very legitimate issue to have an open discussion about, and not everyone will agree.<br /><br />And even when there are helpful programs, it often has had a "we're doing this on your behalf" or "we're doing it to you" feel, rather than a proactive, collaborative "how can we collaborate around you think is important for your children in our schools," other than some mainly teacher-led initiatives that really reached out to communities. Many communities really feel they are not listened to at all simply because they are not comfortable communicating/being politically active in the dominant culture way. Yet their children go to our schools as well. I think many teachers (at least at the elementary level where i worked, which is what I know best, not to imply it also was not present just as strongly at the secondary level) felt like many of those things that had painstakingly been put into place over time to support struggling communities, in a collaborative way, were being ripped apart without having any say, by people who now "knew better."<br /><br />Again, thanks for your thoughtful reply.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-62276445961850958272010-11-06T09:12:23.040-04:002010-11-06T09:12:23.040-04:00Ken - for the record, let me say that I agree comp...Ken - for the record, let me say that I agree completely with what you said. I don't care what we teach or how we teach it -- I just want it to work. Now, you may decide what "works" in a different way based on your experience (e.g., your experience as a teacher, working with kids and seeing what different kids get how/what/when) than I do (e.g., wearing a research hat and relying more on research studies and comparisons to other districts than by personal experience in a classroom). But I certainily share your belief that we want cats that can catch mice -- regardless of their color! Thanks for your thoughtful post, and for posting that link. I've thought about doing a longer blog post on that link, so if you have ideas of things you think are important to touch on, would you please send me an email (casanderson@amherst.edu)? Thanks!Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-26890786123866008152010-11-06T09:00:21.860-04:002010-11-06T09:00:21.860-04:00Michael,
Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. ...Michael,<br /><br />Thanks for your very thoughtful reply. Myself, regarding education issues, I am from the school of thought of Mao's successor (his name escapes me at the moment), who said: "I don't care if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." My perspective is and always has been a student-first perspective; in other words, I have to understand my students well to be able to successfully teach them. Students that are "like me" culturally and linguistically take little effort to understand beyond their personality, but culturally and linguistically diverse learners take a lot of reflective effort to empathetically know beyond personality. Sometimes it leads me to go left, and sometimes it leads me to go right (I don't man politically). Some teachers/administrators/curriculum developers/theorists have a "going left is best" message, while others insist that we "go right." This cuts across all elements of education. I think it is counterproductive, and in the end against the needs of our most struggling learners, to gtround our thinking in anything but students, whether it is Investigations or reading or anything. I may, and do, agree with CS or SR on some things, and may not (and don't) on others. I don't feel in any way that my touchstone is agreeing with them or not--nor, I am positive, is agreeing with me, theirs! I just want there to be an informed discussion about students, based in who they are, without agendas, and grounded in a contextual understanding of all the available data, and not just some of it.kennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-8637848758688400442010-11-05T22:10:01.088-04:002010-11-05T22:10:01.088-04:00Two quick things:
Ken - great article -- thanks f...Two quick things:<br /><br />Ken - great article -- thanks for posting the link.<br /><br />Lise - very well said re. Steve's quote. Thanks.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.com