tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post8497744038743261284..comments2023-09-29T06:32:16.005-04:00Comments on My School Committee Blog: Does a School Board Control Curriculum? Yes!Catherine A. Sandersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-28835913373653256532009-04-08T10:35:00.000-04:002009-04-08T10:35:00.000-04:00From me, again:1. I'm going to do a separate blog...From me, again:<BR/><BR/>1. I'm going to do a separate blog posting on ACE soon, so I am not going to respond to these issues here.<BR/><BR/>2. Multi-culturalism is complicated i our schools -- some feel there is too much, some feel there is too little. I think the very best we can accomplish our district's focus on social justice is to make sure each and every child receives a rigorous, engaging, and challenging curriculum, is held to high expectations, and is given the support needed to master that curriculum.<BR/><BR/>3. The busing question is a good one -- I don't have the answer to it, but I believe this policy is being examined. This may be something that is fully reviewed next year, under the guidance of the new superintendent.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-75687406884759555842009-04-07T11:59:00.000-04:002009-04-07T11:59:00.000-04:00I think if we focus on the "Multi" part of the wor...I think if we focus on the "Multi" part of the word this is true for the individual schools. Of course there isn't a "white" school but there is a Spanish, a Chinese, and a Cambodian where that is the main focus for culture study. You're right that there isn't a sense of balance. I've seen it asked before, will redistricting create a balance or will they still separate with busing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-81598952625646329112009-04-07T11:19:00.000-04:002009-04-07T11:19:00.000-04:00"Multiculturalism in our elementary schools is a j..."Multiculturalism in our elementary schools is a joke."<BR/><BR/>Really? My second-grader has read books on the accomplishments of black women, but not ever about white men (or women, for that matter). There have been numerous field trips for Asian drumming performances and the like, but never a field trip for any traditional western music, dance, or theater. There has been in-class discussion of non-Christian religious holidays, but never of Christian ones [for the record, I don't think any such discussions are appropriate]. There is a huge annual celebration of Chinese New Year. My child's music classes have taught him lots of African folk songs (with words that are never explained), but no traditional American folk songs. His class has learned a lot about Native Americans, but nothing at all about pioneers. I could go on, but I think you see my point.<BR/><BR/>It's fine to teach all those things, but there should be some balance. And there should definitely be more (and better) math and science.<BR/><BR/>If your comment reflects concerns about the demographics of schools, then you should be happy about the redistricting that will occur when MM is closed. But I don't see that we have segregated ("white only") schools now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-25646952638203715652009-04-07T11:08:00.000-04:002009-04-07T11:08:00.000-04:00Anon 10:53: I disagree, although my family's only ...Anon 10:53: I disagree, although my family's only elementary experience has been Fort River which is very multicultural and places a great deal of emphasis on multiculturalism and social justice. Perhaps it is different in the other elementary schools.<BR/><BR/>Anon 10:47: Although I think multiculturalism is a great thing, I would agree with you that, at least in my family's experience, there is more emphasis placed on that in our elementary schools than on core academics. For example, I had to teach the kids multiplication tables at home but they are very familiar and comfortable with Cambodian traditions such as the celebration of the New Year, the dancing, and the food of the culture. I would like to see a strong emphasis on both.Alison Donta-Venmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03878779168857679143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-14692365639042268662009-04-07T10:47:00.001-04:002009-04-07T10:47:00.001-04:00Anon April 7, 2009 10:03 AM:What on earth is eliti...Anon April 7, 2009 10:03 AM:<BR/><BR/>What on earth is elitist about wanting all children to be challenged academically? After years of hearing how wonderful the Amherst schools are, I must say I have been deeply disappointed with the elementary schools. There is a lot of emphasis on multiculturalism, and relatively little on core topics like math and science. I've seen essentially no interest in challenging children who are performing above grade level, and absolutely no interest in advancing such children (grade skipping). You may say that those kids don't need any help, but I would disagree. To stay interested and engaged in learning, *every* child needs to be challenged at an appropriate level, and the challenge needs to occur in school (not just at home).<BR/>That's the whole point of ACE, to make sure *every* kid is challenged. Given that it's the motto of our schools ("every child, every day"), shouldn't we actually try to live by it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-83897804423304378052009-04-07T10:47:00.000-04:002009-04-07T10:47:00.000-04:00To Anon 10:03Do you mean "closet" elites or "class...To Anon 10:03<BR/><BR/>Do you mean "closet" elites or "classist" elites? I want to know exactly why you hate me.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I'm a card carrying union member who worked his way through college driving a bus. I don't live in Amherst Woods and I drive a 1999 Honda Civic. What exactly is my class standing? How am I an elite? Why not use a funnier word? Just call ACE members "plutocrats." <BR/><BR/>Doesn't excellent public education serve everyone, especially the kids who don't come from wealthy families? Why do you hate poor kids? Why do you want to deny them access to an excellent education? Why are you so elitist?Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-85596264646831782732009-04-07T10:12:00.000-04:002009-04-07T10:12:00.000-04:00When ACE first started I thought they were classis...When ACE first started I thought they were classist elite too. There wasn't much public information for the rest of us. Since then I have read about them on the web, in the paper and listened to CS at meetings. Boy have I changed my mind! What on earth is wrong with wanting the best and expecting the most we can get? I can see that this attitude will be the only thing to help my forgotten middle class kids here in Amherst, but only if we finally get some ACTION! (sorry for yelling)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-50590092038291542232009-04-07T10:03:00.000-04:002009-04-07T10:03:00.000-04:00I just heard about a group A.C.E.Was that Amherst ...I just heard about a group A.C.E.<BR/><BR/>Was that Amherst Classit Elite?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-22165294835250127502009-04-06T19:32:00.000-04:002009-04-06T19:32:00.000-04:00To Anons 9:07 & 10:58 on April 5:You are stupi...To Anons 9:07 & 10:58 on April 5:<BR/><BR/>You are stupid, stupid people. You really do need to loosen up. Have a drink.<BR/><BR/>BTW, Irv Rhodes was celebrating at Rafters, making him a bad, bad man too. <BR/><BR/>TO ANON 12:56<BR/><BR/>Yes, smart, highly educated people are the problem. This country flourished, flourished I tell you when we had a good guy without a lot of fancy thinking running things. God I miss that George W. Bush. He was one of us. Now we have those snooty Obamas. He went to Columbia and she, that snob, is a Princeton alum. Princeton! You know what, those "intellectuals" both went to Harvard Law. I just hate them, don't you?<BR/><BR/>I bet they would live in Amherst Woods if they lived here. After all, they're in that big fancy house, using those big fancy words, and throwing around all that logic and reason. Don't you hate that?<BR/><BR/>Fool.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13141742420717242724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-87607868608616020042009-04-06T14:16:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:16:00.000-04:00Me, again:Anonymous 3:12 - thanks! great point.An...Me, again:<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 3:12 - thanks! great point.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 8:39 - thanks! good advice.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 12:56 - I choose to allow anonymous posters because sometimes people have legitimate questions/concerns they want to ask/share, and they feel more comfortable doing so anonymously. As far as I can tell, you just want to criticize me, and Steve Rivkin, and in fact my opponent from last year! And if you are right, that most people in this town see me as "crazy," it seems really odd that you don't want to sign your name to your postings, which would clearly have so much support and agreement across town, right? You may not like any of us ... but here's the reality -- you can't win an election in Amherst by winning Amherst Woods. Steve had broad support (winning first in 1 precinct, and second in 6 others). I won all 10 precincts. Some people like us. But even if you don't, you are stuck with us for 2 more years (me) and three more years (Steve). So how about telling me what you'd like the schools to be like, or what the School Committee should do? How in the world can you know who I would or would not listen to if you don't even try?Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-82720934661671287552009-04-06T12:56:00.000-04:002009-04-06T12:56:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:It should not be assumed that all a...Anonymous said:<BR/><BR/>It should not be assumed that all anonymous posts on this blog are by the same person.<BR/><BR/>Also. If CS wants to remove the anonymous posting option then she should. She could require that all posts be approved by an "administrator" before allowing them to appear.<BR/><BR/>I would also say that given CS's position of privilege as an Amherst College professor, a member of the school committee, and a person who has an over confident attitude about her understanding of secondary eductaion and herself in general, there is good reason for people to want to voice their displeasure anonymously. CS is, in many people's eyes, one of the "crazy people", not just the pissed off cranks who post here anonymously. <BR/><BR/>This is why we all are given the opportunity to vote anonymously. Even those of us who only voted for CS because her opponent in that particular election appeared, well, a bit odd. <BR/><BR/>I ALSO believe that one of the reasons Rivkin got fewer votes than Rhodes in the most recent election is that the voters are starting to doubt the wisdom of electing the intellectual elites in town who think they understand what is best for everyone. Their true constituency are the residents of the wealthy neighborhoods in town, not the full spectrum of the community. Those are the people who got them elected, therefore that is who they will most seek to please in their expressions of policy. A simple drive through Amherst Woods prior to the most recent election, with its prolifieration of Rivkin lawn signs, confirms this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-63686239351751035822009-04-05T20:39:00.000-04:002009-04-05T20:39:00.000-04:00Catherine,Don't respond to the crazy people. I'm s...Catherine,<BR/>Don't respond to the crazy people. I'm serious! Save your time. You'll never convince them or make them happy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-70004840979290398962009-04-05T15:12:00.000-04:002009-04-05T15:12:00.000-04:00Anons 9:07 AM & 10:58, thanks for the laugh. ...Anons 9:07 AM & 10:58, thanks for the laugh. You are really grasping at straws now complaining that these are "not exactly my idea of the kind of people I would want entrusted with my children's education." I guess we had better start giving the ax to all the teachers that have a beer to celebrate a red sox win at Rafters. Please, stick to the important issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-41438541799727462802009-04-05T12:08:00.000-04:002009-04-05T12:08:00.000-04:00Me, again:Rick - thanks for the support on not "sh...Me, again:<BR/><BR/>Rick - thanks for the support on not "shooting the messenger" ... I think people are often angry at me for saying things they don't want to hear, but the reality is, we are going to have to make some tough choices, and at least I'm letting people know about the choices I think we should make and why. I think your idea of a chart showing some positions and average salaries is a good one -- I will bring it up at a SC meeting and see if this can happen. I know there is concern about administration (number and pay), and this might be a way of helping answering those questions. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous 10:58 - I am guessing you are the same anonymous poster repeatedly ... but again, I'm 40 years old, it is legal for me to drink, and I see nothing wrong with adults choosing to celebrate a victory with a beer. If you see a photo in the newspaper with SC members drinking while making a decision about the schools and/or drinking before a meeting -- that would seem problematic. I've answered the administrators point in my earlier post.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-61757507904493939602009-04-05T11:58:00.000-04:002009-04-05T11:58:00.000-04:00Me, again:Rick - I agree that the ecology/environm...Me, again:<BR/><BR/>Rick - I agree that the ecology/environmental science option seems like a better choice than earth science, overall. But I'd also prefer for the HS to have coupled this new requirement with adding a year to the overall science requirements (to three years, from two year). Most high schools require three years (I did an earlier post on this), and that would help increase the number of our kids who would get SOME exposure to physical sciences (e.g., chemistry, physics). In the old system, some kids took earth science and then biology, and others took biology and then chemistry. In both of these cases, kids got exposure in TWO YEARS to both types of sciences -- life science and physical science. <BR/><BR/>However, I do agree that the bigger issue for me, and many, is the absence of the biology option for 9th graders. You lay out various options, and that you like Option A (our current system for some, probably most, kids). I like this option more IF we required 4 (or even 3 years) than we do now. But I think Option C (which is what the kids will do now who would have taken biology in 9th grade) may well be problematic -- this is one of the things we just don't know because we are now the ONLY high school I've been able to find in which chemistry is taught as the first core science. I believe there are three potential problems with option C (and again, this option is a forced option for those who would have taken biology in the old system). First, virtually all other districts, chemistry is taught AFTER biology or AFTER physics, and hence there is some knowledge about one of these other core disciplines FIRST. It isn't clear to me how well our kids will do in chemistry when they don't have that exposure first -- that is one of the reasons why I think the evaluation is important. Second, the chemistry MCAS is what these kids will take as their science MCAS. And this MCAS has the highest failure rate of any of the science MCAS tests. That seems problematic to me -- especially because 10th graders who take the chemistry MCAS in other districts will have had not only chemistry but also biology OR physics, whereas ours will have had ecology (can't imagine that is going to help on the chemistry MCAS). Third, I think the best way to get kids excited about science is to let them choose what science electives they want to take. Sure, for some kids, that is ecology. But for others, it might be anatomy/physiology or astromony. In the old system, the kids who now are forced to take ecology/environmental science are not able to take another elective -- if they want to take the core sciences (biology, chemistry, physics). In the old system, they had a year in which they could take one of these other courses -- or the AP Environmental Science class. And although doubling up is theoretical possible (e.g., by senior year), it again means we are requiring these kids to double up to take classes that interest them -- meaning they then aren't taking some other elective (e.g., music, art, language, whatever). But at a minimum, I'd like a plan for an evaluation that includes how well are our kids in 10th grade chemistry doing NOW (as in next year) compared to how they would have done if they had had biology first (and this should not be hard to test). <BR/><BR/>You raise the point that "Ecology/Environmental Science" is a more relevant thing for kids to know about than just pure biology, and it is perhaps a better course to “turn kids on” to science in general." I think that is possible - but I don't think it is definite -- thus the need for us to test this! I think you absolutely could measure this. I had asked the superintendent and school committee to offer both biology and ecology/environmental science courses this year as options to 9th graders, and then measure interest/enjoyment/likelihood of taking future science, etc. That would have been an easy (not perfect, however) way to test this. There is data now that has been collected that would allow us to test whether the new course is seen as turning more kids on than the old course -- but no one has looked at the data (survey report from kids). I've offered to do so, and have been told I can't. Again, I'm curious as to why we aren't getting this data -- which has been collected (it is NOT hard to test -- it is just means for kids in different classes from last year and from this year). That would help us know whether the new course is indeed, as one would hope, turning more kids on to science. <BR/><BR/>Again, you may be right, I may be right ... and the ONLY way to tell is to do an evaluation (people do often have instincts/intuitive feelings that are wrong)! That is really all I'm asking for -- and it would help us know how this new system works for all our kids. <BR/><BR/>Rick - in regards to the new topic: yes, the teacher matters A LOT. There was an interesting New Yorker piece a few months ago which described how the quality of the teacher is the best predictor of student outcome -- more so than class size, even. I have no experience with MS or HS teachers, but I've seen many fabulous teachers at Fort River -- including both highly experienced teachers and new (first or second year) teachers. I'd say one of the key things we can do to help attract good teachers is to pay well -- and I know that is controversial in this community in tight budget times, but if we are a community that cares about education, we should be willing to pay teachers well for what is clearly a hard job. But I also think it is important that teachers are teaching a particular curriculum - that is horizontally and vertically aligned (e.g., so that kids in one class in 6th grader are getting exposed to the same material as those in other 6th grade classes, and so the kids arrive in 6th grade having learned in 5th grade what they'll need to know and so the kids leave 6th grade knowing what they'll need to know for 7th grade). Curriculum also matters ... and I hope our new superintendent can focus on increasing both horizontal and vertical alignment (something that has been acknowledged by some as a weakness overall in our schools). <BR/><BR/>Anonymous 6:21 - two things. First, I think it is fine if people have questions they want to ask and ideally get answered anonymously or if they have suggestions they'd like considered. I think vicious and personal attacks delivered anonymously are just inappropriate -- I'm owning everything I say, and I think you should write your name and stand by your comments if you are posting on this blog simply to criticize me. That seems frankly only fair -- your hiding as anonymous seems cowardly to me. Second, I have no idea what you mean about the oppressed/oppressors. All the kids in all our schools deserve the best education we can provide. It is pretty clear that we have two choices: we can provide an excellent education to all kids in three buildings, or we can provide a less good education to all kids in four buildings (because we will have to cut $700,000 out of the budgets to keep four schools). I am voting for the first choice -- which keeps an excellent education for all kids, including those now at MM. I'm on the SC ... I'm pretty aware of how we spend our money. And I don't see an extra $700,000 just sitting around.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 1:06 - thank you. This is precisely what I am trying to do. I don't think the physical space in which one attends school is the key thing ... I think it is class size and librarians and music and intervention, etc. Closing MM lets us sawe many of those other things for ALL kids.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous 9:07 - I guess I just don't see the "at what expense" -- ummm, some kids will have to move schools (including my own). That just isn't a big deal. On the other hand, if you reverse it -- keep MM open -- at what expense? Well, at the expense of music, librarians, small class sizes, etc. That seems like an easy trade! In terms of the administrators issue -- I don't know what is public about salary so I'm not posting stuff until I've checked. But there are exactly 7 "administrators" in the elementary schools -- four principals and 3 assistant principals. At a recent SC meeting, the salary of a to be cut assistant principal in the HS was given as $80,000, so this is public information. Let's say that all 7 administrators in the elementary schools were cut -- that would save 7 X $80,000 (assuming they make about that, which is probably at least a reasonable guess - though I think HS staff get paid more than elementary staff) = $560,000. That would be LESS than the cost of closing MM ... and that assumes that we could run all four elementary schools without any principals or vice principals, which seems .... unlikely?!? It is easy to say just get rid of administrators, and certainly we should carefully consider how many administrators we have and whether some could be eliminated. But again, at the cost of $700,000 a year, we'd need to find 7 to 10 administrators that aren't needed -- at the ELEMENTARY level. I just don't think this is a realistic way to keep MM open. You say "How can anyone in good conscience destroy a neghborhood school?" And I'll ask you the same question: "How could anyone in good conscience ask to keep a neighborhood school open at the expense of small class sizes, music, and intervention teachers?" <BR/><BR/>Finally, I'm 40 years old, and drinking is legal. If you believe you don't want people who drink to make decisions about your children's education, you should ask this of all candidates. And I hope you find some who don't eer drink to vote for.Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-39681994430335165632009-04-05T10:58:00.000-04:002009-04-05T10:58:00.000-04:00Please--what kind of front news story shows people...Please--what kind of front news story shows people drinking it up in a bar who have just been elected to represent how our schools will be run, how our children will be effected by the decisions they make? You come on... <BR/>SC members can drink all they like, but if this is a picture of how they commune, around alcohol...it just doesn't shed a very good picture on what their idea of a social gathering should include and therefore it leaves too much to the reader to think about how or what may help them to reach their decisions.<BR/>I would be embarassed, to say the least, to be represented to my public in this manner. A bar....couldn't they have gathered in a less 'drink to your delight' atmosphere? Did you see all the bottles of liquors in the background? Poor choice, very poor choice. How many other poor choices will they now make?<BR/>And I am not angry at myself one bit as I did not choose or vote for any of these people.<BR/>Cut administrative positons before you cut up children's lives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-9096626055076092632009-04-05T09:55:00.000-04:002009-04-05T09:55:00.000-04:00I agree with Anon 1:06AM, and to Anon 6:21PM this ...I agree with Anon 1:06AM, and to Anon 6:21PM this is really not helpful: “I don't have the answer as to where the money can be found to save MM. I only know it is there.” OK where is it?<BR/><BR/>We shouldn’t be angry at people – like Catherine – who know there are only bad choices and are trying to make the best band choice. Instead we should be thankful that people like her are trying to make the best bad choice. I don’t agree with her on everything (as you can read above) but on MM she’s has clearly laid out all the options in a pretty objective and transparent basis and determined that is the best bad choice. <BR/><BR/>There is not as much money for the schools as we would like…duh. This is primarily the fault of the state, who decided to cut back on aid to towns starting in 2002, but it is also the fault of the citizens of Amherst who voted down an override (53% to 47%) in 2007 (http://www.theamherstplan.org/). So guess what? We voted for what is happening now – both at the state level and the town level – not all of us, but the majority of us.<BR/><BR/>So if you want to get angry, get angry at yourself, the voter. <BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Anon 9:07AM (same as Anon 6:21PM?): <BR/><BR/>You really shouldn’t assume this:<BR/><BR/>“I believe we would see many, overlaps and salaries that most would find shockingly high.” <BR/><BR/>…since you don’t know the facts. But I agree with you that it would be nice to more easily be able to find the facts as you say:<BR/><BR/>“Why don't you look at or make easily public the payrolls and positions of the administrators?”<BR/><BR/>It should be easy to find an org chart of the whole school system (and the entire town for that matter).<BR/><BR/>Catherine: maybe the SC could look into posting that on the ARPS site. To me, it doesn’t need to be complicated and list the salaries of every position, just the top ones and in most cases just average salaries. For example, an org chart could just show “X teachers at ARHS (ARMS, Wildwood, etc…) at average salary of $Y” and maybe “X guidance councilors at average salary of $Y” – like that – perhaps listing the actual salary of just top potions like Principal, etc… That would give us all an idea of how many people are in each job category and what total $ are spent in each category.<BR/><BR/>Also, there is apparently a study coming out soon about whether or no there is waste and overlap:<BR/><BR/>http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/136306/<BR/><BR/>Finally: SC members can’t drink? Come on.Rick Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347110422224233217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-29581549562566243052009-04-05T09:07:00.000-04:002009-04-05T09:07:00.000-04:00It seems more so to me that while she may be tryin...It seems more so to me that while she may be trying to give everyone the same opportunities, music, educational assistance etc. at what expense will this be accomplished?! <BR/>Why don't you look at or make easily public the payrolls and positions of the administrators? Could you then post them here in this blog? I believe we would see many, overlaps and salaries that most would find shockingly high. This is where the cuts need and should be made first. How can anyone in good conscience destroy a neghborhood school? Yes--this raises anger--it's only natural that one would be angry and sad and upset over such an outrageous decision. <BR/>I must say here that the recent picture in the Amherst Bulletin of CS and SR with beer and drink in hand are not exactly my idea of the kind of people I would want entrusted with my children's education.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-67141902039532476262009-04-05T01:06:00.000-04:002009-04-05T01:06:00.000-04:00"You keep saying ALL KIDS--I can not understand ho..."You keep saying ALL KIDS--I can not understand how Marks Meadow kids do not fit in this equation."<BR/>It seems to me she is trying to give everyone, including MM kids, the same opportunities they have now. Music, educational assistance, etc, etc. So they wont be in the same Building they are in now. Is that building worth ALL the Amherst kids, inclucing them, losing those things? She has repeatedly asked for other ways to save that money and I have yet to see a post answering that. All I see is anger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-33080640787116799832009-04-04T18:21:00.000-04:002009-04-04T18:21:00.000-04:00I must say that I too feel CS you are being a bit ...I must say that I too feel CS you are being a bit harsh in some of your postings. This blog allows one to post anonymously and so be it. Why do you always try and call one out. It feels like you are asking to dual or some such nonsense...<BR/>You keep saying ALL KIDS--I can not understand how Marks Meadow kids do not fit in this equation.<BR/>I am the one who posted that I have seen this scenerio many times before. When I marched on the state house steps fighting for women's rights and even in Washington DC, we were resented by other oppressed people, ex: the working poor, while the big money holders drank their $5 cups of coffee looking on. The oppressed fight the oppressed while the oppressor victors.<BR/>I did not mean that the children at MM are oppressed nor the ones at CF. I was referring to the way our community is rising up and attacking each other while private schools, administrators in particular, do not even recognize this kind of fight, never mind engage in one.<BR/>I don't have the answer as to where the money can be found to save MM. I only know it is there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-35136611924343575632009-04-04T09:33:00.000-04:002009-04-04T09:33:00.000-04:00Switching topic for a moment: to me the whole exce...Switching topic for a moment: to me the whole excellence thing is not so much about the discussion on science curriculum, where to me it’s tough to see which is better. It’s about one thing and one thing only TEACHERS. Ask your kids what courses they took are good, and why, and the reason why will be the teacher 99% of the time. Show me a school full of great teachers and I will show you a great school. If you ask me 99% of efforts on quality should be:<BR/><BR/>a. Attracting and retaining great teaches.<BR/>b. Removing bad teachers.<BR/><BR/>How you do that, I don’t know. Maybe we should be talking more about that. <BR/><BR/>Those of you who have gone to Open House at ARHS and/or gotten to know your kids teachers know that there are some fantastic teachers at ARHS. I know for myself that every time I came away from an Open House I said “wow I’d like to have that teacher”. Not all teachers at ARHS are great, but many are and that’s a good thing.Rick Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347110422224233217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-64056552184218967072009-04-04T09:28:00.000-04:002009-04-04T09:28:00.000-04:00Catherine: OK perfect. That narrows done the probl...Catherine: OK perfect. That narrows done the problem to just whether or not it’s bad that Biology is not an option in ninth grade. So we can just talk about that, which is easier.<BR/><BR/>Let’s look at (some of) the options. Below I assume that 1/3 of the kids used to take ninth grade Biology because I recall that from somewhere – but the exact number doesn’t matter for this comparison.<BR/><BR/>So, which is “better”?<BR/><BR/>A. The current system<BR/><BR/>9: Ecology / Environmental Science<BR/>10: Biology <BR/>11: Chemistry<BR/>12: Physics (+ maybe a science elective)<BR/><BR/>OR<BR/><BR/>B. The old system (with Earth Science replaced by E / ES)<BR/><BR/>9: Ecology / Environmental Science (2/3 of kids) Biology (1/3 of kids)<BR/>10: Biology (2/3) Chemistry (1/3)<BR/>11: Chemistry (2/3) Physics (1/3)<BR/>12: Physics (2/3) science elective (1/3)<BR/><BR/>OR <BR/><BR/>C. The current system (just another example for higher achieving science students) <BR/><BR/>9: Ecology / Environmental Science<BR/>10: Chemistry<BR/>11: AP Biology<BR/>12: Physics (+ maybe AP Environmental Science)<BR/><BR/>OR <BR/><BR/>D. A system that many other high schools use:<BR/><BR/>9: Biology<BR/>10: Chemistry<BR/>11: Physics<BR/>12: Science Elective<BR/><BR/>Also in the above I assume kids take science all four years – I know they don’t have to.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So, I guess I see it this way:<BR/><BR/>While it can be argued “why not give students a choice” is reasonable, that can also be argued for English and other subject areas, and one can also argue that “we think kids need to take this course(s)” is also reasonable – even colleges still mostly have required courses that you have to take in first 2 years or so, depending on your major. <BR/><BR/>I don’t really see a problem with A. Part of the reason why I don’t see a problem is that high achieving kids can do option “C”, and anyhow higher achieving kids would probably not have taken biology in ninth grade anyhow because then they can’t take AP Biology (you may think that is wrong, they should be able to take Biology + AP Biology).<BR/><BR/>I also like “D” with Ecology / Environmental Science being an elective science course.<BR/><BR/>But I think I prefer A over D because Ecology / Environmental Science is a more relevant thing for kids to know about than just pure biology, and it is perhaps a better course to “turn kids on” to science in general. And anyhow they will probably get biology in later grades so it’s not like they are missing it. <BR/><BR/>Can you measure which is better?<BR/><BR/>Boy I don’t see how. It seems like by senior year, kids will have learned the same stuff no matter which system you use. The kids who would have chosen Biology in ninth grade surely would choose Biology in 10th or 11th grade – so they get Biology. Perhaps the one downside is if that if want to take a science elective, they have to double up (i.e. Physics + Science Elective in senior year) and also because of prerequisites, science electives can only be taken in senior year under A (I think – am I wrong on that?) <BR/><BR/>I can see arguments in favor and against all of the above, but I don’t see it to be a big factor one way or the other. I’m sure we disagree on this but at least we can know more specifically what we disagree on. Also I am not closed and open to continuing to hear other arguments.Rick Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347110422224233217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-16411186306919911102009-04-03T22:18:00.000-04:002009-04-03T22:18:00.000-04:00My thoughts:Rick - yes, this is pretty much the ke...My thoughts:<BR/><BR/>Rick - yes, this is pretty much the key issue -- why was biology removed as an option for some 9th graders? That course was widely seen as successful -- and is much more standardly taught in HS. I think it was taken away largely (entirely?) because of the concern that some kids could take it (those who had 8th grade algebra) and others couldn't. There was also a sense that a common 9th grade science curriculum would be beneficial (like we have a common social studies course and English course). I'm not convinced by this "common" experience point -- kids take different math classes and different world language classes and different electives. I don't think having an "honors" version means anything. I would have been very happy with either of two solutions: first, allowing the option of taking ecology/environmental science OR biology, and second, requiring all 9th graders to take biology (and either changing that class so that it didn't require biology OR increasing the rigor of math K to 8 so that all 8th graders took algebra). So, basically I think (again, this is my instinct, NOT data) that the new course is probably better (in multiple ways) than earth science. I am not at all convinced it is better than biology (which was said to be an excellent course). So, since we have removed biology as an option, I think an evaluation should show the course is better THAN biology (not just than earth science) -- and if an evaluation showed this (a real evaluation), I'd be happy! Does that help? You've done a great job of sticking with this and pushing me to clarify the issue, and I do appreciate it!<BR/><BR/>An interested parent - I will do my best to provide real answers. The numbers about closing MM that were given in February were estimates ... and I've seen an updated version (which will be presented in mid-April). This number was ran by Rob Detwiller -- and it shows that the savings estimated in February were actually LOWER than they are actually are (meaning closing MM saves even more money than we had thought). There is a line-by-line budget of Mark's Meadow, but that actually isn't relevant in terms of the cost savings achieved in closing it, because those kids don't disappear -- they still have to be educated elsewhere! So, closing MM doesn't just automatically eliminate this school and all its costs ... the costs (e.g., teachers, buses, etc.) would have to be transfered to the other schools. The number that has been determined by the superintendent's office takes this into account - the cost of educating 1310 kids in 3 schools versus 4 schools. The report in mid-April will give an update on Title 1 funding as well (short answer -- it doesn't have a big impact). I do NOT know about the plan for language learners who are currently bussed to specific schools -- this is an important issue, but it is separate from the budget (because this could continue in 3 schools or in 4 schools, or be discontinued in 3 schools or in 4 schools). The principals at all of the schools have indeed been asked both how well they feel they can educate an additional 180 kids (again, about 60 per school -- more in CF, less in the others), and how well they feel they can educate the kids currently in their building if we continue to maintain four schools and thus have to make major, major budget cuts. You'll get this answer in mid-April as well. <BR/><BR/>The regional budget is indeed very tricky -- and there are less easy solutions (and I agree that this is more important than a science course). The one bit of good news is that the enrollment projected in the regional schools is actually dropping pretty dramatically -- from 1764 this year, to 1539 by 2013-2014. So, in a sense, this is good because fewer kids means you don't need as many teachers/teams. <BR/><BR/>I also was impressed with the strategy discussed by Mark Jackson and Miki Germacki -- focusing on eliminating courses with traditionally low enrollments. This seems like an appropriate strategy that would at least minimize the impact. I think somewhat larger class sizes (especially in the high school) woudl be appropriate. My 5th grader right now has 26 kids in his class -- the HS aims for 22 kids in a class. That is a great ideal, but it may not be sustainable in very tight budget times. I also noted the elimination of a vice principal from both the HS and the MS -- that seems like an appropriate decision, in these very tight budget times. Finally, I think it is appropriate to focus on what is the core of our schools -- and I believe maintaining the required courses (science, math, English, world language, social studies) may need to take precedence over having such a rich array of electives (e.g., art, music, techology). I know those opportunities are valuable, but we also need to think about whether they are cost effective and whether their absence would dimish our kids' ability to keep doors open to both get into college and succeed in college. This may be a place we could cut in tight budget times, and then expand when/if times are better. I agree that the regional schools got much less attention in the SC race, which is too bad -- and if you, or others, have suggestions for the regional budget, please send them my way!Catherine A. Sandersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03523667921190365891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-29092195043257217862009-04-03T21:22:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:22:00.000-04:00I have some questions that I would like real answe...I have some questions that I would like real answers to. When the numbers you are using about how much closing Mark's meadow will save us, were given to us, they told us they are not accurate. Yet, every time you talk about closing Mark's Meadow, you say they are. This number has also been averaged up quite a bit. <BR/><BR/>How did they all of a sudden become accurate numbers?<BR/><BR/>Until Rob Detwiller gives us an ACCURATE number of how much we will save by closing MM, we should put a hold on that option. <BR/><BR/>How can we know the accurate numbers if we do not have a line-by-line of the Mark's Meadow budget ANYWHERE? <BR/><BR/>Without a line-by-line budget pf Mark's Meadow, there is NO WAY to find out how much it will "save" us each year. <BR/><BR/>Can you please ask for that budget to be done, then we can talk about how much it will really save?<BR/><BR/>Title 1 funding? Anyone have an answer yet if we can still receive it if we close MM or even just redistrict? <BR/><BR/>Language learners who are currently bussed to specific schools, do we know if this will continue to happen?<BR/><BR/>Do the principals of each of the other elementary schools feel they can accommodate the 180 children who will be relocated to their schools, and feel like they can give ALL of the children an education equivalent to the current level? Has this been asked of the principals and teachers in the other schools? Do they feel that they can adequately educate the additional children and the current specialized programs each school has? <BR/><BR/><BR/>On a different note:<BR/><BR/>How do you intend to fix the Regional budget? That is much worse than elementary and yet the elementary budget has gotten more attention. The only thing we hear about is Language and teams from the MS being cut. This budget is MUCH worse than that and again, looks worse for years to come. <BR/><BR/>How will this be fixed? I would like to hear specifics ideas of how to fix that budget. To me, that is more important to talk about than a science course. At least there IS a science course, but at the rate that budget is going, we will be lucky to have the upper ed schools at all!! <BR/><BR/>We didn't hear any specifics from the two new SC members about how they plan to fix this either. Curious. Seems like the elementary schools got more attention in this election than the regional schools and the regional budget is MUCH WORSE with little room to cut.Interested parentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6270815429299703055.post-34632235639092921602009-04-03T21:13:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:13:00.000-04:00Anon 5:55: Just go away. Posts like that add noth...Anon 5:55: Just go away. Posts like that add nothing of value. <BR/><BR/>Catherine: I want try again to narrow down what the real problem is here.<BR/><BR/>I suggest that this ninth-grade-science issue just boils down to what you said here: “I still don't see why depriving kids of the option to do biology makes sense…” I get your concern there.<BR/><BR/>You point out what you recall as to the reasons, and there is info about the decision in the links to meeting minutes (posted way above) and in the Bulletin article here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/75814/<BR/><BR/>But I think some clarification is needed so let me try:<BR/><BR/>I don’t think you have any problem with the new Ecology / Environmental Science course, and I haven’t seen anyone say it’s a bad course and in fact many say it’s a good course. So I suggest that really the only problem you have is not being able to take biology in ninth grade. <BR/><BR/>So, when you talk about wanting to measure how this course is doing (which is fine) I think maybe what you really want to measure is not that, but the effect of taking away the option of taking biology in ninth grade, right? <BR/><BR/>Here I am no agreeing or disagreeing with the removal of the ninth grade biology option but just trying to refine the problem. If we can agree that this is the real problem, we can narrow the discussion to just focusing on that: biology or no biology in ninth grade.Rick Hoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04347110422224233217noreply@blogger.com