This meeting began with two comments from the audience that touched on issues of academics. First, Steve Rivkin expressed concerns he had heard from parents that the math curriculum report presented a few weeks ago did not allow adequate time for questions. He also raised the issue of whether using "math coaches" was the best use of resources in these tough budget times. Then, Janet McGowan asked whether a decision has been made about the Impact I math books for 6th graders. I noted that this decision has not been made, but would be made by teachers (and ultimately selected by the superintendents).
The School Committee then heard a report on the world language program at Wildwood Elementary School. Briefly, Matt Behnke, Wildwood principal, reported that the program is going well and is exciting for teachers and children. He also noted some scheduling challenges, but he feels those can be resolved.
A number of questions were then raised about this program. I asked questions regarding how teaching Chinese fits in in terms of time to teach other subjects, and whether we would begin teaching world languages in the other elementary schools in the near future (it does seem like Wildwood is having a very different experience than the other 3 elementary schoools). I also expressed a desire for our committee to hear the report on world language, which was done this summer (and includes proposals for having world language expanded into the other schools). Other questions were raised about the budget implications of teaching world language and the benefits from talking to other districts with world language at the elementary school level to get information about managing logistics.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Regional Meeting, November 4, 2008
This meeting began with an update by Superintendent Al Sprague on whether the district does exit surveys when parents choose to leave the district (an idea that I've suggested repeatedly, to no avail). The high school currently does have an exit survey (although I've never seen data from this survey, so I have no idea when/how/who looks at this information), but the other schools do not collect such information. I believe it is essential that we start to understand why some parents might opt out of the public schools -- particularly in this time of increased options for elementary school children with the new Chinese Charter School -- and I very much hope that this district will choose to initiate this type of survey whenever a parent chooses to leave our public schools.
We then heard some new high school course proposals (all were approved), and voted on some policies.
Andy then described the interest some parents and School Committee members had in hearing about the trimester schedule, and its costs and benefits. I am strongly in favor of hearing information on this system, because I've heard concerns from parents and teachers about the problems with this system (including difficult timing for taking some MCAS tests, gaps in world languages, and inadequate amount of time for students to process information in a relatively small number of weeks). As I stated at the meeting, however, I'm not interested in hearing summaries of the overall costs/benefits and/or historical information about how we chose this system--I want to see data on the effects of this system on achievement (AP tests, SAT IIs, MCAS, etc.). Marianne Jorgensen then noted that both she and Elaine Brighty had asked for that information when the trimester system was first implemented--but that no data was ever collected (which seems shocking, but not surprising). It was then suggested that either this issue be turned over to the new "How Are We Doing Subcommittee" or that Michael Katz would prepare a proposal on this issue and bring it to a future meeting.
Finally, we returned to the issue of the retreat. I again noted my objection to such a retreat (I just don't think this is a key thing we need to focus on right now, when there is clearly much actual work to be done), but that I would go if the School Committee voted for it. And so they did -- 6 pro, 2 against (me and Kathleen Anderson). January 24th it will be.
We then heard some new high school course proposals (all were approved), and voted on some policies.
Andy then described the interest some parents and School Committee members had in hearing about the trimester schedule, and its costs and benefits. I am strongly in favor of hearing information on this system, because I've heard concerns from parents and teachers about the problems with this system (including difficult timing for taking some MCAS tests, gaps in world languages, and inadequate amount of time for students to process information in a relatively small number of weeks). As I stated at the meeting, however, I'm not interested in hearing summaries of the overall costs/benefits and/or historical information about how we chose this system--I want to see data on the effects of this system on achievement (AP tests, SAT IIs, MCAS, etc.). Marianne Jorgensen then noted that both she and Elaine Brighty had asked for that information when the trimester system was first implemented--but that no data was ever collected (which seems shocking, but not surprising). It was then suggested that either this issue be turned over to the new "How Are We Doing Subcommittee" or that Michael Katz would prepare a proposal on this issue and bring it to a future meeting.
Finally, we returned to the issue of the retreat. I again noted my objection to such a retreat (I just don't think this is a key thing we need to focus on right now, when there is clearly much actual work to be done), but that I would go if the School Committee voted for it. And so they did -- 6 pro, 2 against (me and Kathleen Anderson). January 24th it will be.
Regional Meeting, October 28, 2008
Tonight's meeting consisted largely of a presentation on curriculum and professional development by Mike Hayes, K to 12 Curriculum Administrator, and Fran Ziperstein, Director of Professional Development and Curriculum. This presentation included information on the current curriculum cycle of revision and evaluation as well as the district's plan for providing professional development and evaluation to teachers. I asked two questions about the presentation: the current state of the social studies review (this review is still in its early stages) and how we compare our own disrict to other districts (this process is not particularly established, meaning we don't have a set of comparison districts by which to evaluate our own curriculum).
Andy Churchill suggested (like he did earlier at the Amherst School Committee Meeting) that we have a "How are We Doing Committee." This sub-committee was established, and will include Andy, Marianne Jorgensen (Shutesbury), Elaine Brighty (Amherst), and me.
We then turned to discuss how items are placed on the agenda for School Committee meetings. This item was added at my request, following persistent frustration that I've experienced throughout my time on the School Committee in terms of getting issues on the agenda (I send ideas to the Chairs and yet these ideas are virtually never placed on the agenda). It was made clear that any members of School Committee can suggest ideas, but that the chair can choose not to put the item on the agenda. However, any member can then request a vote on whether an item could be put on the agenda--if that motion is seconded, a vote will occur. So, watch for some motions and votes in the future!
Andy Churchill suggested (like he did earlier at the Amherst School Committee Meeting) that we have a "How are We Doing Committee." This sub-committee was established, and will include Andy, Marianne Jorgensen (Shutesbury), Elaine Brighty (Amherst), and me.
We then turned to discuss how items are placed on the agenda for School Committee meetings. This item was added at my request, following persistent frustration that I've experienced throughout my time on the School Committee in terms of getting issues on the agenda (I send ideas to the Chairs and yet these ideas are virtually never placed on the agenda). It was made clear that any members of School Committee can suggest ideas, but that the chair can choose not to put the item on the agenda. However, any member can then request a vote on whether an item could be put on the agenda--if that motion is seconded, a vote will occur. So, watch for some motions and votes in the future!
Amherst Meeting, October 14, 2008
Tonight's meeting consisted largely of an update from each of the elementary school principals, followed by a presentation by Mike Hayes on the K to 6 math program. This presentation is available on the ARPS website: http://www.arps.org/node/345. Because this report is available on the website, I won't go through all details of it, but do want to make a few points (from the perspective of a School Committee member, parent of 2 kids -- next year 3! -- in the elementary schools, and a member of the Math Review Committee.
First, I do believe that it is good the district is finally looking at the math curriculum from a K to 12 perspective. This seems very important in terms of making sure all kids are able to move in sequence through the appropriate math topics/courses.
Second, it is clear that the district is at a pretty critical point in terms of math in a number of ways. One issue that was brought up is whether the 6th graders in all schools should be using Impact I (the first year of the sequence of math books now used by 7th and 8th graders). This seems like a very easy decision to me -- particularly because it would help equalize the experience kids have in math prior to the middle school. This decision will be made by a subcommittee of teachers, with a recommendation due later this year (and such an adoption would cost about $25,000). Another issue that was brought up was whether the 8th grade should have the option of a regular algebra class (in the current system, we provide 8th grade honors, which is a very intense class, and a regular 8th grade math class that touches on algebra but only prepares students for algebra in high school). Although this idea was seen as too close to tracking (by Mike Hayes), it seems to me that our two classes are in fact tracks -- we just have opted for the highest and lowest options of tracks, and not a middle choice. I would imagine that a stronger elementary schoool math curriculum (which could include Impact I for all 6th graders) could potentially lead us to be able to offer two tracks at the middle and high level instead, which seems preferable.
The presentation was very long, and hence several parents had questions that were not able to be answered. These questions were given to Mike Hayes, and their answers are now posted on the district website. These questions included one by Steve Rivkin on what the district is doing to support kids who are struggling in math, as well as one by Caroline Goutte on what the arguments would be against using Impact 1 for all 6th graders. I do think it is unfortunate that the presentation of the math topic (one of great interest to many parents) was presented the same night as the principals' updates, which led to a very long evening -- and hence a lack of an ability to have a real discussion and get community questions answered.
First, I do believe that it is good the district is finally looking at the math curriculum from a K to 12 perspective. This seems very important in terms of making sure all kids are able to move in sequence through the appropriate math topics/courses.
Second, it is clear that the district is at a pretty critical point in terms of math in a number of ways. One issue that was brought up is whether the 6th graders in all schools should be using Impact I (the first year of the sequence of math books now used by 7th and 8th graders). This seems like a very easy decision to me -- particularly because it would help equalize the experience kids have in math prior to the middle school. This decision will be made by a subcommittee of teachers, with a recommendation due later this year (and such an adoption would cost about $25,000). Another issue that was brought up was whether the 8th grade should have the option of a regular algebra class (in the current system, we provide 8th grade honors, which is a very intense class, and a regular 8th grade math class that touches on algebra but only prepares students for algebra in high school). Although this idea was seen as too close to tracking (by Mike Hayes), it seems to me that our two classes are in fact tracks -- we just have opted for the highest and lowest options of tracks, and not a middle choice. I would imagine that a stronger elementary schoool math curriculum (which could include Impact I for all 6th graders) could potentially lead us to be able to offer two tracks at the middle and high level instead, which seems preferable.
The presentation was very long, and hence several parents had questions that were not able to be answered. These questions were given to Mike Hayes, and their answers are now posted on the district website. These questions included one by Steve Rivkin on what the district is doing to support kids who are struggling in math, as well as one by Caroline Goutte on what the arguments would be against using Impact 1 for all 6th graders. I do think it is unfortunate that the presentation of the math topic (one of great interest to many parents) was presented the same night as the principals' updates, which led to a very long evening -- and hence a lack of an ability to have a real discussion and get community questions answered.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Regional Meeting, October 7, 2008
Once again, this meeting started with thoughtful public comment from Steve Rivkin, who expressed concern about the brevity of the trimester report (now available on the district homepage) as well as the incomplete nature of the 9th grade science evaluation (also available on the district homepage). He expressed the view that if this district is really committed to data analysis and program evaluation, we need to be doing a more careful and thorough job. School Committee member Elaine Brighty expressed the view that it is not the responsibility of the School Committee to conduct such reviews, or to insist that such reviews are done. Steve then noted that he thought this was really unfortunate, given that the School Committee ultimately hires and monitors the Superintendent, and that one of the key jobs of the Superintendent is to make sure that programs and curricula in the district are working well -- thus, it seems as if the School Committee should in fact have an interest in and ability to oversee such evaluation work. I then echoed that point, noting that when all nine members of the School Committee voted unanimously for the new 9th grade science program in January, they assured concerned members of the public that of course a thorough review of this program would occur, and yet the review as it stands now, is incomplete and will make it impossible to tell whether this new program is working (and this review only occurred because following my election to School Committee, I insisted that an evaluation was done).
School Committee Chair Michael Hussin then expressed frustration with these comments, noting that it would be impossible to evaluate a program that has not yet occurred (given that the new 9th grade course is only in its first few weeks) and that of course such an evaluation would be done. I raised my hand to explain that one could not actually evaluate this new course without having good baseline data - meaning how 9th graders in biology versus earth science (the two courses previously offered to 9th graders) experienced those courses in particular — so that we could then see whether students experience the new ecology/ environmental science course as better, the same as, or worse than biology and earth sciences. This is the crucial issue that must be examined, and the report in its current form does not allow one to do this. However, Michael Hussin noted that as Chair, it is his prerogative to move the discussion along, and he chose not to call on me.
The meeting then focused on a review of the MCAS data for the district, a report on the tragic bus accident, and some voting on policies. We postponed a discussion on the "How are We Doing Committee." The last portion of the meeting focused on a retreat of the School Committee. As I've noted before, I'm not in favor of such a retreat, if the public will not be able to see the discussion during the retreat (which is what the other committee members have requested). However, the retreat will happen, and it will be private.
School Committee Chair Michael Hussin then expressed frustration with these comments, noting that it would be impossible to evaluate a program that has not yet occurred (given that the new 9th grade course is only in its first few weeks) and that of course such an evaluation would be done. I raised my hand to explain that one could not actually evaluate this new course without having good baseline data - meaning how 9th graders in biology versus earth science (the two courses previously offered to 9th graders) experienced those courses in particular — so that we could then see whether students experience the new ecology/ environmental science course as better, the same as, or worse than biology and earth sciences. This is the crucial issue that must be examined, and the report in its current form does not allow one to do this. However, Michael Hussin noted that as Chair, it is his prerogative to move the discussion along, and he chose not to call on me.
The meeting then focused on a review of the MCAS data for the district, a report on the tragic bus accident, and some voting on policies. We postponed a discussion on the "How are We Doing Committee." The last portion of the meeting focused on a retreat of the School Committee. As I've noted before, I'm not in favor of such a retreat, if the public will not be able to see the discussion during the retreat (which is what the other committee members have requested). However, the retreat will happen, and it will be private.
Regional Meeting, September 23, 2008
This meeting focused largely on the superintendent search process (and more on this soon). The only real discussion that focused on academics was a result of the public comment section. Steve Rivkin asked a question about the 9th grade science review, and in particular expressed concern about the nature of that review. (I've read this review, and it is available on the district homepage -- and unfortunately the review fails to really examine the key question, which is to characterize the experience of 9th graders in honors biology versus earth science so that we have a good baseline with which to assess the new required ecology/environmental science course.) The Superintendent and School Committee Chair suggested all questions on this be referred to Mark Jackson, the high school principal. This advice frankly seems very surprising to me, given that it was the School Committee vote that brought this new required course -- and at the time, each member of the committee assured the public that this course would be evaluated. Again, it just seems like the high school principal should not be tasked with creating empirical evaluations, and I was surprised at the total lack of interest/support on the part of the School Committee for conducting a thorough evaluation.
We then heard an update on the district website and received information on the district MCAS scores. The bulk of the meeting (nearly two hours) focused on the superintendent search process, and in particular crafting an ad and a brochure for this position. The committee basically agreed on some text for both of these, and the ad will be submitted to Education Week by early October (with a deadline of mid-December). Hiring a new superintendent who is truly committed to academic excellence for all students is obviously the most important thing the School Committee will do this year, and I'm very hopeful that we can find someone great. It will be very important to have parent/community input on this process later this year, when we bring candidates to town for public visits -- please keep that in mind!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Future of Amherst
As one who cares passionately about the future of Amherst, and in particular the quality of public education available for all kids in Amherst, I want to encourage all followers of this Blog to attend one of the very informative presentations made by the Community Choices committee, an outstanding non-partisan committee charged with educating the public about the current budget situation in Amherst, presenting alternative budget scenarios for each area of our budget, and soliciting public feedback with the ultimate goal of making recommendations to the Finance Committee and Town Meeting. They have put together an excellent presentation, and are very eager to get public feedback about our priorities for this town — you can see the presentation at many forums around town (dates/times/locations on their website) OR at their website (www.amherstchoices.org). You can also submit your feedback on line by going to this website — which is a great way of making YOUR voice heard. Getting lots of feedback from lots of voices is really crucial, so please take some time over the next month (they want the feedback by early November) to learn about the choices and complete the quick and easy on-line survey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
