| Author |
Message |
    
Manley
| | Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2001 - 3:36 pm: |     |
My comment was that 60 percent of our present staff is new to the district.There are many reasons.Retirement is number 1.For years, I asked the school board to have an exit interview.No response.It will be even harder now that the Human Resource Director is being let go.I am a firm believer that if we are to recruit and retain great teachers,we need an aggressive recruitment policy.We had a job fair last year.
I also believe we should actively recruit retired teachers as subs.Most retired teachers still want to teach.This policy would be two fold.
(1) retired teachers can be role models and mentors for the new teachers.
(2) temporary replacement for teaching vacancy.There will be not interruption of learning.
Another reason is the district doesn't hire administrators from their current teaching staff.They always go out of district.We are telling our teachers you can teach here,but you cannot lead here.There are many other reasons. |
Teach66
| | Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2001 - 5:15 pm: | |
So, I figure you must be "Nancy" that's throwing her name in the pot for the BOE. Now this all makes sense. Have to put my two cents in - just some final (really!) comments:
1. I'm glad to see how fiesty and argumentative you are. This is what the BOE needs someone with opinions - any opinions, that they'll stand up for. It seems that 6 months on the BOE turns most normal individuals into "bobbing heads".
2. Remember your own children. It makes me nuts when I see individuals all tied up in being at meetings/events/seminars for the sake of "the children" when their own kids have issues and are obviously looking for a little TLC.
3. You have great creditials and are savy at getting material to back up your arguments (sorry, I'm just not a believer). You might also see if there is any information regarding the platforms of previous board members or candidates. I distinctly remember several candidates not being voted in and one existing member getting the boot (Chip Maddenson?) because of all the talk about "treating each child as an individual". At that time the public felt, and even some board members expressed, that although the theory sounded very nice (and it does) the costs were prohibitive. I think that what was getting my blood going was that this multiple intelligence theory sounded very much the same.
Good Luck. |
Alidah
| | Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2001 - 8:59 pm: | |
Jennie: You need to get a little more cynical. Prefab programs like Open Court are published by companies that sell them for profit. So I don't think there is any high-minded motivation behind them other than to make money.
Go Nancy Go! |
Jennie
| | Posted on Thursday, March 1, 2001 - 11:35 pm: | |
Alidah: Who needs high-minded motivation when you have good old fashioned profit motive? The better the product, the more money to be made--a great motivation to put out a quality product all by itself. Tough for me to get more cynical, but I'll give it a try! Thanks. |
Nan
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 7:00 am: | |
Sherlock666, Put the decoder ring back in the cereal box! You are even more off them mark than usual with this one!
However, it is hard not to be flattered! (Especially when the last person on this board to be accused of secretly having public political motives was Townie, a first-rate thinker and writer. I would love to be thought of in that league!).
After reading your post I went and got the News Record to find out who you were talking about. The "Nancy" that is running for BOE has a Master's and a Ph.D.degree in literature from Columbia (the university, not the high school!). I was impressed! I do have two masters' degrees (MFA. in art, MS in education) but they are both from state schools (Go Public Education. Yes!). I did agree with everything she said (if you can believe anything you read in the News Record). I will definitely be voting for her and I'm giving her an endorsement right here!
I told my husband that I found out his name was really Pierre. He spoke to me in a French accent for the rest of the evening! My five-year-old son was not as amused to find out that he is really two girls!
I must also add that, as a working mother, I was very appalled by your remarks concerning attention to children. This is none of your business and I hope the real Nancy G. writes in to chew you out as well. |
Deadwhitemale
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 7:59 am: | |
In 1998, the Board of Ed voted to adopt an English K-2 curricula requirement for "systematic, explicit" teaching of phonemic awareness sequence. This vote adopted the recommendation of the Language Arts curriculum review committee, and was a public, official vote, after the year long review of the curriculum, as required by District policy.
Has anyone taken a look for such in the official curriculum?
Spelling and grammar were voted back in.
Use an electron microscope when seeking "systematic" through the district.
Who is responsible for tracking official policy, versus reality?
The district actually writes its own curriculum in English, unique, and not adopted by any peer reviewed committees anywhere for anything.
There is a rumor that a district in North Carolina asked for a look/see, years ago.
Should our children be the experimental subjects for teachers moonlighting as curriculum writers?Do any candidates, have anything to add?
DWM |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 8:39 am: | |
Nan, I had the same reaction about Teach's "family" comments. Somehow I couldn't honestly imagine them being directed at a candidate with the first name of Mike or Bill or Joe.
I'm sorry to read, however, that our Sherlock is off the mark as I thought you'd make an excellent Board candidate, too. See you on the 15th at the debate? We'll get to listen to the "other Nancy" in action.
Bacata |
Beach
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 9:59 am: | |
I disagree Nakaille. There are MANY Mikes, Bills, and Joes(and Beaches!)who are tied up at meetings/events/seminars. |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 10:46 am: | |
Yes, there are! But who chastises them publicly or warns them against the pitfalls? This kind of finger wagging is usually reserved for women and subtly, or not so subtly, discourages them from assuming leadership roles. Women do this to one another, too. That was my gripe.
Bacata |
Nakaille
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 10:48 am: | |
P.S. Beach, when was the last time someone besides your partner complained about how much time you spend away from the family at work or community meetings?
Bacata |
Nan
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 12:19 pm: | |
Thanks, Bacata!
I barely have time to write a few messages on this board, never mind run for political office. Although, if they start teaching explicit phonics, I may HAVE to run!
Dead,
I guess the "Facts on Phonics" sheet didn't make a dent, huh?
Are you sure that was not a 1968 meeting of the BOE? Then it would make sense.
By the way, teachers writing curriculum is standard operating procedure in every school district I've encountered. I'm sure they would rather hire experts, but then people like you tend to scream "wasteful spending" very loud when that happens.
Jennie,
I can understand your cynicism, but I think your lack of experience in the education field (of course I'm not an expert either, I just play one on this message board!) makes it difficult to accurately evaluate educational products. You assume is that because profit is the bottom line they will try to make a good product, when in fact what I think happens is that the bulk of the money goes into advertising the product, not into the product itself. You should see the PR/advertisements for Open Court-they made me want to buy it! |
Alidah
| | Posted on Friday, March 2, 2001 - 5:52 pm: | |
Yes, and I'm sure they paid some ignorant reading specialist a few thousand dollars to put the whole program together. |
Jennie
| | Posted on Saturday, March 3, 2001 - 10:40 am: | |
Nan: I agree that expertise is required to evaluate both teaching methods and curriculum, especially prior to adoption. It would seem that methods validated by scientific research would be a no brainer. What's murkier I suppose is when there is no research and it must be determined whether a method is cutting edge teaching technology or an educational fad that could potentially waste limited resources and, more importantly, students' time. It's easier to evaluate methods and curriculum effectiveness when they are in place. I don't think you need specialized training to figure out that if a child isn't learning, there's something wrong with the teaching. If the teaching is solid and the child still isn't learning, there's something wrong with the curriculum. What's tougher is then to remediate the problem. It's easy to dismiss "cookbook" style methods, but I think it is harder and more useful to distill a method down into easily useable form (that at least has a shot at being consistently implemented) than to enunciate lofty goals that the average teacher can't effectively interpret. Admittedly this is an oversimplification and teacher talent is essential to any method. But in my experience (which has been extensive, just not as an educator), it's nice to have some concrete guidelines if you are expecting any kind of consistency from classroom to classroom. |
Cbbk
| | Posted on Saturday, March 3, 2001 - 10:48 pm: | |
nan-
In response to your question, Why I assume that the curriculum is the problem in our district, you answered your own question. There is a differenc between our town and others with higher scores... the number of pupils of low socioeconomics. The children from this group may not be as prepared to begin school as their counterparts. Due to the lack of funds for Pre-School, etc. The school should be able to give the child a solid foundation. We can place the blame everywhere, that doesn't matter, what matters is the fact that many children in this district are not receiving a quality education or solid foundation for future education. This conclusion is based on my own childrens experience. I do not have the solution to this problem, but I can tell you what I have experienced and seen in the classrooms, as well as what some parents (I have spoken with) are disgusted with.
Lanuage Arts.-- grammer is not a priority, but writing is.. well, in order to write, you need good sentence structure, punctuation, etc. My 5th grader was not taught this in school, but was taught by me. Reading: My fifth grader was not taught the letter sound correation in K - 1, (he was taught with whole words), He struggled with reading, lowering his self esteem, contributing to disliking reading. Only to find out, after much frustration and persistence, there was a learning disability to be factored in (End of 3rd grade). That summer I implemented a phonics program. Low and behold, Reading improved and is still improving. My 1st grader, had no problems in kindergarten, in June, his teacher said he is a struggling with letter sounds, to work on it over the summer, Phonics was again implemented. This has produced a vast improvement.
Now Math: The Chicago math works on a spiral, It is not child friendly nor parent friendly. It does not give a foundation upon which to build. I have spoken to many parents who are frustrated and extremely upset, because their child is struggling, or crying, frustrated, etc. There are self esteem issues because of it.
From my own experience: The journals they call books, are lacking explanation of operations, examples, clear directions, and practice.
The foundation for future math skills is at risk.
I have received numerous phone calls over the last couple of years from parents (friends) asking for help in understanding what this math is about and how to explain it to their child.
-I am extremely upset about the fact that the children are told to use calculators, and they are allowed to use calculators in class! Oh yeah, that is the way to teach the basic facts, get out the calculator, you don't need to think!
I have had to find ways to teach my child basic math. It is also upsetting that I have to hold "school" after my children have been at school 6 hours, just to teach the basics. At this point homeschooling is looking better and better.
With such a diverse socioeconimic district, some of these things need to be acknowledged. According to the test scores, this is not happening.
cbbk |
Marie
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 4:40 pm: | |
Cbbk,
I am sorry to hear that you have had such a difficult time getting your son the help he needed. I empathize with you - it is often a confusing and frustrating task trying to figure out which direction to follow - who to believe - and as you seem to already know, it's often the ãexpertsä you have to steer clear of. When they tell you that your son should be declassified ( for whatever reason ) donât let them convince you of it. As you probably already know, you donât outgrow a disability. Your son's needs will change over the years and the schools must accommodate those needs. I found out the hard way that after your child's needs are finally met and they begin to not only catch up , but excel they will tell you that he should be declassified. Usually the child is doing well because his needs are finally being met! You're a good mom. Keep up the fight! Keep following your instincts as they have and will always lead you in the right direction. There is a wonderful website called LDonline. It is a free monthly newsletter chock full of great articles and the latest information regarding LD issues. Many legal issues concerning LD rights are discussed here as well. It is very user friendly and has some great sites for LD kids. Also, were you aware of our districtâs Special Ed PTA? I havenât attended any of the meetings, but they may be of some help as well. I have found Dr. McLaughlin the new director of Spec. Ed. to be very responsive, well informed and caring. Have you met with him personally? He is busy, but if you play the pittbull, youâll get a meeting with him. His secretary is also extremely nice and personable.
I completely agree with you; we need and should demand a structured reading curriculum to meet the needs of those children who don't come into the school system with the pre requisite of a thousand reading hours under their belt. These are precisely the children who need to gain all the knowledge they need IN SCHOOL and not rely on parents who can fill in the gaps at home. A structured reading curriculum like Open Court will guarantee that children will not be allowed to fall through the cracks. For kids like ours, recognizing a disability early, is the difference between a child who achieves and excels and one who falls so far behind that catching up to grade level is almost an impossibility. I am heart broken for the many children in this district who are not fortunate enough to have parents who can navigate the LD waters on their own. These kids who could be identified and helped are usually not. Systematic phonics instruction DOES increase most LD kidâs abilities to learn how to read and to increase their comprehension. You have seen first hand what an unidentified LD does to a childâs self-esteem. The incredibly unfair part of the whole thing is that most LD kids are extremely bright with very high IQ's - they can EXCEL if they are given the right tools.
As Jennie had hit upon earlier, implementation is everything - The research I have done strongly suggests that without successful program implementation, you have nothing. You have some good teachers who know how to identify and address specific issues and you have a whole lot of good teachers who donât. We need to align one or more programs (if not Open Court a similar one) with ONE method of instructional delivery, so that ALL teachers have the skills they need to teach most, if not all children to read. They need to be well-trained, caring teachers led by principals who know how to teach and implement phonics based reading programs themselves. Principals who can spend more time in the classrooms and less time balancing classrooms. We need a reading manager to be sure that implementation is happening, who reports directly to the superintendent. We need 90 minutes of reading instruction everyday before anything else happens i.e. Assemblies, rehearsing school plays, field trips. We need to test every six weeks to identify those kids who are struggling or falling behind and get them the help they need (and Project Ahead doesn't cut the cake.) We need to have teacher trainers whose only job is training teachers how to teach reading so that these programs become self supporting and self sustaining. Our kids should be given the latest scientifically research based instruction possible.
I am hopeful that the Chicago Math curriculum has seen itâs last dying breaths. I believe that the BOE is looking at a different math curriculum for all the reasons you have mentioned. I am also hopeful that the stirrings of a real revolution are in the makings in this district. Parents of all socio-economic and racial backgrounds have had enough. Teachers have had enough. Anyway, good luck to you and your son ö again he lucky to have you as a mom. |
Nan
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 7:27 pm: | |
Jennie,
The major problem with commercial packages is their one-size-fits-all approach. Since all kids don't learn the same it is essential to have teachers and reading specialists who have the training and knowledge to skillfully adapt them for good classroom use. The reading specialist's job is too complex and varied to be threatened with replacement by a packaged product.
In fact, rather than reinventing the wheel, reading specialist are always looking for and evaluating these packages for teachers to use. There are good packages available, but the reading specialist (along with teachers and principal) must determine which ones to use and how they will work within other existing programs and how the teachers will teach them. For example, some packages have good content materials, but must have all the lesson plans rewritten, or supplemented by additional materials. Some are not integrated enough, etc. Evaluating teacher efficacy with these programs is also a large part of the reading specialist's job.
Another essential part of the reading specialist's job is to provide assessment. Students who are thought to have reading difficulties are first referred to the reading specialist for evaluation. The reading specialist first addresses many reading problems. If she (he) cannot fix the problem, the student is then referred for special service evaluation.
The reading specialist is also available to model teaching practices for teachers and to act as a sounding board for their concerns. Teaching can be an isolating experience and the reading specialist serves as a valuable link between classrooms.
One more comment about packaged programs:
The main weakness in packaged programs is shown when they are deployed to a group of untrained teachers who are just told to parrot the instruction without being able to take advantage of their strengths and to amend their weaknesses. I think your concern about the average teacher not being able to handle changes in teaching styles and curriculum is unfounded as long as good in-service training is provided. This is what they learn to do in college (believe it or not-you do learn some useful things in college!). It is a shortage of good, experienced teachers we need to worry about, not overly complex curriculum content. |
Nan
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 7:30 pm: | |
Cbbk,
Before I reply to your post I want to say that I am not an "official spokesperson" or apologist for the South Orange/Maplewood school district. I do think that you have a legitimate gripe and you are not the first person to have written into this message board with or told me a similar story (especially parents with learning disabled children). I think it all indicates a serious communication problem between the school district and some of the parents. A parent should not be required to have an education degree (or any degree, for that matter) to understand what their child is learning in school, or to know how to help them at home to improve.
Since I do not yet have a child in the system, I cannot evaluate the origin or scope of this problem. Well, what can I say? Manley, here is your "Change One Thing About the Schools" platform right here: Improve communication about the curriculum between parents and the district. Perhaps they could have some workshops, or all those rejected parent volunteers who I read about on another thread could help, or even a group of articles and books held in a special collection at the library. Maybe someone besides me (like someone who actually works in the district!) could write into this message board and try to explain things once in a while! It would go a long way.
That said, I think you should do some serious research on and thinking about the curriculum before you reject it in favor of a basic skills model. Do you really believe that lots of grammar and spelling are the magic bullets required to write convincingly about a topic, or that phonics drills make a student love reading? Are you really sure no thinking goes on in a math class that uses calculators? Grammar, spelling and math operations are important skills, but they are only partial elements of a good curriculum, and mastery of them alone will not provide a good education, and will not boost test scores either.
If your child has a learning disability, it may be that they need more individual work in these skills, but it would not be something you would wish on the whole district. Think for a minute: do you really want to provide a "basic skills" education for low SES students, and then let all the "smart" kids in Livingston and Millburn have a program that emphasizes higher-order thinking skills? Where do you think this would lead? You want your kids to have the same opportunities as everyone else, not be told they can only absorb concrete, fact-based knowledge. This is why our district must try to provide a type of "differentiated" education for all, and why they are committed to a balanced literacy program, a concept oriented math program and so attracted to the "Multiple Intelligence" approach. Of course it would help if they would tell you this, not me!
I think you have a lot to bark about, but I'm not sure you have found the right tree yet. I think it would help you to try and learn all you can about the reading and math curriculum taught in the school, rather than just dismiss it because it frustrates you that the school provides zero information. The fact that your daughter's teacher identified a specific problem and then gave you something concrete to work on (which produced results) shows that there must be some things right with the system. This, after all, contradicts some of the other statements you make about being in the dark and not being able to help. |
Spw784
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 8:08 pm: | |
Nan,
As a district employee, I'd be more than happy to try to answer any elementary-related questions. (or find someone who can answer them). I am not a regular classroom teacher, however, so as far as Chicago Math and Open Court goes, I cannot provide any input. I have answered questions and provided insight on various threads throughout MWOnline in the past, and will continue to do so.
Just remember, I am NOT a district spokesperson or administrator. |
Msuewillis
| | Posted on Sunday, March 4, 2001 - 9:34 pm: | |
Two points:
1. Phonics appears to be useful in teaching some kids to read. Other kids learn to read better using other methods. Therefore, it seems common sense to me to have teachers trained in several methods who are able to fit the best method to each child.
2. I've been teaching writing to people from elementary age through college and adult for more than thirty years. To the best of my understanding, grammar drill is not a building block for written expression. Grammar drill is probably useful for people learning English as a second language or for those learning a dialect like Standard American English if that is not their native dialect. Grammar drill may also be useful in learning how to edit written expression in preparation for presentation or publication. But the practice of writing ideas clearly and thoughtfully is an almost totally separate skill. |
Marie
| | Posted on Monday, March 5, 2001 - 1:18 am: | |
A Return to Scientific Reading Instruction
Dr. Patrick Groff
Professor Emeritus
San Diego State University
San Diego, California
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 20, 2000
The importance of science in modern society is manifested in numberless ways. We look to guidance from science as to how to best protect or restore our physical or emotional well-being. Great confidence is placed on scientific solutions to everything from infant earaches to the construction of bridges and intercontinental missiles.
Knowing of the deep respect there is for scientific care of sick youngsters and for prevention of childhood diseases, it is logical to presume that science also should be consulted for answers to questions about the ways children are educated. It therefore is startling to find that many public schools today teach students to read using unscientific procedures.
Of late, reading instruction in schools has moved so far away from how relevant experimental research findings indicate it should be conducted that a vigorous controversy over this matter has developed. On one side of the "reading wars, " as the media has dubbed the debate, are reading instruction specialists who honor experimental findings as the most suitable source of information on how to teach children to read. Lined up against defenders of scientific evidence in this regard are members of the Whole Language movement.
They are reading teaching professionals who argue that students best learn to read in the same informal, natural manner in which they previously learned to speak, as preschoolers. It consequently is held that direct, early, and systemic (DES) teaching of a prearranged hierarchy of reading skills is unnecessary. The DES teaching of reading is impractical, advocates of Whole Language teaching contend, since each child supposedly enters school with a unique, immutable learning style. In genuine Whole Language classes, a student is empowered not only to decide how he/she will learn to read, but also to personally construct the meanings of written materials.
No reputable psychologist, linguist, cognitive scientist, nor neurologist currently endorses The Whole Language hypothesis that children's learning to speak and to read are the same linguistic processes. In addition, the effectiveness of none of the original principles nor novel practices of Whole Language reading instruction is corroborated by relevant experimental evidence. The Whole Language movement reacts to the se facts by producing much qualitative (anecdotal, nonnumerical, subjective, loosely organized, unreplicable, nonscientific) research evidence as support for its instructional innovation. This kind of evidence consistently contradicts that generated by experimental studies of children's reading development.
The present dispute over reading instruction grew from the realization by reading teaching authorities that findings about their educational specialty from experimental, as versus qualitative research, are irreconcilable. Accordingly, anyone convinced that children must be afforded full opportunity to learn to read has to make a forced-choice between DES reading instruction based on scientific findings, and Whole Language reading teaching founded on qualitative evidence.
There is reassurance for parents, teachers, school officials, education professors, lawmakers, business and social organizations, and the public in general, who opt in favor of DES reading instruction, that they have made the correct choice. This is found in the April 2000 report by the National Reading Panel (NRP) of its critical analysis of experimental research on reading instruction (published by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development). From a total of 300 applicants to serve as unpaid volunteers on the NRP, 14 were selected: 1 teacher, 1 school principal, 1 certified public accountant, 2 university officials, and 9 professors of education, psychology, and medicine.
The NRP's report on how children best learn to read is based on its reference to over 100,000 applicable experimental studies on this matter. To be able to read proficiently, children must acquire four essential knowledges and skills, the NRP concluded. These are:
Conscious awareness of the speech sounds in spoken words. This is called phonemic awareness;
Recognition that letters are used to represent speech sounds. This is called phonics information;
Capacity to read a text so as "to understand what is read." To "understand" a text, the NRP believes, is to read it with the presumption that part of its meaning "resides in the intentional problem solving, thinking process of the reader." In this view, meanings in a given text are "constructed" by each student through "a reciprocal interchange of ideas" between him/her and the message that an author intended to communicate. This is called reading comprehension.
However, to many defenders of DES teaching of reading, this sort of interchange between reader and author is nothing more than imprecise reading comprehension. It is argued that personal opinions by children of the meanings authors wish to transmit are not accurate enough to be called authentic, reliable reading comprehension. |
|