Posts
My fifth issue is to make sure that associations and advisers are focused on academics, not politics.
I was asked today, by a reporter, about my opinion of the mission statement Educating all students to ensure the future of our democracy. As you know from reading this blog, I think there are much better mission statements. But, let me go into a little more detail about my concerns, and my suggestion.
First, this mission statement has nothing to do with academics. Have you ever tried to take a picture and then moved the 'auto-focus square' to something other than what you wanted? The result means that the forearm might be in focus, but the face is blurry. Schools exist to teach kids how to read, write, and do math (and history, science and art, as well). When we shift our focus from the basics, we lose our clarity of purpose. Of necessity, we will also lose some of the achievements in those areas, as well. Anytime our focus isn't on basic academics, the academics will not have the emphasis and the subsequent results that they should.
Second, assuming we want a somewhat political statement, shouldn't it at least be factual? Our Founding Fathers were pretty clear about the Constitution establishing a republic and not a democracy. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a woman at the close of the Constitutional Convention, "What kind of government have you given us?" He replied, "A Republic...if you can keep it." You are welcome to explore the Founders' views on democracy and republic, but, suffice it to say, the Constitution establishes a Republic to preserve those natural "unalienable rights" Jefferson referred to in the Declaration of Independence. To me, having a mission statement that refers to our system of government as a democracy, rather than a republic, is a bit like teaching a kid 2+2 = 5. It's close, but still wrong. We should be in the business of accurately representing all facts to our students. Their conclusions are their own, but the answer to 2+2 should always be 4.
Next, I am concerned with the way the parent complaints about the mission statement were handled. Anytime you have a customer complaint, you have failed either in setting appropriate expectations or delivering on your promises. In either case, there is work for you to do. It is always best to acknowledge the customer's concerns as valid, and work toward resolving those concerns. None of that was done in this case. There seemed to be an emotional tie to the mission statement from the board that didn't make sense. I've worked for several organizations, and I can say I never had an emotional tie to a mission statement. Why was this the case with the school board?
Perhaps it was because, as I read, it took over 40 meetings to come up with the mission statement. At first blush, you have to wonder how inefficient it must be to spend that amount of time and come up with something so non-academic. However, just a few weeks ago, it was clarified (in a meeting I attended) that the Areas of Focus took 40 meetings. The mission statement (and motto: Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy) came almost verbatim from the writings of Dr. John I. Goodlad.
This leads me to my final point. If we are taking cues from one individual (or an organization), should we not discover what that individual/organization has to say about those issues? I would like to share with you two quotes taken from Developing Democratic Character in the Young (Goodlad, et. al.) "Parents do not own their children. They have no 'natural right' to control their education fully." And, "Public education has served as a check on the power of the parents, and this is another powerful reason for maintaining it." Having enjoyed reading this tome over the past few weeks, I can say the most distressing part of Dr. Goodlad's emphasis is the devaluation of the parents and their values. This is integral in developing good "democratic" character because parents may be steeped in religion and values that do not agree with what Dr. Goodlad emphasizes as the purpose of his idea of 'democracy'. In short, if we are teaching morals in school, whose morals are they? Dr. Goodlad's or yours?
The bottom line is that parents want to send their kids to a school that teaches core academics. Our schools should reflect that desire. Ultimately, the students and their families are primarily responsible for their learning. The teachers, schools, and district are there to assist families by providing additional educational opportunities. I am very grateful to my kids' teachers who have assisted us with this rewarding task. I would like the district to maintain the focus on those issues that are most important to public education--reading, writing, and arithmetic.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Reading, Writing, and the Arts
Today, I was graciously invited to attend a school community council meeting with my opponent. It was a great learning opportunity because one question that was asked caught me by surprise. The question was, in essence, "Have you read the studies that talk about the benefits of the arts to math and reading, etc.? So, where do the arts fit in to Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic?" I have to admit I floundered. What I did respond with and do know is that math and music are very directly linked. Improvement in math skills has a strong correlation with musical involvement. (In fact, my senior year in High School, I had to write a research paper for my math class, and I chose to do it on this very topic--the relationship of math and music.) I am a musician and a mathematician. I believe that music has enhanced my ability with math, and vice versa. I have a great appreciation for the beauty and intricacies of each discipline. Having said that, let me attempt to answer the question in more detail.
Art fits into the three R's as a complement, but also as an elective. All our students are expected to emerge from school well-versed in a foundation of the three R's. This is the focus as it applies to every student. For example, we don't have parents who send their kids to school and opt out of reading. The basic academic disciplines are the universal requirements. The basic knowledge in these disciplines is the primary reason for school. Along with the three R's, every child is going to be taught science and history, as well as introductions to the humanities. But not every child will be in the band, or play sports, or study sculpture. Because of the universal emphasis for basic academics it necessitates greater focus.
As I have spoken with parents, I have received feedback that they would like more focus on academics. It is not to devalue the arts or sports, but simply the idea of "more basics". I support a classic liberal arts education. Appreciation of art, architecture, literature, and music are things that all students should be exposed to. We acknowledge the Renaissance and the advancements in, not just art, but science as well, as a true 'rebirth' in history. We want students to understand and appreciate all these beauties and wonders around them. I, personally, have great memories of my school-days' associations in our Madrigal choir. But, when all was said and done, I was still expected to have that academic foundation.
A school board member has a responsibility to represent the ideas, issues, and concerns of the community to the district. You need to know that as I am presented with information and decisions, I will be doing so through the prism of "more focus on the basics". Does this mean I have a specific action plan? No. Do I wish to defund the arts or cut back on these programs? No. It is my desire to communicate to you, what principles I will fall back on as I take on these responsibilities. "A focus on more basics" will be part of that process.
Art fits into the three R's as a complement, but also as an elective. All our students are expected to emerge from school well-versed in a foundation of the three R's. This is the focus as it applies to every student. For example, we don't have parents who send their kids to school and opt out of reading. The basic academic disciplines are the universal requirements. The basic knowledge in these disciplines is the primary reason for school. Along with the three R's, every child is going to be taught science and history, as well as introductions to the humanities. But not every child will be in the band, or play sports, or study sculpture. Because of the universal emphasis for basic academics it necessitates greater focus.
As I have spoken with parents, I have received feedback that they would like more focus on academics. It is not to devalue the arts or sports, but simply the idea of "more basics". I support a classic liberal arts education. Appreciation of art, architecture, literature, and music are things that all students should be exposed to. We acknowledge the Renaissance and the advancements in, not just art, but science as well, as a true 'rebirth' in history. We want students to understand and appreciate all these beauties and wonders around them. I, personally, have great memories of my school-days' associations in our Madrigal choir. But, when all was said and done, I was still expected to have that academic foundation.
A school board member has a responsibility to represent the ideas, issues, and concerns of the community to the district. You need to know that as I am presented with information and decisions, I will be doing so through the prism of "more focus on the basics". Does this mean I have a specific action plan? No. Do I wish to defund the arts or cut back on these programs? No. It is my desire to communicate to you, what principles I will fall back on as I take on these responsibilities. "A focus on more basics" will be part of that process.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
If Only There Were More Hours in the Day
In the past few weeks, the idea of extending school days and the school year has been proffered by both the President and the Secretary of Education. The reasoning goes like this. The US does not do very well on international math and science tests. A lot of countries do better and many of their kids go to school longer or for more hours a day. Therefore, if we extend the hours in school, math and science proficiency will increase. I just have one question. Will throwing more time at the problem result in higher test scores?
Here's the problem as I see it.
First, every so many years, a new "New Math" program comes out. Most, like the latest get-rich-quick or diet fads, promise to teach kids greater understanding of math without any of the difficulties we commonly associate with math. No times tables. No long division. Instead, we have: What color is the number 10? Kids like it because it's easy and fun. Some teachers like it. And parents like it until they realize their kid doesn't know basic arithmetic.
And science? Science is dependent on math skills to quantify its ideas and implementations. To be good in science, you have to have fluency with math. It's that simple.
In ASD, we spent several years, and the mathematical foundation of thousands of students, on Investigations Math. This, and other related programs, are ubiquitous in this country. (My sister, a teacher in New Jersey, had to deal with "Fuzzy Math".) If we had increased classroom time during "Investigations", would our kids have a firmer grasp of math? No. Would more time on a diet that doesn't work result in weight loss? More time spent does not equate to a better result.
Even teaching traditional math, more class time doesn't equal more proficiency. Like budgeting, dieting, sports, or most anything else, you learn a principle, and then you have to put that principle into practice. Michael Jordan didn't become a great basketball player by just studying dribbling and three-point-shooting. He had to spend a lot of time practicing. The same is true for math and science. Math is about seeing relationships between numbers. Science is finding relationships in nature by way of math. If you do not have the basic facts as an automatic part of your problem solving, you can't free up higher brain functions to find those higher-level relationships. We need to ensure we are teaching a good foundation of the basics and encouraging practice. And then, we will see improvement.
Next, I am reminded of a phrase that says, "Sometimes less is more". Sometimes putting more of something into a problem doesn't yield good enough results to justify the effort you put into it. I read the account of a woman who decided to cut back her work day by one or two hours each day. She was amazed to find that she accomplished the same amount of work in less time. We tend to fill the time we have. There is a point at which the time is properly managed and a point when it is wasted (or even counter-productive). Let's not turn math instruction into "too much of a good thing".
Finally, whether it is intentional or not, increased school hours result in fewer family hours. The days are already filled with school, homework, and various activities. How many days each week do you have where you are not running kids from one thing to the next? How many days are you actively involved with your family, as a family? The most important of all relationships are those within our own families. We need to be able to properly balance school, activities and home life. Parental involvement is what is needed, not more school time.
There are so many days I have wished for more hours in the day. But the answer isn't more hours. The answer is in optimizing the hours that we have.
Here's the problem as I see it.
First, every so many years, a new "New Math" program comes out. Most, like the latest get-rich-quick or diet fads, promise to teach kids greater understanding of math without any of the difficulties we commonly associate with math. No times tables. No long division. Instead, we have: What color is the number 10? Kids like it because it's easy and fun. Some teachers like it. And parents like it until they realize their kid doesn't know basic arithmetic.
And science? Science is dependent on math skills to quantify its ideas and implementations. To be good in science, you have to have fluency with math. It's that simple.
In ASD, we spent several years, and the mathematical foundation of thousands of students, on Investigations Math. This, and other related programs, are ubiquitous in this country. (My sister, a teacher in New Jersey, had to deal with "Fuzzy Math".) If we had increased classroom time during "Investigations", would our kids have a firmer grasp of math? No. Would more time on a diet that doesn't work result in weight loss? More time spent does not equate to a better result.
Even teaching traditional math, more class time doesn't equal more proficiency. Like budgeting, dieting, sports, or most anything else, you learn a principle, and then you have to put that principle into practice. Michael Jordan didn't become a great basketball player by just studying dribbling and three-point-shooting. He had to spend a lot of time practicing. The same is true for math and science. Math is about seeing relationships between numbers. Science is finding relationships in nature by way of math. If you do not have the basic facts as an automatic part of your problem solving, you can't free up higher brain functions to find those higher-level relationships. We need to ensure we are teaching a good foundation of the basics and encouraging practice. And then, we will see improvement.
Next, I am reminded of a phrase that says, "Sometimes less is more". Sometimes putting more of something into a problem doesn't yield good enough results to justify the effort you put into it. I read the account of a woman who decided to cut back her work day by one or two hours each day. She was amazed to find that she accomplished the same amount of work in less time. We tend to fill the time we have. There is a point at which the time is properly managed and a point when it is wasted (or even counter-productive). Let's not turn math instruction into "too much of a good thing".
Finally, whether it is intentional or not, increased school hours result in fewer family hours. The days are already filled with school, homework, and various activities. How many days each week do you have where you are not running kids from one thing to the next? How many days are you actively involved with your family, as a family? The most important of all relationships are those within our own families. We need to be able to properly balance school, activities and home life. Parental involvement is what is needed, not more school time.
There are so many days I have wished for more hours in the day. But the answer isn't more hours. The answer is in optimizing the hours that we have.
Friday, September 17, 2010
4. Financial Accountability
The role of school board member for Alpine School District (ASD) comes with an amazing fiscal responsibility. 100% of our state income tax goes to education. Approximately 67% of our property tax goes to education, and in this area, with a very small amount excepted, that property tax goes directly to ASD. None of this is a bad thing, but it underscores the great responsibility that comes with so great a trust. Since, by law, the school board approves the district budget and appoints the superintendent, the school board is the final decision-maker on those large percentages of your state and local tax dollars.
At a recent board meeting, it was outlined how well, fiscally, the district does. We spend more than other districts in Utah on teacher salaries and compensation, but less overall, per pupil. This indicates a good "bang for the buck".
At the same time, the district is going to request a new bond in 2011. The discussions have centered on population growth, and whether or not to bond a little bit at a time and ask for bonding more frequently or to bond for a lot of money less frequently. The board has decided that more money, less often is the approach they want to take.
The bond appears to be a foregone conclusion. In all the discussions, there hasn't been any specifics as to why the bond is needed. There are implications (with the growth) that there will be new schools built and older ones refurbished, but what the bond will actually provide has been sketchy.
Because of the fiscal soundness of the district, it is easy to just accept things with complacency. However, we are in a recession, and tax revenues have plummeted, as has the employment rate. The idea that people will be able to accommodate the additional burden associated with a bond isn't a foregone conclusion. This brings us back to why we have a school board. At all levels of government, we have a check and balance. The board is there to represent and advocate for the interests of the community at large. They are not there to agree and support the district's initiatives. The board members are to weigh the pros and cons of these fiscal decisions, not just on the district, but also on the individuals that make up this community. I would suggest that the board should present voters with a Plan A and a Plan B. Plan A is with the bond, Plan B is without. Give the voters a clear choice, not just a plea for more money.
Since tax money, by definition, comes from the labors of others, it is a solemn duty that the school board undertakes as it approves and votes on these fiscal matters. It is important that every aspect of this be open to public scrutiny. I have seen recently that part of the benefit of public comment is that school boards, and city councils cannot possess enough knowledge and wisdom to cover all the possibilities and aspects of the major issues impacting the population they represent. Giving the public information and allowing them to do the research for you, benefits everyone. Those who are interested use their expertise to advise the governing body. In effect, the research arm of the school board is made up of the residents. Ideas and options unimagined by the board can be presented and, possibly, used when the people are given the opportunity to help find our solutions. Public comment is invaluable, not to lead the public where you want them to go, but to obtain the necessary information from those with the additional knowledge that 7 members of a school board cannot possibly have on their own.
Finally, it is important to understand the impact of our fiscal decisions on both the children in our schools as well as the people who pay for those schools. It has been and always will be a balancing act. No one thinks that 100% of one's income should go to public schools. At the same time, there is always the opportunity of what could be done with more funding. In short, there is no "perfect" balance. This is why board members are just people in the community--there to represent the interests of all: balancing the needs of our schools with the needs of the people. George Washington said of government, "It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The fiscal responsibility of a school board member is to keep the balance between what the schools need to operate and the burden imposed, by force, on our community.
At a recent board meeting, it was outlined how well, fiscally, the district does. We spend more than other districts in Utah on teacher salaries and compensation, but less overall, per pupil. This indicates a good "bang for the buck".
At the same time, the district is going to request a new bond in 2011. The discussions have centered on population growth, and whether or not to bond a little bit at a time and ask for bonding more frequently or to bond for a lot of money less frequently. The board has decided that more money, less often is the approach they want to take.
The bond appears to be a foregone conclusion. In all the discussions, there hasn't been any specifics as to why the bond is needed. There are implications (with the growth) that there will be new schools built and older ones refurbished, but what the bond will actually provide has been sketchy.
Because of the fiscal soundness of the district, it is easy to just accept things with complacency. However, we are in a recession, and tax revenues have plummeted, as has the employment rate. The idea that people will be able to accommodate the additional burden associated with a bond isn't a foregone conclusion. This brings us back to why we have a school board. At all levels of government, we have a check and balance. The board is there to represent and advocate for the interests of the community at large. They are not there to agree and support the district's initiatives. The board members are to weigh the pros and cons of these fiscal decisions, not just on the district, but also on the individuals that make up this community. I would suggest that the board should present voters with a Plan A and a Plan B. Plan A is with the bond, Plan B is without. Give the voters a clear choice, not just a plea for more money.
Since tax money, by definition, comes from the labors of others, it is a solemn duty that the school board undertakes as it approves and votes on these fiscal matters. It is important that every aspect of this be open to public scrutiny. I have seen recently that part of the benefit of public comment is that school boards, and city councils cannot possess enough knowledge and wisdom to cover all the possibilities and aspects of the major issues impacting the population they represent. Giving the public information and allowing them to do the research for you, benefits everyone. Those who are interested use their expertise to advise the governing body. In effect, the research arm of the school board is made up of the residents. Ideas and options unimagined by the board can be presented and, possibly, used when the people are given the opportunity to help find our solutions. Public comment is invaluable, not to lead the public where you want them to go, but to obtain the necessary information from those with the additional knowledge that 7 members of a school board cannot possibly have on their own.
Finally, it is important to understand the impact of our fiscal decisions on both the children in our schools as well as the people who pay for those schools. It has been and always will be a balancing act. No one thinks that 100% of one's income should go to public schools. At the same time, there is always the opportunity of what could be done with more funding. In short, there is no "perfect" balance. This is why board members are just people in the community--there to represent the interests of all: balancing the needs of our schools with the needs of the people. George Washington said of government, "It is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The fiscal responsibility of a school board member is to keep the balance between what the schools need to operate and the burden imposed, by force, on our community.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Meeting with Alpine Education Association
Today I met with the Alpine Education Association (AEA) as they decide which candidates they will be endorsing for the upcoming election.
Prior to being contacted by the AEA, I didn't know much about them. I looked on their website, but didn't get a whole lot of information. I talked to a few neighbors, teachers and my state legislator. All were very positive about the AEA. I did find out that they are in charge of negotiating the teachers' contracts with the district.
The interview started out with my describing my background and my interest in education. They asked what I had heard about the AEA, and I told them what I outlined above. Their Vice-President wanted to assure me that their association wasn't there to keep bad teachers around. She said their goal is to help teachers who need remediation and to make sure that they get their due process. They hear stories all the time about teachers' associations being there to enable bad teachers to keep their jobs. They wanted to make sure that I understood that this wasn't their position at all. I certainly appreciated that they wanted to make this position clear. I assume that it would make good teachers' jobs more difficult to have "bad apples" in the bunch. I also appreciate that you want to make sure you're being fair with people.
We discussed Investigations Math, and my "lack of enthusiasm" for it. However, this isn't the reason I'm running, per se, as Investigations isn't supposed to be used in ASD anymore. One of the teachers wondered if it wouldn't have been better if they had introduced Investigations, starting in Kindergarten and First Grade, and following it through, rather than switching wholesale as was done. I agreed that it would have been better, but that I felt kids needed more of a basic foundation in arithmetic that Investigations doesn't provide. As I've said, math is about knowing the relationships between numbers and seeing the patterns. If you have a firm grasp of that, you free your mind up for higher computations and associations with those numbers.
Another question was about my desire for greater parental involvement. I told them about the district using technology like emails and more "front page" website posts to "push" information out to parents. I didn't go into too much more detail, but you're welcome to read the post about that here.
I was also asked about the latest talk of increasing the high school requirement to four years of math and science. I am opposed to this. I think we want kids to have the basics: basic knowledge of arithmetic, and whenever possible, basic algebra. With algebra, you can go to most other disciplines successfully. Other than that, we don't need to force people to spend time on math, if they aren't interested in it. It doesn't benefit anyone. I was required to take only 2 years of math in high school. However, because I was interested in it, and I thought it would benefit me in college, I did take four years of math. This is what we want. Those who are interested, spend the additional time studying it. And those that aren't, get to study something else that would be of benefit to them.
Finally, I was asked if I was a "jump into things with both feet" kind of person, or a "sit and watch" kind of person. I think that I'm more of a "jump in" person, but I am very aware that you don't want to take what's working and start all over from scratch. I want to make sure that any changes that I advocate are actually beneficial and not just throwing the baby out with the bath water, as it were.
I really appreciated their taking the time to meet with me. It was a good opportunity for me to spend a bit of time with people that are on the "front lines" of educating our children. I appreciate their dedication and their commitment to that end.
Prior to being contacted by the AEA, I didn't know much about them. I looked on their website, but didn't get a whole lot of information. I talked to a few neighbors, teachers and my state legislator. All were very positive about the AEA. I did find out that they are in charge of negotiating the teachers' contracts with the district.
The interview started out with my describing my background and my interest in education. They asked what I had heard about the AEA, and I told them what I outlined above. Their Vice-President wanted to assure me that their association wasn't there to keep bad teachers around. She said their goal is to help teachers who need remediation and to make sure that they get their due process. They hear stories all the time about teachers' associations being there to enable bad teachers to keep their jobs. They wanted to make sure that I understood that this wasn't their position at all. I certainly appreciated that they wanted to make this position clear. I assume that it would make good teachers' jobs more difficult to have "bad apples" in the bunch. I also appreciate that you want to make sure you're being fair with people.
We discussed Investigations Math, and my "lack of enthusiasm" for it. However, this isn't the reason I'm running, per se, as Investigations isn't supposed to be used in ASD anymore. One of the teachers wondered if it wouldn't have been better if they had introduced Investigations, starting in Kindergarten and First Grade, and following it through, rather than switching wholesale as was done. I agreed that it would have been better, but that I felt kids needed more of a basic foundation in arithmetic that Investigations doesn't provide. As I've said, math is about knowing the relationships between numbers and seeing the patterns. If you have a firm grasp of that, you free your mind up for higher computations and associations with those numbers.
Another question was about my desire for greater parental involvement. I told them about the district using technology like emails and more "front page" website posts to "push" information out to parents. I didn't go into too much more detail, but you're welcome to read the post about that here.
I was also asked about the latest talk of increasing the high school requirement to four years of math and science. I am opposed to this. I think we want kids to have the basics: basic knowledge of arithmetic, and whenever possible, basic algebra. With algebra, you can go to most other disciplines successfully. Other than that, we don't need to force people to spend time on math, if they aren't interested in it. It doesn't benefit anyone. I was required to take only 2 years of math in high school. However, because I was interested in it, and I thought it would benefit me in college, I did take four years of math. This is what we want. Those who are interested, spend the additional time studying it. And those that aren't, get to study something else that would be of benefit to them.
Finally, I was asked if I was a "jump into things with both feet" kind of person, or a "sit and watch" kind of person. I think that I'm more of a "jump in" person, but I am very aware that you don't want to take what's working and start all over from scratch. I want to make sure that any changes that I advocate are actually beneficial and not just throwing the baby out with the bath water, as it were.
I really appreciated their taking the time to meet with me. It was a good opportunity for me to spend a bit of time with people that are on the "front lines" of educating our children. I appreciate their dedication and their commitment to that end.
Monday, July 26, 2010
A Mission Statement Proposal
Alpine School District's Current Mission Statement:
Educating All Students to Ensure the Future of Our Democracy
Last Tuesday, as I was entering the regularly scheduled Board Meeting, there was a very beautiful, full-color document about the Board. One-fourth of the document discusses "Education In a Democracy... What we [sic] Value". I noticed three things in this section I would like to bring to your attention.
First, the word "citisens [sic]" is misspelled. It's a shame, really, because the misspelling detracts from the message of the brochure. It is indicative of the problem of focusing on unimportant things and shying away from what is truly necessary.
Second, there are four basic principles the Board says anchor their actions. These principles approximate those listed on the district's mission statement page. They are:
1) Schools have a responsibility to teach citizenship to all students.
2) All students have equal access to educational programs.
3) School personnel have a responsibility to nuture the children entrusted to their care.
4) Everyone has a stewardship for the schools in their individual educational communities.
Since these principles are highlighted by the Board, I'd like to take a moment to go through each one.
1. Teaching citizenship. Yes, we want to teach citizenship. But, would we find it odd to say one of our principles that anchors all action is: Schools have a responsibility to teach physical education? There is a definite focus on citizenship to the exclusion of all other subjects. Why? As we get in to citizenship it begs the question of what manner of citizen? The Board was very defensive that their mission statement was questioned by parents, but when your primary focus is on a particular item, does it not necessitate scrutiny? What are those principles of citizenship? Who determines them? And do they take precedence over reading, writing, and math?
2. Equal access to educational programs. I am glad to know that ASD follows federal and state law granting equal access. Has this been a problem in the past? Do we have to work to not discriminate against certain groups of children?
3. Nurturing teachers. While we want children to have good teachers who are nurturing, I would be surprised to find that our teachers, in general, wouldn't be nurturing and inspiring without this statement. If we find that a teacher is not nurturing, is there a policy in place to remove them? Most people who go into the teaching profession do so because they are, by nature, nurturing and inspiring. They want to dedicate their lives to educating children because of the types of people they are to begin with. Goals or values or mission statements will not have a very big effect on innate personalities.
4. Stewardship. People support public education because they believe that an educated populace is a benefit to society. How does this concept impact the specific decisions of the board? This seems to be a principle for the community at large. The Board should already be focused on their stewardship for the schools.
While I agree that the Board should have basic principles in mind as each decision comes before them, I would argue that most of these items are self-evident or handled by law. The one that is not, citizenship, is the one that has come under the microscope of late. If you place your principles out there for the public, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start paying attention to them. Since we believe in local control of our schools, this is precisely what should happen. I would recommend that the Board not be defensive, but be open and welcoming of the scrutiny.
Now back to the brochure.
Third, the brochure says "Public education is the place where children have similar experiences. These similar experiences allow each to understand the democratic principle of common good vs. individual need." Does this mean common good should trump individual need or vice versa? Which would you choose? A truly democratic principle would require common good to be determined by the majority to the detriment of individual need. So, if the common good required the sacrifice of your child's individual need, this is what we are advocating by touting the word democracy in this context. Would you send your child to school to have their individual needs forfeited for the common good?
From reading this brochure, the board's (and by extension the district's) focus isn't on academics at all.
In addition, during the board's work session on July 13, there were some board members that were, reportedly, very emotional about the mission statement. It has also been stated that more than 40 meetings were necessary to come up with our current mission statement. I am perplexed that it would take that long to create a mission statement that was so emotional and yet so distant from academic education. While I don't disagree with the idea that we need morals and good citizenship, I wonder if this is truly the best use of our time and our focus as a school district and a school board?
Under the section of the brochure entitled, "Board Responsibilities", we have a much better mission statement. "We want to deliver the best possible education for the greatest number of students for the fewest possible dollars." I would add the word 'academic' or specify core classes (reading, writing, and arithmetic). But either way, this a fine mission statement. It is absent any controversy, and it conveys the actual goal that most, if not all, of our families have for their children's public education. I would be curious to know why this, or something like it, wasn't the proposed mission statement to begin with.
Educating All Students to Ensure the Future of Our Democracy
Last Tuesday, as I was entering the regularly scheduled Board Meeting, there was a very beautiful, full-color document about the Board. One-fourth of the document discusses "Education In a Democracy... What we [sic] Value". I noticed three things in this section I would like to bring to your attention.
First, the word "citisens [sic]" is misspelled. It's a shame, really, because the misspelling detracts from the message of the brochure. It is indicative of the problem of focusing on unimportant things and shying away from what is truly necessary.
Second, there are four basic principles the Board says anchor their actions. These principles approximate those listed on the district's mission statement page. They are:
1) Schools have a responsibility to teach citizenship to all students.
2) All students have equal access to educational programs.
3) School personnel have a responsibility to nuture the children entrusted to their care.
4) Everyone has a stewardship for the schools in their individual educational communities.
Since these principles are highlighted by the Board, I'd like to take a moment to go through each one.
1. Teaching citizenship. Yes, we want to teach citizenship. But, would we find it odd to say one of our principles that anchors all action is: Schools have a responsibility to teach physical education? There is a definite focus on citizenship to the exclusion of all other subjects. Why? As we get in to citizenship it begs the question of what manner of citizen? The Board was very defensive that their mission statement was questioned by parents, but when your primary focus is on a particular item, does it not necessitate scrutiny? What are those principles of citizenship? Who determines them? And do they take precedence over reading, writing, and math?
2. Equal access to educational programs. I am glad to know that ASD follows federal and state law granting equal access. Has this been a problem in the past? Do we have to work to not discriminate against certain groups of children?
3. Nurturing teachers. While we want children to have good teachers who are nurturing, I would be surprised to find that our teachers, in general, wouldn't be nurturing and inspiring without this statement. If we find that a teacher is not nurturing, is there a policy in place to remove them? Most people who go into the teaching profession do so because they are, by nature, nurturing and inspiring. They want to dedicate their lives to educating children because of the types of people they are to begin with. Goals or values or mission statements will not have a very big effect on innate personalities.
4. Stewardship. People support public education because they believe that an educated populace is a benefit to society. How does this concept impact the specific decisions of the board? This seems to be a principle for the community at large. The Board should already be focused on their stewardship for the schools.
While I agree that the Board should have basic principles in mind as each decision comes before them, I would argue that most of these items are self-evident or handled by law. The one that is not, citizenship, is the one that has come under the microscope of late. If you place your principles out there for the public, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start paying attention to them. Since we believe in local control of our schools, this is precisely what should happen. I would recommend that the Board not be defensive, but be open and welcoming of the scrutiny.
Now back to the brochure.
Third, the brochure says "Public education is the place where children have similar experiences. These similar experiences allow each to understand the democratic principle of common good vs. individual need." Does this mean common good should trump individual need or vice versa? Which would you choose? A truly democratic principle would require common good to be determined by the majority to the detriment of individual need. So, if the common good required the sacrifice of your child's individual need, this is what we are advocating by touting the word democracy in this context. Would you send your child to school to have their individual needs forfeited for the common good?
From reading this brochure, the board's (and by extension the district's) focus isn't on academics at all.
In addition, during the board's work session on July 13, there were some board members that were, reportedly, very emotional about the mission statement. It has also been stated that more than 40 meetings were necessary to come up with our current mission statement. I am perplexed that it would take that long to create a mission statement that was so emotional and yet so distant from academic education. While I don't disagree with the idea that we need morals and good citizenship, I wonder if this is truly the best use of our time and our focus as a school district and a school board?
Under the section of the brochure entitled, "Board Responsibilities", we have a much better mission statement. "We want to deliver the best possible education for the greatest number of students for the fewest possible dollars." I would add the word 'academic' or specify core classes (reading, writing, and arithmetic). But either way, this a fine mission statement. It is absent any controversy, and it conveys the actual goal that most, if not all, of our families have for their children's public education. I would be curious to know why this, or something like it, wasn't the proposed mission statement to begin with.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Transparency and Parental Involvement
As you may know, the school board had a work session on Tuesday, July 13. What is interesting is how difficult it was to find this out. Incidentally, one of the issues discussed was the controversial mission statement.
How does one find out about upcoming meetings? I went to the website. I was able to find a downloadable pdf of 2010 meetings. The only meeting in July is the regular board meeting on July 20. Someone mentioned, after the fact, that the Work Session was announced in the paper, but there wasn't anything obvious on the 'meeting' tab of the website. The school board calendar lists all of the previous events, but, as of yesterday, had nothing going forward. Today, Friday, July 16, the July 20 meeting is listed. There is nothing listed yet for August.
The next question I had was whether or not the July 13 meeting replaced the July 20 meeting. My understanding is that it did not.
In trying to figure out how to attend some of these meetings, I was told that the best way to find out would be to call the district and ask.
With all due respect, board meetings, and other public district events, should be, at least, noted on the home page of the website. The note could link to more information in other pages, but this should be one of the most important purposes of the website--communication with the public.
I am committed to making sure the district website is used as a primary communication portal. Let's make it easy for families to get involved.
How does one find out about upcoming meetings? I went to the website. I was able to find a downloadable pdf of 2010 meetings. The only meeting in July is the regular board meeting on July 20. Someone mentioned, after the fact, that the Work Session was announced in the paper, but there wasn't anything obvious on the 'meeting' tab of the website. The school board calendar lists all of the previous events, but, as of yesterday, had nothing going forward. Today, Friday, July 16, the July 20 meeting is listed. There is nothing listed yet for August.
The next question I had was whether or not the July 13 meeting replaced the July 20 meeting. My understanding is that it did not.
In trying to figure out how to attend some of these meetings, I was told that the best way to find out would be to call the district and ask.
With all due respect, board meetings, and other public district events, should be, at least, noted on the home page of the website. The note could link to more information in other pages, but this should be one of the most important purposes of the website--communication with the public.
I am committed to making sure the district website is used as a primary communication portal. Let's make it easy for families to get involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)