Board of Ed Hears Redistricting Update and Facilities Report

The most "exciting" elements of Tuesday night's Regular Board of Education meeting have been covered in previous posts, so this update will just cover the more mundane topics that still deserve some attention.

During the discussion before the Board's vote to use April vacation to make up snow days, BOE Member Sally Boske asked if there was any flexibility in the scheduling of CMTs. Asst. Superintendent Barbara Senges replied that other than fixed date tests, all other tests have to be completed by March 31 (this includes make-ups). Normally, the elementary schedule begins the first week in March with the fixed date writing assessment on March 8. However, because of all the snow day schedule disruption, the CMT dates have been moved to later in the month. A letter to parents with these new details is coming home soon.

The administration is putting together a committee to look at the school calendars for 2011-12 and 2012-13. This group will consider the issues caused by this year's weather as it works on what the next two years will look like. Ultimately, the BOE has to approve the calendar, but there will be a deliberate discussion about ways to handle snow/make-up days, and if the current method is the best choice.

At the last BOE meeting, members asked for an update on redistricting, and Asst. Superintendent Barbara Senges gave a verbal update (a written one coming soon, didn't have it done in time due to time spent on analyzing substitute requirements if Feb. vacation was cancelled). The quick update is that some schools did a student and/or parent survey, and "everyone seems to be happy" with where they ended up. At Farm Hill, for example, of those surveyed:

• 96% felt welcome
• 96% felt the staff was supportive
• 94% said their children liked to come to school
• 96% said the school was meeting their expectations
• (the total number of surveys was not known)

There were no cases reported of anyone asking to go back to the school they came from. At Moody school, it was reported that parents are happy to have a computer room back, and they're happy about not having to attend two different assemblies (because of previous overcrowding limitations). Attendance at all school activities district wide is up, and Senges also commented that there is "high quality instruction and the climate is positive."

Macdonough Principal Jon Romeo was asked about how redistricting has affected his school and if the racial balance numbers are within compliance. Romeo replied that Macdonough had two separate challenges: first, that 50% of the student population was new to the school this year, and second, that he was merging five different populations of students into one new group (students were redistricted to Macdonough from five other elementary schools). Despite these significant challenges, though, Romeo said the school year was going well, and that Macdonough is well within the racial balance limits. Furthermore, the vast majority of students who had to leave Macdonough went to Spencer, and according to the reports he's received, these families "felt loved" by their new principal and school community.

The administration will continue the District Improvement Plan for a 4th year just because all pieces of the plan have not yet been implemented. Middletown had to develop this plan as a result of its identification as a district "needing improvement" according to CMT scores (but note that 2009-10 scores placed Middletown in the "adequate yearly progress category). Asst. Superintendent Barbara Senges was asked specifically about how "differentiation" is taking root in the district. Senges replied, "Everyone is in a different place regarding differentiation....By the end of this year, everyone will be technically proficient, but I don't think that will actually be the case....I would be overjoyed if that was the case, but I don't think so. We don't have enough professional development time or materials to get this done any faster." [Author's note: differentiation is teaching students at their level of understanding, not just a generic plan for the whole class. So, using the same subject, more advanced students are given different materials/assignments than students who are struggling with the material. All the student, though, are still in the same class together. Given the fact that the District is systemically eliminating leveling (that's classes grouped by ability) ) because teachers are supposed to be able to differentiate their instruction, hearing that "everyone is in a different place" isn't exactly confidence inspiring in the decision to eliminate leveling."]

The rest of the meeting was mostly devoted to Facilities Director Ken Jackson's status updates on snow clearing and structural integrity: "Our buildings are in fine condition....At no time was there any danger of structural failure or collapse in any structure in our schools." Here's a quick timeline of what's been happening:

• Prior to last week, snow clearing was done by in-house staff.
• On February 3rd, Michael J. Turner Enterprises, LLC was retained to clear snow from roofs. The company freed all of its crews to attend to snow removal and 40-60 men each days worked to clear snow.
• On Friday night (2/4), 2 structural engineers were retained to evaluate all buildings. The official report is available here.
• The intention of snow removal is to keep the amount of roof snow below the maximum load amount, not "to remove every snowflake." Every school roof is designed with a 20-30% safety cushion above what code requires, so as long as drains are clear and major drifts are removed, all snow doesn't have to be removed.
• Friday (2/4) was the worst day of stress on roofs, and the cracks noted in the drywall at Moody, Bielefield and Macdonough were a sign of the roofs flexing as they were designed to. The decision to evacuate Moody and Bielefield was made by each principal as a precaution for student safety. Jackson stated, "I ultimately think we could have been in school all day with no problems, but I won't criticize the decision each administrator made given their circumstances."
• On Monday, 2/7, at about 1:30pm, Laurence School was evacuated due to the smell of gas. The supply of gas to the school was turned off, and it was determined by the fire department that students could return to school and finish the day normally. The snow cover on the gas pipes on the roof had to be cleared to reveal a crack in one of the pipes, and once that was repaired, a system check was done and everything was restored to normal.
• Farm Hill School had minor flooding on Tuesday, 2/8. Superintendent Michael Frechette commented, "Our buildings are going to leak. They're old. If your house is leaking, we have a million square ft. of roof and it's probably going to leak."

Ken Jackson was asked about the National Guard and if Middletown would be getting any additional help: "That request has been made, but the National Guard isn't free. Towns have to reimburse the state for National Guard assistance." Jackson also thanked Middletown's Public Works Department for all the help it has provided in snow removal, noting that "the equipment we use for snow removal, well, it's tired folks....and we don't have the heavy machinery that Public Works does, so their big snow plows have really helped us out." Jackson plans to use this upcoming week of vacation to work on additional snow removal in parking lots (especially Farm Hill), and he thanked his workers for the amazing effort they've put in so far.

Business Manager Nancy Haynes told the BOE that without all the bills in yet, her estimated costs for snow removal, over-time for maintenance crews, and the structural engineers is roughly $250,000. She hopes that there may be some grant money eventually available since all school districts are facing similar unexpected costs, but she's not counting on it.

There was a discussion of the Honeywell Alert System and when and how that system gets activated. Jackson said he doesn't deal with putting the alert out, but that he's often the one providing the information that goes into the alert:

"We've had more crises in a month than in the entire year, and the first concern is for the students' safety. We are not thinking about talking to parents. We have to mobilize resources and assets and come up with a plan of action to deal with the situation. We think about parents last, and so a Honeywell Alert can't be in the first 1/2 hour of a crisis. I can't afford to give out the wrong information and then have to explain to parents how I got it wrong."

Superintendent Michael Frechette then commented, "We'd love to have a full time press position, but that ain't going to happen." BOE Member Corrine Gill expressed her concern over the communication process between the BOE and the Administration the public, and noted that perhaps the BOE should evaluate if there is a more efficient way to communicate what's happening: "There are so many kids with cell phones who are texting their parents in the middle of a crisis. We can't let 5th graders decide what's happening because this passes mis-information along. But, perhaps we can use the PTOs or something more effective."

Other BOE members asked about what kids did once they were evacuated to another school and why some schools with cracks were evacuated when others were not. BOE Chairman Ted Raczka commented, "It's been an unprecedented winter with unprecedented situations. We need to spend some time over the summer thinking about how to do this better in the future. I'd like to know what the kids did after they got to their evacuation point and if we need to think about that some more." Frechette replied that the four principals involved in Moody and Bielefield's evacuation have been asked to put together a report for the next meeting: "I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at all that went on." BOE Member Sheila Daniels asked why Macdonough wasn't evacuated if it also had cracks, and Ken Jackson replied that it was really the call of the principal based on the information he or she had at the time: "In retrospect, it probably wasn't necessary to evacuate, but those were individual calls and I won't criticize them."

The BOE has a workshop scheduled for February 22, 2011 to discuss its District Improvement plan and the Redistricting Committee.

BOE votes to remove 6th grade Language Arts Leveling for 2009-2010

Last night, the Board of Education voted along party lines (5-3) to remove leveling in Language Arts for 6th graders for the 2009-2010 school year. The one-hour workshop was split to give all three stakeholders (the Administration, the Public, and Board of Education members) time to comment or ask questions.

Speaking for the Administration, Asst. Superintendent John Hennelly read his response to a letter sent by Mr. & Mrs. Gardell, focusing on the “gross inaccuracies” mentioned in the letter. Claiming that the BOE Curriculum Committee “sets its own agenda,” Hennelly brushed off the Gardells’ complaint that the Board of Education had not been involved in the decision to remove leveling. “Since I arrived in 2002, I’ve stated that one of my priorities was to take a look at our leveling policy….we’ve had several meetings over the years to look at this issue.” Hennelly later commented that “decisions are made on a best practice basis…this is not an election and the administration doesn’t have to do what parents might think is best at the time.” Lamenting that most parents have little interest in the actual research on the topic, Hennelly concluded that poor classroom behavior is the driving concern behind parental opposition to leveling, and that the administration does have a responsibility to address that issue. However, since the trend for 6th-8th grade CMT performance steadily decreases each year, Hennelly stated that the primary focus has to be on improving middle school students’ performance.

During the public comment session, concerned parents asked for a Q&A discussion instead of one-way comments to the BOE. Chairman Raczka agreed, and the questions asked demonstrated that most parents still have little grasp of the Administration’s plan. All were fearful of watered-down classes, loss of opportunity for advanced coursework later on in high school, and distracting behavioral issues when all students are mixed together. One parent presented the petition started by the Gardells, asking the Board NOT to remove leveling, and then added his own concern: “Nothing has been sent home explaining this decision – I feel like I don’t know enough to make an informed decision.” Another parent asked what was driving this decision: “financial concerns or the true interest of our children?” Assistant Superintendent Barbara Senges responded: “We’re not experiencing success with our advanced level classes. The percentage of children scoring a 5 on the CMT decreases every year after 5th grade, so obviously there’s a problem.” When asked what the teachers thought about this change, Senges replied: “I don’t believe the teachers have a problem with this model. Besides, we’re only getting rid of one level. This isn’t a huge change since we already differentiate in the same class for students who score a 1, 2, 3 or 4 on their CMTs.”

When BOE Members had a chance to ask questions, Sally Boske asked for confirmation that various courses are not disappearing, but rather the leveling of those courses would be eliminated (answer: true). Bill Boyd commented that if the greatest recent improvement of CMT scores has been in the elementary grades, and those are not leveled, we should expect a similar result for 6th grade: “for anyone doing OK on their CMTs, there won’t be much change in their scores. But for kids not doing well, those scores should go up, right?” (answer: yes). Assistant Superintendent Hennelly confirmed that this program was not a home-grown idea; instead, it is a series of best practices that are being used by other districts in CT. Senges added that this model will improve the curriculum because at the same time that leveling is removed, students scoring below basic on their CMTs will have additional instruction on top of and separate from the instruction given all students during the 85 minute language arts period (an additional 3-5 periods per week as necessary). Furthermore, when teachers “differentiate” the instruction, students will be learning in the context of their reading level. For example, 6th graders reading at the 10th grade level will read a 10th grade level book as they work through the lesson of the day. Students reading at grade level will read a 6th grade book, and students below level will read, say, a 4th grade book (or whatever is appropriate for their reading levels). Corinne Gill asked what other districts, comparable to ours, have eliminated leveling (answer: Bristol and several others). Ryan Kennedy asked if there will be data available in the next 6-9 months for those districts who are eliminating leveling for the 2009-2010 school year (answer: there should be).

Board Member Jay Keiser then moved to support the administration’s plans to eliminate leveling in the 6th grade Language Arts program. His stated reasons for doing so were:

• He’s heard a lot of parental comments against the change, but all the research supports the removal of leveling.
• It’s a low risk given the need to improve performance.
• The majority of students in 6th grade in CT are considered to still be in elementary school, so leveling isn’t necessary.
• If it turns out to be a wrong decision, it’s “not that bad” in terms of consequences.
• For those with questions about the Administration’s motive in this policy change, clearly the purpose is for the well-being and education of the children.
• It’s not a money-saver for the budget.
• The administrators have the educational background to make such recommendations.

Sheila Daniels commented that she would have a hard time supporting this change because she found research that said for every article that claims de-leveling is good, there’s another that proves it isn’t. She also worried that all the pieces weren’t in place to be ready to move forward, and she couldn’t understand why Middletown’s curriculum isn’t “rigorous enough” (a comment made by the administrators numerous times over the last several weeks). “We need to foster an environment conducive to learning for all kids,” Daniels stated.

Renee Johnson-Thornton stated that she still has lingering questions: “The material is compelling, but not a perfect fit. I want to make sure that we’re only committing to this change for language arts for the 2009-2010 school year.”

As I mentioned before, the Board then voted along party lines (Democrats for, Republicans against) to remove leveling for the 6th grade Language Arts program.

COMMENTARY:

I have to admit that it took my attending ALL the BOE meetings for the last two months to get a decent handle on the topic of leveling and what the administration wants to do next year. I do think the Superintendent could have saved himself all kinds of pain by sending a letter of explanation home to parents, and offering to have a Q&A meeting to answer their questions. Would parents still have been upset by the decision? Probably, but at least Dr. Frechette could have spared the accusation that he’s covertly making important decisions and leaving parents out of the loop. In theory, parts of the plan sound OK to me (and I do come from a family of teachers and have taught myself), but I confess that there are just too many moving parts and unanswered questions for me to make a solid judgment. For example, all of the following statements have been made by the administration at some point during the last two months:

• The purpose behind this change is to close the achievement gap between various student sub-groups.
• The greatest improvement in CMTs has been the reading scores at the elementary level.
• Advanced students don’t benefit as much from advanced classes as regular and below basic students benefit from being in heterogeneous classes.
• Something happens after 5th grade so that the percentage of students scoring at level 5 on their CMTs drops each year for 6th, 7th and 8th grade.
• CMTs measure how well students are learning the curriculum.
• There are teachers already differentiating in their classrooms.
• Differentiation in the classroom was optional professional development for teachers this past year, and not everyone participated in the training.
• The original plan was to remove leveling in 6th grade math and language arts, but then after further consideration (i.e. much parental objection), the math teachers aren’t ready yet.
• “Our middle schools are struggling…I would hate to see the MISTs (Middle School Instructional Support Teacher) go” (comment made by Barbara Senges during the budget vote on 6/9/09 when Ryan Kennedy proposed cutting a MIST to help save the 6 elementary teachers cut by the proposed budget).
• All the research demonstrates that the highest performing students aren’t harmed by de-leveling.
• The new 85 minute double-instruction period lets one teacher see only 62 students during the whole year, so the teachers will know their students better.
• This really isn’t a big change since teachers already differentiate for students scoring at levels 1-4 on their CMTs. Adding in another level isn’t a big deal.
• More than 1/3 of Middletown students are below proficient on their CMTs (in reading).
• Middletown doesn’t have a rigorous enough curriculum.

When you sit back and consider all these statements together, I have a hard time coming to the same conclusion that the Superintendent did. I don’t see separating out advanced students as the problem. If CMTs are supposed to measure how well students are learning the curriculum as it is taught (and don’t forget that, at least in my 3rd grader’s experience, CMT prep started 2 months before the test and was a major focus for several weeks) and we don’t like the results we’re seeing, the conclusion has to be that students aren’t getting what is taught. Then we must ask ourselves, why not? Why should we wait until 6th grade to be concerned that CMT results are dropping? Why aren’t we completely committed to ensuring that our elementary students leave elementary school with the skills they need to succeed in middle school and high school? If that means committing serious resources to ensure every child can read at grade level, then why aren’t we doing that? Why throw money and instructional time at 6th graders when we could eliminate the majority of the problem before then?

I admit to being an efficiency nut – I can’t stand wasting time and/or energy on doing something wrong and then having to do it again. There has to be a better solution, and I urge the BOE’s Curriculum Committee to consider seriously what role it could play in reforming Middletown’s focus on and dedication to elementary education. In the meantime, the Administration has a long way to go to earn back the trust and respect of parents. Between the bus uproar at the beginning of the year, the Moody overcrowding issue, and the fuss over de-leveling, Dr. Frechette and his team have rightly earned the reputation of doing whatever they want without notifying parents in a timely manner. Whether that was intentional or not, I can’t say. However, the old adage that “perception is reality” is proved right once again.

Board of Ed Delays Decision on Leveling, Moody Overcrowding

Nearly a hundred parents and residents listened, with the Board of Education to a proposal by Dr. John Hennelly, Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction to end leveling at Keigwin and Woodrow Wilson Schools for language arts and math.

Hennelly explained that the proposal would bring all students into the same classroom for reading and language arts programs, eliminating stratification based on skill levels. He cited research from a number of sources which indicate that such a move, combined with smaller class sizes, appropriate education materials ("just right reading") geared toward a variety of levels, increased attention to behavioral issues and retraining of students would increase the language arts achievement of low performing students and high peforming students alike.

Several members of the public objected to the proposal, claiming that it would be detrimental to high achieving students, disruptive when students with behavioral issues were introduced to classes, and would rob low-achieving students to some music and foreign language classes.

"You're bringing advanced achievers down, and that's not fair," said parent Erin Guevarez.

"This strategy is only going to breed mediocrity in our students," another parent, Jackie Gardell, said.

But other residents rose to defend the proposal including Daniel Long, a sociology of education professor at Wesleyan University who said that his survey of the research indicates that in many other parts of the country, the program is very successful.

"Advanced students don't suffer at all in a mixed classroom," Long said.

Board of Ed member Corinne Gill introduced a motion which would prevent administrators from making any changes which would eliminate levelling of students. The motion passed with all but two members voting to prohibit changes, but a second motion by Gill put discussion of the proposal on the agenda as a workshop so that research could be studied, and the Curriculum Committee had a chance to consider the proposal.

In another matter, the Board heard a report from JCJ Architecture who are investigating issues of overcrowding in Moody and Mcdonough Schools. The firm recommended no action in the upcoming year, and suggested that a complete report, due in the third quarter, might indicate that attendance boundaries may need to be redrawn to solve the overcrowding.

Moody parents and teachers were dismayed to hear that no action would be taken. Parents and teachers testified to problems with severe overcrowding and the affect it is having on students, teachers and the quality of education.

Second grade Moody School teacher Heather Rodman cited a long list of specific problems caused by the overcrowding.

"Moody doesn't like being in neutral," Rodman said. "We need a plan and we need help. Tomorrow is going to be a rainy day. I invite you all to come and see the problems we face at Moody."

A more extensive and detailed report on the Board of Education meeting will be published later today.

Board of Ed to get public input

The Board of Education has scheduled a special meeting for next Tuesday, at which there will be two public comment sessions.

The first public comment session will focus on leveling, which is a proposal to eliminate advanced math classes from the 6th grade next year (Eye piece).  Last week's BoE meeting drew impassioned opposition to this leveling, from teachers and parents concerned about both the advanced students and those needing more time to understand basic math.  

The second public comment session will focus on the recommendations by JCJ Architecture, who have been hired to do a district wide utilization study.  JCJ promised to make recommendations this Spring, which would solve Moody School's overcrowding this coming year.  These recommendations are to be followed in the fall by recommendations for districtwide school buildings use.  The JCJ recommendations will precede a second public comment session.  

Here is the agenda for the meeting on Tuesday, May 26, in the Middletown High School auditorium, from the BoE web site:

6:00 Leveling

7:00 Public Comment

7:30 JCJ Architecture Recommendations

8:30 Public Comment

9:00 Adjournment

The Hartford Courant reports that the JCJ recommendations presented on Tuesday will deal only with Moody Elementary School overcrowding.  The chair of the Board of Education, Ted Raczka, has not responded to my Thursday early morning request for more information to share about leveling  or the JCJ study.