Board of Education unhappy with proposed curriculum changes

This afternoon, on a whim, I looked up the word disappointment on www.dictionary.com to see what the thesaurus would list as synonyms for a saddening situation or letdown. Here’s the list I got: bitter pill, blind alley*, blow, blunder, bringdown, bummer, bust*, calamity, defeat, disaster, discouragement, downer*, downfall, drag, dud, error, failure, false alarm, faux pas*, fiasco, fizzle, flash in the pan*, impasse, inefficacy, lemon*, miscalculation, mischance, misfortune, mishap, mistake, obstacle, old one-two, setback, slip, washout (the *words are informal usage).

That about sums up last night’s Board of Education meetings. As was previously reported, the BOE met at 6pm to discuss the proposed elimination of leveling for 6th grade language arts for the 2009-2010 school year. John Hennelly, the Assistant Principal for Curriculum and Instruction, defined the District’s long term goal: narrowing the achievement gap for sub-groups by accelerating achievement for all groups by improving instruction. Maybe if I turn it around, you’ll get a better sense of what I think the administration was trying to tell the Board of Education. The problem (as I heard it defined in the opposite) is instruction: Middletown needs a more challenging curriculum for all levels of ability and teachers need more training in classroom management and how to develop hands-on learning opportunities. When this problem is addressed adequately, ALL students will benefit and this will be measurable through standardized testing. The test results will show a narrowing of the achievement gap between various sub-groups as required by state and federal standards, and Middletown will be on its way to getting off the No Child Left Behind “needs improvement” list.

Even that was a mouthful, and I can tell you that most of the very concerned parents who showed up last night were not converted by Mr. Hennelly’s presentation. Granted, this group of parents also admitted to attending public school with skill-based classes in math and language arts (Mr. Hennelly took a “raise-your-hand” poll), and these same parents have children in the gifted and talented program or in upper level math/language arts classes. But, considering the fact that PROBE (Middletown’s gifted and talented program) was cancelled for next year, and that these same parents are now hearing that leveling is also being eliminated, the impression most parents were left with was hard to swallow: the achievement gap can be eliminated by taking away advanced programs to “dumb down” the smartest kids to let everyone else catch up.

Let me be very clear: I do believe our school officials have checked their research, I do know that this topic has been discussed in the district for at least a couple of years now, we are only talking about leveling in middle school, and I personally heard Mr. Hennelly say afterwards that test scores for 3rd, 4th and 5th graders are on the rise like never before thanks to a renewed focus on curriculum and how teachers deliver that curriculum. BUT, that information has not been presented to the Board of Education’s Curriculum Committee or the Board at large, nor have parents been engaged in a similar discussion. So, the BOE’s vote to delay any changes for a year does make sense if for no other reason than to let everyone get on the same page.

But what does that page look like? Parents were told last night that SRBI (Scientific Research Based Intervention) is mandated for implementation this fall. That’s a state-wide program that requires additional intervention for children who are below basic and significantly below basic levels in math and language arts. Those children will get between 2.5 and 5 extra periods of instruction in one or both subjects during the week. This, however, will come at the expense of explorative art classes. These children won’t be able to take a world language either.

Several parents and board members had a hard time envisioning what the actual school day would look like for these children, and Asst. Superintendent Barbara Senges said that work on the schedules for Woodrow Wilson and Keigwin is still underway, but that essentially, the periods would be doubled to accommodate the additional instruction. De-tracking is essentially shifting the makeup of classes, with shared decision making then improving classroom culture, behavior, and social development. Mr. Hennelly also deliberately pointed out that de-tracking isn’t the sole focus: everything has to change from the curriculum to the teaching methods to student behavior. Asst. Superintendent Barbara Senges commented on reduced class sizes as a result of the SRBI requirements (anywhere from less than 5 to 10-12 for this additional instruction) with a corresponding opportunity for high-track students to have access to new or additional programs in math, foreign language and music.

The public session following Mr. Hennelly’s comments was limited to 30 minutes, and parents scrambled to be heard. There was an overwhelming desire to see the data that supports tracking elimination, with concern mostly focused on the conclusion that advanced students are NOT harmed by de-tracking. Some parents with children on both ends of the spectrum worried that neither child would get what he/she needed because one would be bored and the other wouldn’t be able to keep up. Two parents who had been on the leveling committee spoke of their frustration that for all the work the committee did, those parental recommendations were completely ignored by the District. Just about everyone referenced how much behavioral issues derail a classroom and occupy a teacher’s time.

The Board’s main concern was that of time: why now, why no discussion until now, why didn’t the Curriculum Committee know, and why the hush-hush manner of implementation? There was no good answer to any of these questions, probably because the Superintendent’s office didn’t expect such pushback from parents. Board Chairman Ted Raczka asked Superintendent Michael Frechette if the District was properly staffed and funded to make these changes. Frechette said the new schedule and additional teachers’ aides would cover the staffing requirements, and that he was hoping for stimulus funds to adequately fund additional needs. Raczka did not favor the motion to delay the change to the leveling policy for one year: he argued that the Board has a tendency to put things off, and he didn’t want this issue to go by the wayside. He was reminded by more than one board member that he sets the agenda, but with 3 Democrats missing from last night’s meeting, the vote to delay one year passed easily. The Board then voted to add an additional hour before both of the June meetings to talk more about the leveling issue.

No Hero’s Parade for JCJ Architecture

After a short recess, the board reconvened to hear suggestions from JCJ Architecture on what to do about Moody’s overcrowding and Macdonough’s racial imbalance issues. A copy of this report is available here. Principal Architect Greg Smalley explained the study’s methods thus far: JCJ has toured the schools, seen the physical plant, looked at enrollment projections and conducted 5 community workshops. He concluded that Middletown has enough classroom seats for the students it has in school, but they may not be in the right place. He recommended against moving students for just one year to solve racial or overcrowding concerns since the Board of Education likely will have to redistrict to solve the overcrowding issues at large. Smalley also stated that Macdonough is at capacity, and that the 3 classrooms currently used for community education purposes are a possible way to add more space to Macdonough. Finally, he recommended that transportation routes be studied to make sure that the students living the furthest away aren’t picked up first and also dropped off last (time on the bus is a huge parental concern).

There was a bit of a stunned pause at the beginning of the public comment session. Parents had a hard time digesting the news that there was no news. Some said that no decision is better than a bad decision while others wondered what can be done immediately to solve Moody’s overcrowding for the next year. Smalley commented that the projected kindergarten enrollment is down for next year, but that he didn’t have time to run the numbers to see what happens when fifth grade leaves and there are less kindergarteners coming in. Of course, one parent pointed out that this past year’s projection was off 117% (there is a definite connection to the new 96 apartment complex, Wharfside Commons, since those kids are now bused to Moody). It is likely that this year’s projection will be more accurate because there are no large housing projects coming on line in the next year. Nevertheless, the two Moody teachers who spoke couldn’t hide their frustration and disappointment. They were told all year to wait until JCJ could make recommendations, and now there are no recommendations to solve the multitude of problems Moody faces.

Board member Corinne Gill asked the star question of the night: “what’s our backup plan if the enrollment numbers are off again?” Greg Smalley couldn’t answer, and JCJ is due back in front of the board during the June meetings.

The June meetings (6/2 and 6/16) should be lively as the leveling discussion continues (at 6pm each night before the regular 7pm meeting) and JCJ returns (both architects took a flurry of notes during the public session, so they have much to address). I will say, though, that while the process is frustrating and the answers thus far seem elusive, the cross-interactions now taking place between parents, teachers, tax-payers, board members and administrators are long over-due. Middletown does have work to do to improve its school system, but the burden isn’t solely on our teachers. Each of us has a part to play, and until we all play together, we won’t accomplish anything productive.