Board Members and Administrators, left to right: John Hennelly (Asst. Supt. for Curriculum), Jay Keiser, Sheila Daniels, Michael Frechette (Superintendent), Ted Raczka (chair of BoE), Bill Boyd, Ryan Kennedy, Renee Johnson-Thornton, Sally Boske (at least her right arm, sorry Sally!).Tuesday night’s marathon Board of Education meetings uncovered several hot issues for parents and teachers.
First, during the one-hour special meeting held before the regular monthly meeting, JCJ Architecture met with Board Members as part of its on-going district utilization study. JCJ’s immediate recommendations on how to deal with Moody’s overcrowding and Macdonough’s racial imbalance issues are due by the May 26th BOE Special Meeting. I did not get to see the survey the Board took, so I can only comment on what I heard as various questions were discussed between JCJ and the board members. However, it seemed that the architects were seeking last minute guidance on what direction the BOE wants to go with its future plans for the district. Specifically, as a starting point, does the Board create policies based on the facilities the district has, OR are these policies are based on the educational program the BOE wants. The answer to that question is important to define how parity between facilities is measured. The Board’s answer was that “all elementary schools should support the same curriculum.”
JCJ also asked about space parity for elementary schools: 35 square feet per child or the same size buildings across the district? Currently, classroom sizes vary between 700-1000 square feet, and this affects how many children can attend each school. On the subject of technology, BOE members were strongly supportive of technology and computers in the classroom, with the flexibility to move computers around as necessary instead of having a dedicated computer lab. Several BOE members talked about the importance of having computers integrated into the daily curriculum instead of just teaching about computers. JCJ commented that public feedback has suggested that parents think there is too much emphasis on computers and technology.
Other questions focused on cafeteria and gym sizes, the availability of outdoor play space, and the size and necessity of a dedicated library. BOE member Corinne Gill commented that “we can’t do cookie cutters,” and that the board would have to look at the dynamics of each building to see what was best for that location.
All in all, JCJ Architecture was asking for the Board’s ideal preferences, and many board members commented that budget realities would seriously impact what can be done in the district. Stay tuned for an update from the May 26th Special Meeting: JCJ will present its recommendations, and parents should be prepared to give feedback to the BOE as it decides how to proceed for the 2009-2010 school year.
After a short recess, the regular monthly BOE meeting began. The public comment session lasted two hours, and centered on two key topics. First, several parents spoke about the existence of bullying and the perceived lack of intervention from teachers and school staff. During the course of these comments, last week’s fight at MHS came up. Two male students got into a fight and an ambulance was called to the school. MHS Principal Robert Fontaine would not comment on the specifics of the incident other than to say that whenever a student is injured, an ambulance is called. He also said that the incident rate of violent fights is way down this year, that disciplinary actions are always imposed when a fight happens in the building, and that it is unrealistic to believe that there will never be any fights between high school students. Fontaine finished by saying that the parental comments about bullying had nothing to do with the MHS fight. The BOE would go on to approve its revised policy on bullying (but I didn’t get to see what that was exactly).
The other subject that evoked much passionate parental comment was the recent announcement that Keigwin Middle School will NOT be offering advanced math for sixth graders for the 2009-2010 school year. Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum/instruction John Hennelly, along with the principals of Keigwin, Woodrow Wilson and MHS, explained the expected changes to the leveling process (for freshman as well as sixth graders) as necessary for productivity and effectiveness as explained in school improvement plans. For example, there are two groupings based on ability as students head into 7th and 8th grade, but then freshmen are divided into 3 groupings. MHS Principal Fontaine commented that this policy had caused concern during MHS’s last accreditation process, and his plan to address this concern was to drop down to two levels of instruction for freshman. Struggling learners will have a double period in math and/or language arts to help them catch up to where they should be.
For Keigwin, however, parents were doubly concerned that PROBE (the current program for gifted and talented) has been canceled for 4th and 5th graders and now advanced math instruction for 6th graders is also targeted for elimination. Instead of a single program for gifted students from across the district, the BOE later voted to support a new TaG (Talented and Gifted) Program that creates a stipend position at each elementary school to run a gifted program for that school. The current PROBE teacher, Roberta Avery, who retires at the end of this year, strongly urged the board NOT to cancel PROBE, but to add TaG in addition to PROBE. Parent Kevin Smith had been part of a committee on the leveling process, and he expressed much frustration about the direction the Board seems to be heading: “Advanced classes are so important for individual kids – is this the beginning of no advanced classes in 7th and 8th grade as well?” Middletown Federal of Teachers President, Ann Lohrand, commented that teachers are so swamped by all the recent changes in the district that they cannot also handle changes to the advanced classes system. To mix advanced learners back into a regular classroom and to expect teachers to differentiate instruction effectively is unrealistic and hurts both the advanced learner and regular learners.
Woodrow Wilson PTA President Vera Pennington commented that it seems parents and teachers have very little influence on what the BOE decides. She noted the low attendance levels at JCJ meetings as one example of decreased parental involvement as a function of parents believing what they think doesn’t matter. She noted that the middle schools have a 40 minute instruction period, large class sizes, mainstreamed students with learning disabilities and little teacher support (aides or paraprofessionals). Pennington concluded that it would be impossible for teachers to provide effective differential instruction given these circumstances.
A Keigwin Social Studies teacher commented that while she doesn’t have leveled classes, she didn’t even know that advanced math was being cancelled. She wondered why teachers weren’t kept in the loop, and commented that her classes have 27 students with 5 special education students, and that she works very hard to get anything done in her classes. She also commented that by a trick of scheduling, she has one class with several advanced students in it: the conversations this class has and the concepts she has been able to cover for these students is way above and beyond what she can do in her other classes. She asked to see the data that proves that canceling advanced classes is the right thing to do. She also asked if there would be additional paraprofessional support provided now that there would be 100% inclusion in mixed classes. Currently, paraprofessionals can help in other places during advanced classes, and that would not be possible if all classes are mixed together all the time, which would increase the number of paraprofessionals needed.
Other parents talked about their children’s response to hearing about the cancelled classes, with several commenting that their gifted or advanced students cried to hear that the opportunity they had been anticipating would no longer exist. Two parents with children with learning disabilities talked about the importance of their children having the proper support to learn at the pace they could handle, without feeling discouraged that so many other children could work faster or better then them. One of these parents specifically mentioned that the real world is based on setting high standards and having self-motivation to succeed. Her experience in the corporate world at GE confirmed this: “I don’t give all my employees the same bonuses…not everyone works as hard or deserves it.” Finally, one parent who identified himself as “a product of the Middletown School System,” described his advanced learning opportunities and how those helped him win a scholarship to college. He lamented the fact that his two daughters now might not have the same opportunity for success that he did, and finished by asking the board what their hurry was, and why this was moving forward if there were so many unanswered questions by parents and teachers.
After the public session closed, the board voted to meet early on May 26th to discuss specifically the issues parents raised concerning Keigwin and the leveling of classes.
The Superintendent’s financial report revealed that there is approximately $500,000 in the fund balance, and that a special group will be meeting to draft a new policy on how to spend the fund balance and how to conduct line item transfers at the end of the year. Tonight, the Common Council will vote on the budget, so work on the actual 2009/2010 budget can begin in earnest. Superintendent Frechette was asked for a prioritized list on which to spend the fund balance. Frechette also commented that he’s not counting on any stimulus funds anytime soon. The Dood/Lieberman letter to the Federal government hasn’t generated any immediate response, and Frechette assumes it will be a long time before the state passes on the federal funds CT is supposed to receive.
A new Professional Development calendar was approved for next year, with teachers getting time once a month to work on professional development or data team work (similar to the early release day that started this past January). The new school calendar will be released to parents as soon as possible to assist in child care plans for next year.
MHS held its own job fair for the first time (instead of administrators going to college fairs) and had 75-80 interested job applicants attend the 2 hour fair. All secondary principals were there, as well as key individuals from the departments with teaching vacancies. The event was very successful, and the District is likely to continue this in the future as it saves time and funds over administrators traveling to other college fairs. Administrators liked the ability to screen interview applicants on the spot, and this was viewed as a huge advantage over traditional job fairs.
The Board finished out the night by concentrating on policy and by-laws revisions. A new ad-hoc committee was appointed to look at and manage the retirement process. The next BOE meeting will be a special meeting held at MHS at 7pm on May 26th, 2009, to hear JCJ Architecture’s report. The BOE will meet in advance of that to discuss advanced classes at Keigwin, so there is the possibility that the JCJ meeting will be pushed to 7:30pm. Check the BOE calendar as the event gets closer for the exact details.
First, during the one-hour special meeting held before the regular monthly meeting, JCJ Architecture met with Board Members as part of its on-going district utilization study. JCJ’s immediate recommendations on how to deal with Moody’s overcrowding and Macdonough’s racial imbalance issues are due by the May 26th BOE Special Meeting. I did not get to see the survey the Board took, so I can only comment on what I heard as various questions were discussed between JCJ and the board members. However, it seemed that the architects were seeking last minute guidance on what direction the BOE wants to go with its future plans for the district. Specifically, as a starting point, does the Board create policies based on the facilities the district has, OR are these policies are based on the educational program the BOE wants. The answer to that question is important to define how parity between facilities is measured. The Board’s answer was that “all elementary schools should support the same curriculum.”
JCJ also asked about space parity for elementary schools: 35 square feet per child or the same size buildings across the district? Currently, classroom sizes vary between 700-1000 square feet, and this affects how many children can attend each school. On the subject of technology, BOE members were strongly supportive of technology and computers in the classroom, with the flexibility to move computers around as necessary instead of having a dedicated computer lab. Several BOE members talked about the importance of having computers integrated into the daily curriculum instead of just teaching about computers. JCJ commented that public feedback has suggested that parents think there is too much emphasis on computers and technology.
Other questions focused on cafeteria and gym sizes, the availability of outdoor play space, and the size and necessity of a dedicated library. BOE member Corinne Gill commented that “we can’t do cookie cutters,” and that the board would have to look at the dynamics of each building to see what was best for that location.
All in all, JCJ Architecture was asking for the Board’s ideal preferences, and many board members commented that budget realities would seriously impact what can be done in the district. Stay tuned for an update from the May 26th Special Meeting: JCJ will present its recommendations, and parents should be prepared to give feedback to the BOE as it decides how to proceed for the 2009-2010 school year.
After a short recess, the regular monthly BOE meeting began. The public comment session lasted two hours, and centered on two key topics. First, several parents spoke about the existence of bullying and the perceived lack of intervention from teachers and school staff. During the course of these comments, last week’s fight at MHS came up. Two male students got into a fight and an ambulance was called to the school. MHS Principal Robert Fontaine would not comment on the specifics of the incident other than to say that whenever a student is injured, an ambulance is called. He also said that the incident rate of violent fights is way down this year, that disciplinary actions are always imposed when a fight happens in the building, and that it is unrealistic to believe that there will never be any fights between high school students. Fontaine finished by saying that the parental comments about bullying had nothing to do with the MHS fight. The BOE would go on to approve its revised policy on bullying (but I didn’t get to see what that was exactly).
The other subject that evoked much passionate parental comment was the recent announcement that Keigwin Middle School will NOT be offering advanced math for sixth graders for the 2009-2010 school year. Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum/instruction John Hennelly, along with the principals of Keigwin, Woodrow Wilson and MHS, explained the expected changes to the leveling process (for freshman as well as sixth graders) as necessary for productivity and effectiveness as explained in school improvement plans. For example, there are two groupings based on ability as students head into 7th and 8th grade, but then freshmen are divided into 3 groupings. MHS Principal Fontaine commented that this policy had caused concern during MHS’s last accreditation process, and his plan to address this concern was to drop down to two levels of instruction for freshman. Struggling learners will have a double period in math and/or language arts to help them catch up to where they should be.
For Keigwin, however, parents were doubly concerned that PROBE (the current program for gifted and talented) has been canceled for 4th and 5th graders and now advanced math instruction for 6th graders is also targeted for elimination. Instead of a single program for gifted students from across the district, the BOE later voted to support a new TaG (Talented and Gifted) Program that creates a stipend position at each elementary school to run a gifted program for that school. The current PROBE teacher, Roberta Avery, who retires at the end of this year, strongly urged the board NOT to cancel PROBE, but to add TaG in addition to PROBE. Parent Kevin Smith had been part of a committee on the leveling process, and he expressed much frustration about the direction the Board seems to be heading: “Advanced classes are so important for individual kids – is this the beginning of no advanced classes in 7th and 8th grade as well?” Middletown Federal of Teachers President, Ann Lohrand, commented that teachers are so swamped by all the recent changes in the district that they cannot also handle changes to the advanced classes system. To mix advanced learners back into a regular classroom and to expect teachers to differentiate instruction effectively is unrealistic and hurts both the advanced learner and regular learners.
Woodrow Wilson PTA President Vera Pennington commented that it seems parents and teachers have very little influence on what the BOE decides. She noted the low attendance levels at JCJ meetings as one example of decreased parental involvement as a function of parents believing what they think doesn’t matter. She noted that the middle schools have a 40 minute instruction period, large class sizes, mainstreamed students with learning disabilities and little teacher support (aides or paraprofessionals). Pennington concluded that it would be impossible for teachers to provide effective differential instruction given these circumstances.
A Keigwin Social Studies teacher commented that while she doesn’t have leveled classes, she didn’t even know that advanced math was being cancelled. She wondered why teachers weren’t kept in the loop, and commented that her classes have 27 students with 5 special education students, and that she works very hard to get anything done in her classes. She also commented that by a trick of scheduling, she has one class with several advanced students in it: the conversations this class has and the concepts she has been able to cover for these students is way above and beyond what she can do in her other classes. She asked to see the data that proves that canceling advanced classes is the right thing to do. She also asked if there would be additional paraprofessional support provided now that there would be 100% inclusion in mixed classes. Currently, paraprofessionals can help in other places during advanced classes, and that would not be possible if all classes are mixed together all the time, which would increase the number of paraprofessionals needed.
Other parents talked about their children’s response to hearing about the cancelled classes, with several commenting that their gifted or advanced students cried to hear that the opportunity they had been anticipating would no longer exist. Two parents with children with learning disabilities talked about the importance of their children having the proper support to learn at the pace they could handle, without feeling discouraged that so many other children could work faster or better then them. One of these parents specifically mentioned that the real world is based on setting high standards and having self-motivation to succeed. Her experience in the corporate world at GE confirmed this: “I don’t give all my employees the same bonuses…not everyone works as hard or deserves it.” Finally, one parent who identified himself as “a product of the Middletown School System,” described his advanced learning opportunities and how those helped him win a scholarship to college. He lamented the fact that his two daughters now might not have the same opportunity for success that he did, and finished by asking the board what their hurry was, and why this was moving forward if there were so many unanswered questions by parents and teachers.
After the public session closed, the board voted to meet early on May 26th to discuss specifically the issues parents raised concerning Keigwin and the leveling of classes.
The Superintendent’s financial report revealed that there is approximately $500,000 in the fund balance, and that a special group will be meeting to draft a new policy on how to spend the fund balance and how to conduct line item transfers at the end of the year. Tonight, the Common Council will vote on the budget, so work on the actual 2009/2010 budget can begin in earnest. Superintendent Frechette was asked for a prioritized list on which to spend the fund balance. Frechette also commented that he’s not counting on any stimulus funds anytime soon. The Dood/Lieberman letter to the Federal government hasn’t generated any immediate response, and Frechette assumes it will be a long time before the state passes on the federal funds CT is supposed to receive.
A new Professional Development calendar was approved for next year, with teachers getting time once a month to work on professional development or data team work (similar to the early release day that started this past January). The new school calendar will be released to parents as soon as possible to assist in child care plans for next year.
MHS held its own job fair for the first time (instead of administrators going to college fairs) and had 75-80 interested job applicants attend the 2 hour fair. All secondary principals were there, as well as key individuals from the departments with teaching vacancies. The event was very successful, and the District is likely to continue this in the future as it saves time and funds over administrators traveling to other college fairs. Administrators liked the ability to screen interview applicants on the spot, and this was viewed as a huge advantage over traditional job fairs.
The Board finished out the night by concentrating on policy and by-laws revisions. A new ad-hoc committee was appointed to look at and manage the retirement process. The next BOE meeting will be a special meeting held at MHS at 7pm on May 26th, 2009, to hear JCJ Architecture’s report. The BOE will meet in advance of that to discuss advanced classes at Keigwin, so there is the possibility that the JCJ meeting will be pushed to 7:30pm. Check the BOE calendar as the event gets closer for the exact details.
I have to tell you, reading this I want to RUN out of Middletown before my son is school-age. The demographics of Middletown belie the poor quality of schools. This is the school board's fault. If Wethersfield and Newington can have better schools than us and have the same demographics - what is wrong here? Why is Middletown so dysfunctional? I love this community, but will not stick around and let my kid get a subpar education because the school board can't get their act together!
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent interpretation of the May 12 BOE meeting, which I also attended. All parents in the district should attend the 5/26 and 6/2 BOE meetings at MHS. The decisions being made directly affect our children.
ReplyDeleteSome thoughts/comments in response to Anon:
ReplyDelete1. Newington and Wethersfield are really very different communities than Middletown, and keep in mind the grass is not always as green as it appears to be someplace else.
2. It's not fair to place all the blame on the Board of Education; there's been plenty of deadwood and dyfunction on the Board over the years, but also at the administrative and teaching levels, too.
3. Could it be that public education is a failed or failing academic and social experiment nationally and not just in Middletown; families throughtout the country are fleeing to private and home-school options because of it.
4. Maybe a little competition would lower the cost and improve the quality of public education; anyone for school choice vouchers?
The last comment seems to defend the Board. A fish rots from the head and the head in this case is the Board. Meriden has a strong Super and Board and much bigger problems and much larger budget cuts and their tests are improving Middletown Board always gets what they want and the test scores continue to fall...
ReplyDeleteI am as frustrated and disgusted with the BOE as we all are. I agree that it is not only the BOE, but the administration - specifically Frechette. The question that I pose is with so many disgruntled parents how do we organize to effect some positive change? I too have considered alternative education options for my kids because I am so frustrated by the choices that are made in the public schools. I know several teachers who are also frustrated almost to the breaking point. It is time that parents work together to find out what can be done to have the school administration and the BOE start working for us again. Instead of making choices that adversely effect our children. I for one would be willing to meet with other angry parents who are ready for a change
ReplyDeleteIF students who are doing well in math do not take advanced math in 6th grade, it is harder for them to adapt to it in 7th and 8th. I took algebra I in 8th grade as opposed to taking it as a freshmen. That year it was taught identically to that which was taught over at MHS. This allowed those of us who passed to eventually take Calculus our senior year. Some even took Uconn Calc at MHS. IF I and others had not taken advanced math then algebra a year earlier, we would not have been able to fit Calc into the 4 years of high school. My classmates and I would have stopped taking math at trig senior year rather than get in a calc course.
ReplyDeleteIt is essential that those who want to be in the medical architectural, engineering, science, math, and technology based fields etc etc, are exposed to calculus and like wise physics before reaching college! Many colleges even require that calc or physics be taken before application!
Maybe courses have changed, I don't know- BUT decisions need to be made considering how they effect the future education of students through the college application process, not just in that grade where something is cut-
madamnirvana, mhs class '02
The only way to change the BOE is to vote them out. Parents and PTAs must carefully determine which candidates will look out for the best interests of the children and vote them in. We are a large voting bloc and if we endorsed a slate through the PTA and all parents voted that way, we could vote out the current dysfunctional BOE
ReplyDeleteHas anyone looked into frechette's past life? He was pickdted in norwich. Th2 arrogance on this administration and board is 2nd to none. Parents why don't you question the 110,000 hire on the new business manager. WAKE UP PEOPLE!
ReplyDeleteJAM, thank you for covering this meeting!
ReplyDeleteBut to the commenter at 9:55, please consider writing your comments as if you were signing your name, even if you have a reason not to sign. When Michael Frechette was chosen as superintendent, it was well publicized that there was controversy in his previous positions, but if you have new or important information, please just share it. Also, what are your concerns about the business manager position? It trivializes these issues if you just drop hints without any substance. And I think these are very important issues.
Leveling? Isn't that just a euphemism for "dumbing down"?
ReplyDeleteCan't make the grade, drag down the achievers.Don't want to give anyone an inferiority complex. Welcome to the machine........