Site-based Management
When is site-based management an intentional strategy to allow schools to tailor practices to the individual needs of their communities and when is it just a euphemism for the culture of lawlessness and the district administration's inability or unwillingness to set and enforce practices and procedures?
When schools use textbooks other than the district-adopted texts without the benefit of a waiver, is that site-based management or is it lawlessness? When the executive director of schools doesn't know what textbooks the schools are using, is that site-based management or a lack of management?
When elementary schools set their own schedule and don't allow sufficient time for recess or lunch, is that site-based management or a lack of management?
When schools are supposed to offer an ALO or Spectrum but cannot identify one thing that they do differently for the participating students is that site-based management or a culture of lawlessness? When the executive director of schools can't describe the ALO or Spectrum services is that site-based management or lack of management?
When school practices or budgeting violate federal laws on Special Education is that site-based management or lawlessness? When the executive director of schools doesn't confirm compliance is that site-based management or lack of management?
When a Building Leadership Team barely exists, doesn't meet, or serves as a rubber-stamp for the principal is that site-based management or lawlessness? When the executive director of schools doesn't know anything about the building's decision-making process is that site-based management or lack of management?
When schools use textbooks other than the district-adopted texts without the benefit of a waiver, is that site-based management or is it lawlessness? When the executive director of schools doesn't know what textbooks the schools are using, is that site-based management or a lack of management?
When elementary schools set their own schedule and don't allow sufficient time for recess or lunch, is that site-based management or a lack of management?
When schools are supposed to offer an ALO or Spectrum but cannot identify one thing that they do differently for the participating students is that site-based management or a culture of lawlessness? When the executive director of schools can't describe the ALO or Spectrum services is that site-based management or lack of management?
When school practices or budgeting violate federal laws on Special Education is that site-based management or lawlessness? When the executive director of schools doesn't confirm compliance is that site-based management or lack of management?
When a Building Leadership Team barely exists, doesn't meet, or serves as a rubber-stamp for the principal is that site-based management or lawlessness? When the executive director of schools doesn't know anything about the building's decision-making process is that site-based management or lack of management?
Comments
To one point, Charlie and I have heard from several parents wondering why the district is allowing schools - without waivers - to use other math curriculum than the one that was vetted by a committee, discussed by the Board with staff and voted on by staff. And, of course, paid for by taxpayers. We are hearing of Math in Focus materials delivered to schools and going straight into a closet.
Schools just do what they want, and this often has little to do with the needs of their particular population. It's more about the principal's individual philosophy, the teachers' preferences, the principal's ability or willingness to manage the teachers, etc.
I'd even argue that the term-site based management is often inaccurate. Sometimes it's more like classroom-based management. If it were really site-based management, shouldn't a middle school principal be able to describe, for example, the curricular differences between their HCC, Spectrum and GE programs? That would suggest some overarching strategy and management. As it is, however, it all seems to be teacher-determined. Maybe a couple teachers in the same grade level and same program coordinate on a plan, but that seems to be about it.
HF
-same old
Academic freedom does not extend to non-compliance with IEPs.
Academic freedom does not extend to refusing to use district-mandated assessments.
There are limits to academic freedom.
School money is spent arbitrarily with little-to-no oversight or evaluation on the merit of its purpose nor transparency. Large amounts that were budgeted go missing without explanation. When asked outright about it, s/he says simply "That's my decision." S/he moves teachers around for unfathomable reasons other than to make teaching harder and probably to encourage them to leave. Such arbitrariness makes life miserable for the teacher and penalizes students. Every grade level has its challenges. Raising the learning curve on teachers for no good reason is pointless. If a teacher wants a change, that's one thing. If student population requires a teacher to move grade levels, I get that. But that's not what is happening. This coming year, the principal at my school is moving a brand new teacher to another grade level and moving that experienced teacher to the new teacher's current grade level. That makes no sense.
I know parents think a lot of teachers are not very good but I don't think most parents realize today just how much is on our plates. How much we are expected to get into a day and without support from a principal who doesn't know how to teach. S/he comes from middle/high school with no gen ed experience. S/he reads books and expects us all to comply with the current read. From lack of tech support to ever-changing math expectations to simply too much curriculum, the job is becoming impossible. BTW, I tried to teach Math In Focus but it was so altered by our math department, I gave up and now follow the math departments curriculum which includes a fair amount of Engage NY math. It is one more voluminous amount of paperwork to read and coordinate.
I've read parents here talk about the last few weeks of school becoming less academic and at one time I agreed. Not any more. A complaint I make every year: Portland teachers have two days negotiated to close out their classrooms at the end of the year. We have none. All paperwork and closing duties ares due at the end of the last student day. It's impossible. I have been critical of the negotiations for elementary by my union. I'm beginning to think we have a superintendent who has little regard for what teachers think at all and who, like our Republican congress, just says no to everything.
(continued)
I'm don't know if our principal is just the worst of the draw or if in fact this kind of thing is going on district-wide. With a cadre of new teachers who want to please, s/he he has full command. But being a teacher - especially an experienced teacher who wants to be part of the decision-making process - is asking for trouble. I'm sorry for many of our new teachers because we do have some very good ones. They will be worn out by their fifth year. I can promise you that. Maybe the plan is to just keep replacing them.
Finally, our principal had no elementary experience and everything at my school is rah rah middle-high school team spirit but very little expertise in the art of teaching. BTW, I hope parents are watching test scores at their schools because honestly, except at schools with high parent support, scores will be declining. It's going to be very interesting to watch.
Sorry for the negative review but it's getting serious out here. While I think principals are the problem, I believe this has come about because we have a superintendent who doesn't really care anymore. He's too old, has little vision or desire to make his mark. He's collecting a paycheck. You talk about teachers who collect paychecks but whose energy and enthusiasm are spent? Well, you've got a super who should be retired for the same reasons.
H
I do think with no incentive to provide it, most schools will not offer any advanced learning opportunities as all, especially not while we have the capacity crisis we have now. But I don't know what kind of incentive will work.
-sleeper
One big complaint is that the fifth-grade math sequence jumped around instead of following the book sequentially. I was confused and investigated. The “MIF Teacher’s Edition” in fact has a very detailed “Scope and Sequence” mapping for the Common Core, which follows the book but omits some chapters/sections. I reviewed the district's scope and sequence, and although the scope matched very closely to the MIF Common Core Scope, the district’s sequence was nonsequential. In other words, the math department could have simply used the Common Core scope and sequence from the “MIF Teacher Edition”, but instead they felt not only that they knew better than the publisher, but their sequence was so superior that it outweighed the many benefits of having a sequence that was easy for parents, teachers, and students to follow.
Supposedly this was done by a “committee” in the “best interests of the kids”. Fortunately, it appears that next year’s sequence has been “fixed” and is now sequential to the chapters the in the book; in other words, they’re back to using the MIF Common Core Scope and Sequence that is described in detail in the “Teachers Edition”.
I recommend parents write their principal and teachers and board members and ask why they aren’t using the MIF book. Evidently enough people complained about the sequence that the Math Department changed it.
- hopeful
I wonder if the new Board had some sway over changing back the math to MiF. Rick Burke was a Where’s the Math? guy and I have much more confidence in him than the Central Office people. He knows what works in math curricula.
S parent
-teacher
-SPS Parent
Also, please get rid of Ed Directors. We could save lots of money. Our Ed Director is awful.
Different Teacher
CP
CP - kindergarten and First and no. We spent three years with a math specialist, countless hours on PD and created our own, pulling all the best stuff from available curriculum. Creating a scope and sequence, benchmark assessments and a intervention protocol to support struggling students. We re-asses its effectiveness as we go and make appropriate modifications. It is a TON of work but we are seeing great gains in academic progress. There is no prefect curriculum that will solve all the problems and teach kids everything they need to know. Money is best spent educating teacher (how to teach, to understand the standards and basic math practice) so they can put together a comprehensive program that will best meet the needs of the students they are serving. Teacher education, Anatomy and the CCSS is the best curriculum.
-Teacher
Someone please tell me that I'm wrong, but I can't see any indication to the contrary.
Every time that there is any sort of controversy, and the Education Director is dragged into it (they are always dragged in, they do not step in), they reveal their Grand Canyon ignorance.
When MIF was adopted and the central office wanted to know what math materials the schools were using, none of the Education Directors knew.
When school communities rise up against their principals and the Education Director has to step in, they never know what the issues are.
There is not one Education Director who can confidently describe the advanced learning programs in their region.
The Education Directors do not provide any compliance or enforcement for IDEA.
The Education Directors do not provide any compliance or enforcement for the BLTs.
And when they do take action it is bizarre. An Education Director fired a beloved principal from an option school for being late with paperwork. What's up with that?
Let's face it. Every time that "site based management" is used as a euphemism for "failure to manage centrally" it is the Education Directors who are the people who are failing.
1) a buck-passing strategy. The central office is not responsible because it's site based, and the school is not responsible because their hands are tied by the central office. That doesn't make sense, of course, but it works to get rid of any parent or blogger who would ask questions.
2) a system of informal, off-the-record centralization. The central office can control the issues it really cares about (never mind written policy or those pesky "directors") through its control of principals' career prospects. So the schools are not really site-managed, but also not managed according to written policy. They are managed according to the wishes of the senior bureaucrats, the "deep district."
Part (2) is not really unusual. It's very similar to a corporate culture, except that a corporation would be less policy-oriented and more goal-oriented.
I'm a teacher who does make a lot of the homework myself. I want it to match precisely what was taught that day. MIF homework is poor in that it doesn't require a frame for actually including procedure and thinking to support the answers. Just showing answers often belies real understanding. The problems are often easy. It is showing how you know the procedure is correct and the answer an accurate solution that is part and parcel of common core. Their homework does often ask for supporting evidence but it rarely in my experience comes back to class comlete. While I like MIF and the sequence it uses, I do not like its homework package. Not at all.
-parent
Second, the concern about MIF alignment with Common Core and dissatisfaction from a small portion of the K-5 educator community motivated a "Scope and Sequence" realignment initiative, where the MIF content was reviewed, reordered, and in many cased supplemented or omitted. This well-intentioned work to improve guidance to teachers turned out to be a very significant effort and SPS didn't have the resources to execute it in a concise and timely fashion. Result? Confusion from using an incomplete resource set.
The math department as JSCEE has reaffirmed to buildings that the MIF Table of Contents is a suitable scope and sequence, as this represents a topic/content progression which is already engineered and field-tested. Is it perfect? No way! Is it a step up from EDM? Absolutely.
I don't consider myself a disciple of fidelity of implementation, but I do believe that if we provide complete and well-sequenced core instructional materials, we set a baseline expectation for educators to use that program at their primary resource. If a teacher or building has the expertise and commitment to enhance MIF, then go for it. However, if pedagogical or process disagreements are motivating buildings to keep MIF in the bookroom and students are getting inconsistent or weak math materials, than that is unacceptable to me.
If you have classroom-based concerns about math delivery, talk with your principal. If your building is not meeting community expectations, raise your concerns through channels: First the Ed Director, second Mike Starosky, Chief of Schools, third Michael Tolley. Looping in your School Board Director and Anna Box, Math Program Manager is also appropriate.
Rick Burke
Director, SPS Dist. II
Please lose the snark. My homework actually provides a frame for students who are elementary and need practice in showing thinking and procedure. MIF homework does not. It asks for the procedure(thinking) but students do not or rarely include it because there is no support frame on the homework page to demand it or help them understand what is expected. Only a simple "show your thinking" box or space which gets ignored. And procedure is more than "writing about" math. Understanding procedure is key.
@Rick
I think it is so different at every school. I know one teacher at a northeast school who vocally lobbies against MIF. She won't use it. Perhaps the district has come around to a more loyal view in using MIF but the first six months of the year we were reduced to using the district's scope and sequences and checkpoints. Because it required coordinating so many different pieces of the puzzle, two of us finally worked together and pretty much used the district-created checkpoints to guide our teaching. As I tried to follow the district's grand design, I would create homework and even extra checkpoints based on their computer offerings. Several times, as I cut, copied and pasted different elements, EngageNY would pop up on my computer screen outing the fact that they used that curriculum to create their own customized version.
I like MIF but I cannot serve two masters in math. If you want good teaching, you need to give teachers a curriculum they can trust and then allow them to makes small tweaks that adapt it to the needs of their learners. I cannot spend all my planning time on math. I do teach other subjects that require time as well.
One more thing, as parent said, MIF is numbers math. It assumes understanding will come by doing a lot of number work. It isn't easy and many of us have had to really work on our own understanding of math to teach it well. Parents who parrot the "real math" rhetoric seem impatient with those of us who have children who really struggle to understand and do math. All those pricey programs school districts invest in are designed for children who struggle with reading and/or math. But for those children, we'd be using curricula from the 1890s and we could forget spending millions trying to find the perfect curriculum for every student. In fact, in 1890 the curriculum was much tighter with fewer bells and whistles and cheaper. For those who could keep up, it worked. I guess the others just dropped out and went back to farms or industry. But today, every student must show mastery . . . It's a daunting task.
Math mom
A good book on math is Betrayed, How the Education Establishment has Betrayed America and What You Can Do About It, by Laurie Rogers. The title is a bit much but the book explains how reform math neglected critical content, even though it is popular with many educators. Too many students end up in remedial math if they make it to college, which is unacceptable.
MIF may not be perfect, as Rick said. Hopefully it will not end up in school closets the way Singapore math textbooks did. SPS has a way of ditching good curricula and letting the schools experiment. A firmer hand is needed.
S parent
-teacher
K-5 parent
-speculating
If you love centralized management (the opposite of site-based) then you should have loved MGJ, and the rest of them down at JSEE. You can't really have it both ways.
Reader
If there is going to be a rule, then enforce the rule. If you don't want the rule, then get rid of it. But let's not have either unenforced rules or sporadically enforced rules.
Reader
A proper role for the central office would be to take on the non-academic tasks associated with operating the district and the schools (legal, HR, budgeting, accounting, maintenance, transportation, nutrition services, purchasing, etc.). This would also include policy and procedure sorts of things.
As far as the academic work goes, the central office should play two roles:
First, to support the work done in schools. They can support the work by facilitating collaboration, by selecting instructional materials, and by providing coaching. There are other ways that the central office can support the academic work done in the schools, but that should be their focus - support, not supplant. This is a service role, not a leadership role. Too often the central administration tries to dictate the academic work. Not only is this foolish because it is unenforceable, but it's also presumptuous for the central office to make decisions about students they have never met.
Second, the central office should play a quality assurance role. They should be assessing programs and schools for quality and efficacy. This is desperately absent. I don't understand how anyone in the JSCEE can claim that they are performing any sort of management if they are not checking quality. It's surreal.
After that, the central office should just stop. But nowhere do we see a clear, narrowly defined mission for the central office and they need it.
Joseph Olchefske used to talk about being loose on the How and tight on the What. Meaning that the District would allow the schools freedom in determining how they would do their job, but that the District would be very sure that they did the job. In truth, the District has it backwards and is tight on the How - with things like fidelity of implementation - and loose on the What - they are completely without any assessments of the efficacy of programs and schools.
That's a middle ground I can live with - making rules but failing to enforce them is not an acceptable middle ground.