New Superintendent? Maybe, Maybe Not
Update: from Mirmac1.
RFP for a Superintendent Search firm was published 10/13. Proposals due the 30th
I would guess that means the majority of the Board decided we need a new superintendent.
End of update
Today sees a Work Session Session with two topics; high school policies and the 2016-2017 Program Review Reports. However the updated agenda shows two interesting things.
One, documents are actually attached. I was just told that they would only be attaching documentation to agenda for the actual Board meetings. I guess not. Altogether there are 218 pages.
Two, an Executive Session has been added with the multi-purpose title - To Evaluate the Performance of a Public Employee.
Soup for Teachers is reporting it's about an RFP to fund the search for a new superintendent . I find this odd that anyone would know the exact details of an Executive session. These sessions are confidential for a reason and I have never been able to get details (except to confirm it wasn't about one or another topic). I have to wonder who might have allowed details of the meeting to get out - a member of the Board or a staff member.
Superintendent Nyland did not get a second extension on his contract. He himself came on saying he was an interim - they had to pull him out of retirement. He got one extension but now, this district and this city deserve a real search for a true visionary leader.
But I am hearing there is pushback in some quarters on this. The new Board as configured after Nov. 4th deserves to find a new leader for this district and those leaving the Board or even those continuing on should accept that.
Work Sessions
Page 2 has the memo on the high school policies about graduation.
Page 3 is the Powerpoint on the high school policies - The timeline for secondary re-visioning and the transition to 24 credits. Middle and high school parents, you might want to take the time to read this.
Page 21 - Program Review of International and Dual Language Immersion (I have not read this.) Page 77 starts it up again after the review of Spectrum.
Page 43 - Program Review of Advanced Learning/Spectrum. It continues on page 162. I have not read this part of the review.
My take is that they want to keep the overwhelming majority of advanced learners in their neighborhood school. (see page 76)
I have skimmed this. The BS page is page 52 where they say MTSS should "be able to accommodate advanced learners."
MTSS isn't even fully rolled out. MTSS needs a manager so how can it be able to manage a new level of complexity? If having ALOs didn't do what needed to be done for advanced learners, why MTSS?
Also page 59 has some skewed thinking and unbalanced research references.
Page 69 says that teachers are interested in differentiation using technology. Yes, but you'd have to be careful that it's not just busywork. One quote - from a principal was telling - no more work packets and "It's differentiated homework without even thinking about it. That's off the teacher's plate..."
That statement made me shudder. Does every kid have technology at home? That would probably make the equity gap even bigger.
Not one single word about the presentation from De Bonte at the Work Session this past spring who the Board hosted. But staff knows best.
RFP for a Superintendent Search firm was published 10/13. Proposals due the 30th
I would guess that means the majority of the Board decided we need a new superintendent.
End of update
Today sees a Work Session Session with two topics; high school policies and the 2016-2017 Program Review Reports. However the updated agenda shows two interesting things.
One, documents are actually attached. I was just told that they would only be attaching documentation to agenda for the actual Board meetings. I guess not. Altogether there are 218 pages.
Two, an Executive Session has been added with the multi-purpose title - To Evaluate the Performance of a Public Employee.
Soup for Teachers is reporting it's about an RFP to fund the search for a new superintendent . I find this odd that anyone would know the exact details of an Executive session. These sessions are confidential for a reason and I have never been able to get details (except to confirm it wasn't about one or another topic). I have to wonder who might have allowed details of the meeting to get out - a member of the Board or a staff member.
Superintendent Nyland did not get a second extension on his contract. He himself came on saying he was an interim - they had to pull him out of retirement. He got one extension but now, this district and this city deserve a real search for a true visionary leader.
But I am hearing there is pushback in some quarters on this. The new Board as configured after Nov. 4th deserves to find a new leader for this district and those leaving the Board or even those continuing on should accept that.
Work Sessions
Page 2 has the memo on the high school policies about graduation.
Page 3 is the Powerpoint on the high school policies - The timeline for secondary re-visioning and the transition to 24 credits. Middle and high school parents, you might want to take the time to read this.
Page 21 - Program Review of International and Dual Language Immersion (I have not read this.) Page 77 starts it up again after the review of Spectrum.
Page 43 - Program Review of Advanced Learning/Spectrum. It continues on page 162. I have not read this part of the review.
My take is that they want to keep the overwhelming majority of advanced learners in their neighborhood school. (see page 76)
I have skimmed this. The BS page is page 52 where they say MTSS should "be able to accommodate advanced learners."
MTSS isn't even fully rolled out. MTSS needs a manager so how can it be able to manage a new level of complexity? If having ALOs didn't do what needed to be done for advanced learners, why MTSS?
Also page 59 has some skewed thinking and unbalanced research references.
Page 69 says that teachers are interested in differentiation using technology. Yes, but you'd have to be careful that it's not just busywork. One quote - from a principal was telling - no more work packets and "It's differentiated homework without even thinking about it. That's off the teacher's plate..."
That statement made me shudder. Does every kid have technology at home? That would probably make the equity gap even bigger.
Not one single word about the presentation from De Bonte at the Work Session this past spring who the Board hosted. But staff knows best.
Comments
That means it's *not* instruction. For anything to be instruction, it must be led by a teacher and on their plate.
This district is careening toward a conversion to replacing teachers with iPads and I don't see nearly enough people paying attention to this or fighting back against it.
-Parent
Note: the board only hires/evaluates a single employee: the superintendent. I'm not sure why the agenda is so coy about it. Of course this is related to the replacement search or pressure has forced them to offer a contract renewal after all.
-duh
-NW Mom
1) Removal of 150 hours per credit requirement
2) In the slide "How do the 24 Credit Graduation Requirements Add Up?" There's only 3 credits for Math, 3 for SS, and 3 for Science, does that mean that you have to use electives or the PPR to have Math, SS and Science every year?
As usual,
-Clueless
Enough with the "deeper learning" BS. I'm not buying it. It's code for lowering standards.
parent
1) very little advanced learning exists.
2) 95% of the advanced learning that does exist depends on computers.
3) on a practical basis, neither of the above facts could ever change, even if there was a will among teachers and principals, which there isn't.
MTSS is a cumbersome process, and the staff don't even have time or energy to handle all the traumatized, troubled, under-performing students. MTSS will never do anything for advanced learning, not ever (except get those students parked in front of a computer even more so the teacher has time to deal with the MTSS process for the strugglers).
In SPS, advanced learning = computers, and be grateful you even get that. Advanced learning by interaction with a human teacher is like unicorns in Shangri-La, fun to talk about if you have nothing at stake.
Re: #1, that means districts have flexibility in how they reward credits. They could, for example, decide that all current classes are worth 1.25 credits per year instead of one, and voila!, problem solved for most. Or they could decide that they'll go to a 7-period day, with each class shorter than now--say 45 minutes each for 180 days, or 135 hrs per year. Kids won't get any more time to cover things--and will possibly get less--but we'll award more credits and act like we're covering more.
Re: #2, Yes. You only need 3 math and 3 science and 3 social studies to graduate, so any you take beyond that come from your flexible areas--PPR and electives. With the added Health requirement (increased from 1 to 2), students have 4 elective credits, and a little flexibility via the PPR. That basically makes it impossible to take 4 years of math, SS, and science (uses 3 electives), 3 years foreign language (uses last elective), and 4 years of music (since only have 2 arts spots left). That could change if we make district-wide changes based on #1 above, but given the current system of 1 credit per year per course and 6 courses per day, you have 24 slots. Four years each of math, science, SS and English use 16. CTE and Health use 3 more, leaving 5 for the rest. Since you have to do at least 2cr each of arts and foreign language with those remaining 5, you basically get 2 years of one and 3 of the other--and that's assuming you don't try any other electives. It kind of sucks.
I suppose one way around it might be via Running Start or summer college classes or approved online classes, since then you could earn credits at a faster rate and/or expand the number of credits you can take. But it would be a shame if students were FORCED to work outside the SPS system to get a good slate of classes--not to mention that would disproportionately benefit those with the greatest ability to navigate outside opportunities. We need a better solution, and they really need to get cracking on the outreach to really, "for realsies" engage parents this time.
Hurry-up Offense
Hurry-up
HP
I think I might change my name from Clueless to Dismayed
-Clueless
parent
Fed up
DistrictWatcher
Eric, I consistently say that the Board says, "I do not have the information I asked for in order to vote. Therefore I will be voting no." Or "I have asked why Policy X is not being followed and there has been no clear answer. I will be voting no." Enough no votes will make staff understand the Board means business.
Jane
wonderin'
RE: your son's decision, he can probably pull it off either way. If they do add a 7th period and he wants to spend it in health class, great. If they don't, he can still do an online class then, right? It's probably not all that much work--and he should know before the summer, so could always do it then.
Hurry-up Offense
I don't think the real answer is HCC as it stands (though I think something is needed for *some* of those kids), but some level of walk-to/differentiation/assistants/smaller class sizes would be really beneficial for many kids and teachers. It is a huge strain for a single person to try to accommodate all learners.
NE Parent
The board has nothing to lose anymore.
"Though I think something is needed for *some* of those kids.."
Raise the bar? What?
It's as if some people want kids to be off the charts smart in order to get any services. Just being smart (not "bright") isn't good enough.
"It is a huge strain for a single person to try to accommodate all learners."
Right and no MTSS is going to change that.
At last night's forum, a very determined teacher had the last question. She said that at her school, a class of Sped kids had no permanent teacher. They has subs and, on good days, there might the same sub for a couple days but on bad days, no sub. (Not sure how that works.)
She asked candidates what they would do.
Omar Vasquez tried to flip the question back to her, "Let me ask you a question."
To which she replied, "NO, I'm asking you the question."
He said well, wait, what if we paid good teachers a bonus or higher pay for these classes.
Clearly irritated she said, "You aren't listening. More money is not going to lower a too-large workload or provide the supports." Meaning, not just a good teacher but more than that.
Every school - if the district is trying to keep as many kids at their local school as possible - will then need supports to help the varied kinds of learners.
That's just common sense. Is that going to happen? I doubt it.
Occasionally two classes would be in the cafeteria and a teacher and volunteer parents would supervise.
It might also mean that an adult staff person, but who was not a certificated substitute would supervise and in some instances the principal would teach the class.
As far as SPED classes go, my daughter was not in self contained, but it wasnt unusual according to parents who do have children in self contained classrooms, for an aide to be in charge of the class for days at a time.
How many of the teachers who don't support HCC are opposed partly out of self interest? Getting an infusion of high-performing students might be good for their stats, and think of all the extra help they can get in the classroom with all these mini-teachers? It made me think back to my elementary days, when I spent more than 50% of the day outside of my classroom, helping various school staff. I spent many recesses grading the work of my classmates, entering data into the gradebook, and even completing report cards for my teacher (yes, for my own class). I also assisted in the 4th grade classroom during their math lessons; worked in the library checking in and re-shelving books; worked in the cafeteria setting up for lunch and collecting money/making change; helped in the front office; and helped the school nurse with health screenings and record-keeping. During the limited time I was in class, the only things I remember doing are word jumbles from the newspaper each day, and free reading--often of some risque stuff, but the teacher didn't pay any attention and there weren't any assignments on the reading. To be clear, I thought it was all kind of fun, but as far as academics go, it was a completely wasted year. When I think back now I value all the non-academic opportunities I had, but I feel terrible for those in my "cluster" who got nothing. They had placed six high-performing sixth graders in a class that was otherwise 5th graders, thinking that we wouldn't take a lot of the teacher's time. Turns out we got even less than that. It was probably a lot like what it would like today to have groups of HC students pushed into GE classrooms. Some teachers might do an ok job with differentiation, but most likely won't. They can't be expected to do it all.
Teach All
HP
And that is why I am choosing to keep my kids in their neighborhood school for elementary school as well.
-Another viewpoint
Teach All
I'm not saying that kids who have high aptitude do not need differentiated education. But I am saying that there are clearly kids who just miss the cut for a variety of reasons (or who squeak into it by private testing) who aren't being well served.
A strict acceleration program really seems quite weak compared to what other places are doing and looking at the wide variety of learning needs. I think it's better than nothing (which is why so many people fight to get into it), but it really seems to me that we could do way more and actually serve a lot more kids a lot better.
NE Parent
Reality Check
Yup.
I'm not sure that NE Parent described a program full of kids who don't need to be there but rather, what are we calling highly capable? Is it just acceleration needed for some? Acceleration plus a deep dive plus cohort for others?
As well, the point also is that this district knows there are kids of color who could benefit from this program and is unable to find/enroll them. Not good.
Small Shoes
HF