I’ll begin this with a letter to the editor I submitted to the Northfield News, which I think is self-explanatory:
On Feb 9 the Northfield School Board entertained two options for next year’s school calendar. Both involve having a one hour late-start EVERY MONDAY of the year, so that teachers can have the time to meet in professional learning communities. These meetings would replace the four days that have traditionally been scheduled with 2 hours either late start or early release. Parents have one month to comment on the proposed calendar. (continued)
I strongly object to this change.First, it will further reduce instructional time for each student. We already have fewer instructional days (173) than other areas of the country (e.g., the Northeast, which has about 180); now we are chipping away at those fewer days. We are reminded each year by building principals that every minute of instruction counts. If true, then reduction in instructional time is a very big issue.
Second, this calendar, while perhaps convenient and congenial to teachers and principals, is problematic for working parents of elementary students. Working parents are unlikely to be able to stay home until 9 or 9:30 every week with their young children. They will now have to pay extra to have supervision for their young elementary children (or else leave them unsupervised). The plan is not “cost-neutral” as claimed by the district, but a new cost imposed unilaterally on parents.
My third objection is that the only options on the table contain this late-start provision. Parents had no voice in formulating these options, or discussing with the committee what effects this change would have on them.
Lastly, the justification given for this change is that “research” has “shown” that professional learning communities are beneficial for education. I find this statement vague and possibly misleading. Our teachers have been in PLCs for at least some time already, and our performance as a school district is heading down, not up. What exactly is the evidence, IN NORTHFIELD, that PLC’s are improving student experience?
My experience as a parent is that the Northfield school district is a very staff-centric one. We do (and fail to do) far too much to suit the convenience and preferences of teachers and administrators, instead of centering efforts, energies, and resources on students. Parental concerns are ignored far too often. It’s time for this focus to change.
I urge other concerned parents to make their views known to school board members, and to do so soon.
I haven’t yet heard back from the News—usually they publish my letters though sometimes it takes a few weeks. They also limit letters to 400 words, so there is not a lot of room for expansion.
But as I wrote the letter, and as I phoned and emailed school board members about the issue before writing the letter, I became increasingly clear about how I felt about a larger issue: The Northfield School district has become increasingly staff-centric, and that compromises the overall educational quality delivered to its students.
I don’t deny that having teachers be in professional learning communities has value. I question the relative value of those meetings against instructional time for kids. I also question why these meetings can’t take place after school or before school (in the case of Bridgewater, which already has a very late start). I suspect the answer has something to do with the large proportion of teachers who coach. But that raises the question, why is coaching more important a priority than teaching. And, coaching aside, I question why the burden of holding these meetings should fall upon families with both parents working outside the home, or single parents who work outside the home (like me).
For more information, see the ISD 659 website has PDF of background information and Frequently Asked Questions.
I feel the need to first explain my long silence—a close friend’s husband was tragically killed in a car accident early last week, and it’s taken my focus away from defending myself from charges of racisim and elitism. Somehow that just didn’t seem fun. Life’s just too short and precious.
I will clarify for those who care that both my children go to Northfield public district schools, my son from kindergarten through 10th grade (his current year). My regret (expressed in post 122) is that I did NOT move him to a private or charter school five years ago, when I could have done so more unilaterally than I feel I can now. I wonder to this day how much of a difference it would have made if I’d followed the sinking feeling in my gut when I originally observed middle school classes and wrenched him away from his friends (a bunch of really nice kids) in favor of more rigorous academics, especially in writing. (I’ll say in fairness that the math curriculum here has been consistently quite strong. However, writing is a more important overall academic skill).
My point in doing this blog is not just bashing. To put it as simply as I can, it’s this: there is a LOT in Northfield public district schools that is worth saving. There are some outstanding teachers (almost all elementary, almost all math teachers, and many others in different disciplines). But there are ALSO some severe problems, and anyone who insists that everything is hunky-dorey or awesomely excellent is either using language in a nonstandard way or is missing something.
Northfield is currently in the BOTTOM half of MINNESOTA school districts as measured by MCAII tests. FIVE of our six buildings—every one but Sibley, is NOT MAKING AYP. Now, I know some will say these tests are not a gold standard, and I would agree to a point—but: they’re the only basis of comparison to other districts, and they’re the only one the district can’t spin. Folks, we’re in a city with TWO colleges. We ought to be ranked a whole lot higher than we are, relative to other MN school districts. Yes, eventually, every district may end up not making AYP—but we ought to be one of the last districts to have this happen, and we aren’t.
The MAP tests, in my opinion, are much better designed and more informative. But Northfield reports only what it wants to from them. For example, the MAP tests have shown fairly consistently over the past five years that there’s a very serious problem with both reading and language usage growth at the middle school—in all but 7th grade—but this is the first year you can find public recognition of that fact, and it’s buried in the Site Improvement Plan. (But, kudos to new principal Jeff Pesta for at least acknowledging the problem—what a refreshing change from the usual district prevarication or omission!)
Second big problem: we are hemorrhaging families from the district—many over issues raised in this blog. Not everyone wants their kid to serve simply as “leaven” or any other ingredient for all the other students in a class—some of us want our kids to ALSO receive a good, challenging, education. And, that isn’t always happening.
EVERY KID who walks out of the district public schools takes something like five grand in funding with him. (I don’t have the exact figure--so if someone else does, chime in, please). The five kids I know personally who left this year took about thirty grand away. That’s ½ to 2/3 of a (young) teacher’s salary. And with Prairie Creek expansion and the CRSS opening, wow. This problem is going to grow worse, killing the budget, and hurting the education of EVERY child who’s left.
The district administration shows utter indifference to this problem. School board members, also. The superintendent and other administrators I’ve talked to about the issue seem to shrug it off. And, yes, some of those losses may be inevitable—if a family values a particular pedagogy or philosophy, then their only choice is likely to go elsewhere. But I submit there are a LOT of families who are leaving, or considering leaving, because they are fed up. Fed up with district spin and stunts like the ones we’ve seen with this PLC issue. Fed up with their kids not learning enough in certain classrooms or curricular areas. Fed up with being ignored or manipulated by principals, the superintendant, with important information withheld or buried or not readily accessible. Fed up with being looked down upon by their elected school board members. Fed up, in short, with a HUGE communication problem between the district and those it supposedly serves.
Some of those losses are preventable. But not if the district keeps up the flying wedge plays. Or burying problems. This blog is my attempt to point them out—to say the things that others will privately acknowledge, but are afraid to say publically (perhaps because of personal attacks that are likely to follow? ). It’s my attempt to discuss the problems, to destroy the idea that there’s a list of issues that SHALL NOT BE NAMED less we hurt feelings of teachers or administrators.
I am afraid that the school board will do as it has done in the past and focus on the idea that there is a problem with the process and NOT look at the problem with a one-hour late start.
Yes, the process stinks and it gets complained about--but lets get back to the issue here--a one hour late start for PLC has little support from parents. No amount of communicating will change that unless the school district can come up with some hard facts showing that PLCs are going to benefit each and every student.
Kathleen, I have to say that I have been pleased with the high school math and science instructors and dissapointed with the English language instructions. (I have 2 grads of NHS; one is a freshman at St Olaf.) Unfortunately I think the school has often ridden on the coat tails of the professional parents in the district--when you are given a group of high achieving students, of course the outcome is high achieving.
On the other hand, students who are not deemed “college material” get the short shrift from counselors and administration. We need to see a committment to more of our students graduating and going on to whatever higher education they aspire to--not limited by the counselors decision that they are not worthy.
Jane--
Agreed. When I say “communication” I don’t mean the district posting all of these one-sided pdf files (which are pretty empty if you analyze them critically). I mean a two-way discussion, which includes actual listening, and a commitment to collaboration with parents AND staff to find mutually acceptable conclusions. Not just for this issue, but for the other kinds of issues we’ve been talking about.
I also agree with a point Kathleen made in her last post. We have been given NO good arguments for why Monday mornings can’t be cleared of other meetings for PLCs to meet. It’s been repeated that this can’t be done, but this is “proof by repeated assertion”--not exactly a reputable form of argument.
If teacher and administrator commitment to PLCs is really so strong, then why shouldn’t those meetings be prioritized over other ones? And if commitment to PLCs is not that universally strong, how effective are they really going to be?
Jane,
The truth is that not every student is college material and not every student wants to go to college.
As a society we need to put our focus on all students and their needs. Focusing on academics for the sole purpose of getting all the kids college ready is just wrong.
We need to go back and rethink our whole approach to education. I can offer some insights on a different approach from my past experience.
When I started in school i went first through elementary school for the first four years. We then went on to what is called “Hauptschule”. This provides a basic general education and runs from grades 5 to 9.
After the completion of the ninth grade the student as three options.
1) Leave school and move in to an apprenticeship to learn a trade. This takes usually three years, where the apprentice is hired by a company that will teach him/her the selected trade. Within those three years the student continues school, taking classes related to his/her chosen profession.
2) Stay in school for another year and qualify for a higher level of apprenticeship for non trade professions.
3) Continue school for another three years and qualify for college or universities.
After the ninth year the student can chose to move in to higher education, but needs the grades in order to move on.
After graduating form “high school” the choice of universities is limited by his/her GPA. Doctors, Lawyers and architects require some of the highest GPA’s.
There’s a school board meeting tonight, at which the calendar proposal will be presented. Will any opponents be there to speak during the public comment time?
I notice that there are still more new materials on the district website about PLCs, including the PLC Accountability Plan. It’s an internal document, the usefulness of which to the outside world suffers from the usual educational jargon. Can someone explain what a “SMART Goal” is?
Thx for the alert, Rob. Tonight’s board agenda is at:
http://www.nfld.k12.mn.us/schoolboard/agenda/08.09/03.09.09.pdf
“SMART” stands for:
Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Relevant
Time Bound
Yes, that’s the SMART acronym, but as I read through the “accountability” document, I don’t see much (accountability). Teachers will fill out a worksheet listing their discussion topics. Principals will collect these. They will be standardized across buildings.
External performance indicators (e.g., MCA & MAP test scores) will be “monitored” to see if PLC’s are working.
This is like, nothing. If PLCs really have the dramatic effects the school district materials would lead one to believe, then a specific external goal should be specified--e.g., we will see a 5-10% improvement in MAP scores in every area within a year.
The school district goes further to specify that the only things that will be publicly shared are “selected” examples of success????!!!!!
How in the world can they say this stuff with a straight face????
I’m at the Board mtg. No one opted to speak during the public comments/open mic.
The weekly one-hour for PLC is being recommended for early release on Wed vs. Monday morn.
Parents of Elementary and Middle School students can opt for 1 hour of free supervised time for students.
Middle School extra-curricular activities would run M, T, Th, F. Currently they run M,T,W, Th.
Board member Mike Berthelson is wondering whether it makes sense to have the buses run 1 hour hour early.
Kathie and Rob (and anyone else who may know): Kathie says Northfield is very low in comparison.
Does that mean the district public schools (Griff, am I using the right jargon?), and the charter schools, taken together?
If so, then could the problem also be with the charter schools? Or don’t they take the tests?
If not, then what is our local ratio of charter schools slots to other-district-run-of-the-mill public school slots?
If we have a high number of charter school slots compared to the rest of our slots (relative to the rest of MN), and if the scores of which you speak are mostly regarding the district schools, then this would seen to confirm my theory about taking the leaven out of the dough.
But either way, it would seem to be a problem: Either both charters and others take the tests, and we have low scores, which may reflect poorly on both, OR the figures apply to the non-charter schools with the leaven subtracted, to some extent (except for companeros, which is in-house?).
Even if the tests are taken at the charter schools, who has the scores? How do the charter schools do on the tests?
Do charter schools teach to those tests, as often happens since NCLB, with the myopic “get the scores up” focus?
Or do they just try to be good charter schools and engage the students in loving learning, which has its own way of affecting test scores, tho’ indirectly?
Many of the folks who cry “reform!” seem to live and die by the tests, and the more we listen to them, it seems, the more we teach to the test. But this is not the way good choice programs and good charter schools tend to engage students and nurture a love for learning.
So this is where some of the urge to tear down becomes counter-productive.
District Admin Assistant Donita Delzer said she would try to post the PDF of the administration’s revised recommendation to the School Board on the District’s web site in the morning.
I went to the board meeting and was reminded why I dislike these so much. I learned a lot. Teachers can’t meet one hour early because- -- - they can’t.
However, they will bend over backward to have the meetings on Wednesday, and provide free supervision for one hour but not free transportation--so if you are dependent on the school bus to take your child to day care you will have to pay for an additional hour because, in the hopes of getting rid of as many kids as possible so they won’t have to provide an hour of free supervision, they are runnng the buses early.
Oh yeah--they have to run the buses early so the special ed kids (who ride a separate bus) have to leave early because they cannot hang out for the free-supervised hour.
Also, we have long school days so instructional time will not be disrupted since the students get an extra 12 minutes EVERY DAY so they will not notice that the schedule is completely disrupted on Wednesdays.
And, did I say that PLCs are really really good and really beneficial for all kids? This was repeated alot. Somehow, this makes up for disrupting all students schedule because it aids in staff development--and, by the way, teachers cannot possibly adjust their schedules to meet one-hour early. Period.
What is this having everybody else adjust every Wednesday for every week of the school year?
The school board is sold on the idea of disrupting the schedule for PLCs. They continually discussed how great PLCs are but did not seem to understand that their constituents were still trying to see why a major disruption of everyone’s schedule was required.
The part I like best is that 200 professional people who are meeting to improve their profession cannot adjust their schedules but 2000 students and their families must adjust.
Oh yeah--teaching is lonely. These meetings help with the loneliness, I guess.
So--to sum up, there was a lot of subjective “testimony” regarding the value of PLCs and no discussion of the problem of disrupting each Wednesday school day.
Mike B and Jeff Q both brought up how disruptive the early release is for families, and I think they both made their case, and I appreciate that Mike did not let go--he kept at the problems of an early bus.
So, this is what I learned. Teachers cannot give up their time before school, their time for extracurricular activities, or their time for sports. The only time they can give up for PLCs is instructional time.
If this is a contractural issue--we need to be informed of that--and the “committee” needs to work on transparency on giving us the facts. If this is not a contractural issue, we need to know why they think disrupting 2000 schedules is more important than adjusting 200.
By the way, I think that our teachers are dedicated and work hard--I think that if we surveyed the teachers, they would support what works best--but don’t let the school district write the survey. They seem to have some professionalism issues. Maybe the administration should start having PLCs.
I think that the administration is doing a disservice to the teachers because it appears that teachers are being uncooperative and forcing the disruptive schedule.
They are so defensive about PLCs they missed the problem. In three words, it is SCHEDULE SCHEDULE SCHEDULE.
I will predict the outcome. The administration will make a concession to Mike B and run the buses at the regular time (except for those Special Ed kids who can go early) and have to figure out how to supervise 600 kids at the Middle School (considering the problems with SNL, this should be interesting.) So they will completely ignore any concerns about disrupting each and every Wednesday of each and every school week for each and every student. Oh well, we do get 12 more minutes every day than other schools, so that will help the kids figure out when and where they are suppose to go on Wednesdays.
Have I ever mentioned how relieved I am that I wasn’t elected to the school board?
Jane-
So typical. And, I have heard (from an anonymous inside source) that one of the issues is with the teachers’ contract--they won’t bend on the idea that only one meeting can be held a week. So because PLC meetings are a meeting, and only one meeting can be held a week, this is the only option. And, this was a done-deal from the get-go as a result.
This seems to suggest that this was a done deal from the get-go, and that the survey et al was simply window dressing.
As said many times before, this sucks as a way to treat kids and families.
Paul--
Charter school students take MCAs. (I BELiIEVE, but am willing to be corrected if I’m wrong, that they don’t necessarily take MAP tests, which are expensive to administer and nowhere required). The results I reported were for Northfield district public schools. Charter school results are usually more unstable from year to year due to their much smaller populations. Their results, like those of district public schools, are available somewhere in the bowels of the dept of ed website. I’ve compared the Prairie Creek scores in some past years--and sometimes they’ve been higher and occasionally lower that district schools.
I should further clarify: when I say that Northfield is almost in the bottom half of Minnesota districts, I am only talking about district public schools (ours) compared with other district public schools.
The PDF of the revised PLC recommendation from the supt and principals to the Board that was presented last night is now available on the District’s web site, as is the proposed calendar for 2009-10.
So: buses run an hour early on Wednesday afternoon, and parents have the option of picking up their children at the regular time after an hour of supervised activity or study hall. In effect, the district is saying: Let’s create more traffic, especially in the busy and dangerous HS-BW-MS area (first buses then, an hour later, parents’ cars). Let’s create more of an environmental impact by multiplying the number of vehicle trips to and from the schools.
Mike B also pointed out that there are families that do not have a CHOICE about picking up their kids--they are stuck with the bus schedule and so are not allowed to opt for that “free” supervised hour.
As I said, if this is a contractural issue where the teachers are refusing to acoomodate these meetings, this needs to be fully discussed. Yes, some people will use it as a point to denigrate the teachers union and claim that it is the teachers’ faults and the unions fault--but they have been saying that repeatedly anyway, so we can ignore that. We need to discuss what that means to us as a school district if the teachers are unwilling to compromise—so that we know whether they are supporting the PLCs or not. Of if they only support PLCs if they can meet during the school day. Or if anybody has a more creative solution.
Please understand, I am convinced that PLCs MAY be beneficial and MAY be worth something. However, there is no information showing that they absolutely will be beneficial to all students or that there are enough benefits to warrant the total disruption of the school schedule.
Elementary student may not be as impacted, but in Middle School and High School, shortened schedule usually mean a throw away day, not heightened focus by the teachers. (Another buzz phrase from last nights board meeting. If professionals get to have these meaningful meetings, they will be more refreshed and focused on their daily teaching tasks, making their daily teaching tasks more effective.)
The school board is making a decision to make a change that they think will have benefit and may have a benefit but they cannot quantify how much benefit would make it worth this change nor how much benefit warrants disrupting the schedule.
If any business made such a disruptive change without some measurable cost so you could actually do a cost-benefit, everyone would expect them to fail. Lets not set up PLCs for failure. Do not disrupt the school schedule without evidence of quantifiable benefit.
I still can’t figure out why they won’t give out information on contractural issues and why they won’t give out information on the expected benefits. I believe the PLC model is a result of the NCLB evaluation failures and a desparate (but doomed) attempt by schools to avoid a failing rating by raising the performance of their outliers--the “benefit to every student” is just mantra to make it easily consumable.
Before reading, please know that I have NOT drank the kool-aid.
I have just reviewed the newly posted information.
In all fairness, I have to say that they at least made an attempt (albeit, not enough) to address issues being brought forward.
First, they looked at another option: early release on Wednesday vs. late start on Mondays. I understand that this option was considered initially and thrown out but at least they reconsidered it. Now, I am not saying that this is the best option; but, it was another option.
Secondly, they addressed the financial impact to parents for the one hour. But is this really so teachers don’t have to pay for daycare for that hour? Also, now parents will have to drive to school to pick up their students; what about that financial impact?
Lastly, they did add one student contact day (174 student contact days) to offset some of the impact of lost student contact time.
So, I do have to give them some (itty-bitty) credit.
Was it enough? NO!
For those of you seeking information regarding the NEA contract (and any other employee contract), it is posted on the district website:
http://www.nfld.k12.mn.us/personnel/employmentagreements.shtml
In my cursory review, there is no contractual language surrounding the number of meetings or the like. One should note that the NEA contract is up for renegotiation this year. If the educators wanted this so bad, then it should have been part of the negotiation. Was this a deal breaker? In other words, if the district was going to impose PLCs to be held before/after school, were they threatening to go on strike? Us “outsiders” will never know.
I still don’t like this “new” proposed schedule. I stand firm on the belief that there could have been a better (win-win) solution. I agree with Kathie that this is now a done deal; we just have to wait for two weeks for it to be so.
Finally, FYI, the state shot down the before Labor Day start so there is now only one calendar that is up for vote in two weeks.
Kathleen--
Thanks for the url to the teacher contract. Here’s what I found regarding meetings
So, what I’ve heard and now read seems plausible to me.
I agree with you Kathleen, that there has been some small movement on the district’s part. But also, that it isn’t enough. While I’m glad to see the free child care (something that will be really important for financially strapped families), I worry al LOT about how well-supervised and how high-quality it will be.
Again, this all could have been worked out so much better, and in the end, with a much higher quality plan. It really could have been win-win.
In today’s Northfield News, reporter David Henke has a story titled District looks at new calendar option.
Well, I have to rescind part of the “credit” I gave to the Board.
After further thought, I realized that by moving the PLCs from Mondays to Wednesdays resulted in an increase to the lost student contact time by 4-5 hours. When they were to be held on Mondays, there were 31 or 32 Mondays (the two calendars differed due to the Labor Day issue). In the “new” proposed calendar, there are 36 Wednesdays. So, essentially the added student contact day only made up for the additional lost time.
So, we are right back where we were: continued erosion of student contact time.
First it was 8 hours of lost time when they implemented the 2 hour late start/early release about 4 years ago. Now, it’s roughly 22-23 hours of lost time (and that includes the “credit” for the added day). This on top of the fact that MN is tied for 2nd to last for number of student contact days in the US.
What happened to the commitment from 2 years ago that by voting “Yes-Yes” to the referendums that we would maintain the status quo?
As a parent, I am frustrated; as a taxpayer, I am outraged!
The Northfield community has shown it’s strong commitment to education by voting to fund the District time and time again (many other districts have not received the same support). With that, it is the responsibility of the Board to be good stewards of that funding and to honor the commitments made to the community. Two years ago, voters did vote “Yes-Yes”. At that time, we had the same length of school day as we do now; nothing changed – status quo. Why now is this a factor in the calendar issue? We, the taxpayers, by voting “Yes-Yes” want Northfield Schools to be better than other districts. Why does it matter what is happening elsewhere? Northfield wants better and has demonstrated this by never voting down funding requests.
Come on School Board – honor your commitment!
The school board has to quit jamming this decision down parents throats and get to work on making a serious case for why we should support these PLCs.
The presenters on Monday night repeatedly claimed there are many benefits to these meetings, but did not present any evidence of these benefits (Richardson’s analogy comparing Toyota and GM is not applicable.)
I am starting to really think that the administration is trying to set up the teachers to take blame for being uncooperative about the meetings.
Some teachers I have spoken with are not supportive of the PLCs--if they don’t want to do it, why not? If they are not supportive, how can PLCs ever succeed?
Jane--
I’m in complete agreement with every one of your points. To me, the major, underlying issue is the lack of transparency, the secrecy, the slanting, the bulldozing.
After reviewing the proposed schedule, can someone explain to me why we need a two week Christmas break again for the 2009-2010 school year when x-mas falls on a Friday? While we all love to have extended time off, I would much rather have the kids spend more time in school before Christmas and get out of school before the middle of June.
Jane,
You’ve compiled a great list of issues with the new calendar proposal. I particularly share your concern over the supervision of Middle School students -- who are they really going to be able to hire to come in for 1 hour per week in the middle of a Wednesday afternoon??
I’d like to add one more disruption to families: Middle school sports switched to a Monday through Thursday schedule in the past several years because Friday practices are very unpopular. Families wishing to travel for the weekend, or needing to transport a child to a former spouse’s home for the weekend sometimes really need that extra 1.5 hours to make the most of the weekend. In addition, we don’t have enough gym space in the District so, to accomodate all the teams, some teams practice right after school and other teams start at 4:30 pm. Who wants to get home from practice at 6:00pm or later on a Friday night?
While I’d like the District to implement PLCs, the aggregate cost of the proposed calendar to all stakeholders is simply far too high. It appears that the renegotiation of the union contract is the huge impetus behind pushing this calendar revision through in short order, for if we don’t do it this year, it will be two years before we get a shot at it again. However, at this point, maybe we have to invest 2 years of planning, training and negotiating with both parents and teachers so that PLCs can be implemented with more hope of success and less disruption to all concerned.
I wonder what the story behind all of this is. It makes no sense that the board and administration would go against the wishes of most parents.
They either don’t care or there is undue pressure behind the scenes.
Either way their whole behavior is not inviting or logical.
The question was raised earlier as to how the data for district public schools compare to local charter schools. I did some research on the dept of ed website (under school report cards) and here’s what I found (I aggregated the data over grades and yearly growth)
For READING-- percent (out of 100) proficient at grade level
Sibley 74
GVP 79 (GVP = Greenvale)
BW 79 (BW = Bridgewater)
PC 91 (PC = Prairie Creek)
NMS 77 (NMS = Middle School)
NHS 83 (NHS = High School)
AT 69 (AT = Art Tech)
For Math -- percent (out of 100) proficient at grade level
Sibley 79
GVP 73
BW 73
PC 64
NMS 72
NHS not available
AT 56
So, there you go. My guess (it’s only a guess, as standard deviations aren’t reported) is that if two numbers are within 5 of each other (e.g., 73 and 78) they aren’t statistically significantly different.
Meaning, the district schools are running about even. About 1/5 to 1/4 of the kids in the Northfield district schools are not proficient at grade level in either reading or in math. When I say the schools are not excellent, it is data like these to which I refer. There’s just way too high a proportion of kids lacking in basic skills, throughout all of our schools.
Are the charter schools cherry picking the high achievers? Well, depends on the school and depends on the domain. As I’ve previously opined, the district’s math curriculum seems to stack up relatively well against the charter schools. Reading is more variable. It’s also worth noting that the numbers at the charter schools are much smaller, so the numbers reported for them more unstable.
What about the “teaching to the test” arguments? Well, I think the PC reading score is an interesting one to contemplate. Prairie Creek makes no secret of the fact that they don’t hold the MCA tests in any sort of high regard--their kids take the tests only because they have to. Prairie Creek also makes it clear to prospective families that they are very, very invested in promoting literacy. These results seem to show that, although they aren’t “teaching to the test” they are still doing quite well at the educational aspect they emphasize. (Conversely--they do not teach math as a separate subject--one might argue they don’t give it enough emphasis--and the test results might be interpreted as a reflection).
My interpretation? Despite the flaws of the MCA’s, (and there are many), they do provide some useful information. In a town like Northfield, we need to do better if we want to honestly say we are providing EXCELLENT education. If all we want to say is that we provide SATISFACTORY education, then our current data bear that out.
Another reason I am posting these data: As a baseline. Now that our kids are going to lose instructional time to PLC meetings, supposedly because ALL teaching in the district EVERYWHERE will be supercharged and focussed and will improve the learning experience of EVERY child (clearly, I’m skeptical and find the claims improbable), we ought to see these scores go up--by at least 5-10 points--in every building--in both reading and math. And, parents need to hold district staff and administrators accountable for this.
And if the district does deliver such improvements, I will be the first to say I was wrong. And I really would like to be wrong about my predictions. I really would become an avid proponent of trading instructional time for PLC time if statistically significant improvements in external measures such as MCAs would result.
But, let’s guard against the district substituting subjective “teacher reflection” data (e.g., teachers “feel” that the learning is improved, or “feel” students are making progress of some intangible type). We have to insist that the gains be demonstrated honestly, on measures the district administration can’t spin or “massage” to look better than they are.
The school board must quantify the cost of disrupting every Wednesday--and put a price on “babysitting” the kids through middle school--because if we are not watching them then parents are paying day care or otherwise disrupting schedules to watch those that would otherwise be in school--so put the price on it and tell us what it is costing us to make this disruptive calendar change.
Alternatively, shorten every school day by 12 minutes and hold a one hour meeting outside of the regular school day. (The 12 minutes are what Richardson claims the Northfield school day is longer than other in our conference.)
I am angry that the school board cannot come up with some immediate accountability to why this has been poorly planned and delivered, and why they have the strange perception that it was done well.
Kudos to all the people stepping and voicing their concerns. I too join the ranks of folks who do not like the idea of early release every Weds.
Asking families to make sacrafices in their personal and professional schedules to accomodate the PLC meetings is insane.
I think the administration who is pushing this agenda and the school board need to take a long hard look at this before implementing it.
I ahve not heard talk of any sort of petition over this matter yet but if there is one count me in to sign it.
All that I can say is that the district better be getting something MAJOR in return to be disrupting the lives of 3,900 students and their families. Something like most working folks are getting these days: no pay increase AND reduced benefits (e.g., less vacation, less sick leave, etc.). If not, then the Board should be ashamed!
p.s. Arlen, welcome to the discussion.
I have to applaud Ellen Iverson. I finally got around to watching the last School Board meeting. Although I fundamently disagree with most of the comments of the Board Members (Jeff Quinnell being the only one that voiced any opposition) and I stand firm on my position that this is NOT a win-win approach, at least Ellen attempted to point out to her fellow Board Members that communication of such items needs improving. I am not convinced that others embraced her comments but I would like those of you that did not see the meeting to know that Ellen did step up on that front.
Thanks Ellen!
Kathleen V: I was at the meeting, and I am concerned that Ellen was, once again, blaming the process for the parent resistance instead of recoginizing that parents are sincerely opposed to the early release part of implementing PLCs. She and the board have missed the whole message, instead continually defending the PLC concept with their “fluff” discussions on how wonderful it will be instead of quantifiable benefits that would make the disruptions worth it.
Jeff Quinnell AND Mike B spoke against because of disruption, although Mike B was more conciliatory regarding getting the busses to run at the regular time.
If they quantify the cost of babysitting all students for one hour so they can have their meeting, I believe that they will come up with an excessive price--showing that these meetings are not worth it unless you can dump the related costs back on parents.
Sorry I was not clear enough in the reply--I am concerned that Ellen, who should defintely be concerned about the administrative missteps that resulted in a huge outcry, fails to see that the resistance to disrupting the schedules for everyone is sincere and not just because parents feel “blind sided” by the issue. That said, there is no discussion of how upsetting the survey was and how poorly the administration has addressed parent concerns. Instead, the school board continually thanked the supt. and principals for their hardwork without any discussion on how their “hard work” has resulted in very upset parents.
My question on this issue is how does the Board plan to evaluate the results of PLC’s if this is implemented? It all sounds wonderful, but without solid ways to measure performance it could turn into something like MEA days off.
Kathleen and others make valid points. This PLC plan will cause significant disruption to students and families. I just have to believe there is a better way to handle PLC’s. And I firmly believe there was a much better way to begin discussion and implementation than the way this has been handled.
Jane: While I cannot state what Ellen understands or doesn’t understand, at least she brought up the topic that the process could use some improvement.
The real question is does the Board really not understand parent/community issues related to this or do they in fact understand and are choosing to ignore it? Or, is there underlying pressures that they have not been forthcoming with? While I have my suspicions, I have no facts to support them so I will refrain from stating them.
Although I feel frustrated and basically cheated, ACCOUNTABILITY is my new mantra. It will be the responsibility of all of us to hold them accountable. We need to let them know that we will hold them accountable. Success will now be expected and there will be no more excuses.
AMEN. Teachers need to be held accountable for documentable improvements in student performance (through valid external measures) and school board members need to be held accountable for shrugging their shoulders when a large proportion of parents raise valid objections to their proposals and their processes.
To clarify, “them” means all of them: the educators, principals, Board Members and Dr. Richardson.
We should expect the educators to meet weekly for the entire hour and document what was done. We should expect the principals to go around to the PLC groups during that hour every week to make certain progress is being made. We should expect that Dr. Richardson will report on progress at every Board meeting. The data (good and bad) should be posted at all schools and on the District website for everyone to see; not just a select few. A “baseline” should be established this Spring to measure future assessments against and to Kathie’s point, the baseline should primarily consist of “external measures” that cannot excused away or misinterpreted. Parents should be able to attend PLCs when the discussion addresses their student’s needs. A feedback loop should be implemented such that parents concerns are documented and addressed in a timely manner; and, if trends occur, corrective actions taken. Finally, we should expect the Board to ensure that adequate progress is being made and, if not, mandate improvements.
The current “Accountability Plan” lacks many of these. If the Board indeed goes forward as proposed, at a minimum they should make it dependent on an improvement to the Accountability Plan and request that a team be put together comprised of educators, administrators and parents/community members to further develop the Plan.
NY Times columnist David Brooks had a column this weekend that really seemed very appropriate to this discussion. I’m reproducing some of it here:
I hope we can stop this evasion of accountability in Northfield. If we’re going to have PLCs (and apparently, by God, we are, like them or not), then let’s at LEAST have REAL accountability measures--not the pseudoaccountability the district is currently proposing.
Obama’s comments on merit based pay seems encouraging. let’s see if he(and we) follow through with it.
My gut feel tells me, that the NEA will do everything to either block it or water it down.
Ray and Kathie have mentioned accountability in return for the added burden on families.
I generally support this, but how would we measure it? It is pretty obvious that the NEA doesn’t like the NLCB, because it holds them (however flawed or not) to a standard.
I think we should demand from the board to come up with a measurement to accomplish those goals.
Kathie (169): So in Northfield, we have a relatively high number of excellent charter schools that take out many of the higher- skill level or higher-achieving students, and the schools with the students that remain have a higher number of low-achieving students, including special education students. And among these schools, Northfield scores low compared to those districts that have no charter schools.
This is no surprise. Your point?
Regarding Sibley, there have been years when Greenvale did better on tests, or showed more progress. In your post 182, Greenvale is lower on math scores, but higher on reading (related to writing, which you claim is a more important academic skill). It’s not as if Greenvale teachers are slumming. Instead, we might ask why the Sibley teachers are slipping with reading scores (why do you speak so highly of Sibley, but miss these scores? It seems you’re all over the map here in your supported claims).
But if you’re looking for something to tear down and an opportunity to do so, it works. If you’re a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
Rob (171): The problem of low bus ridership, and many “helicopter parents” hovering and driving their kids to school (or dropping them off early for band, etc.) and the related environmental impact-- this has always been a problem, whether busses run an hour late, or early, on a given day for PLC’s. I’m not sure we can assume that this would change significantly. In some ways, this is really a seperate issue.
Jane (186.2): One of the things about face-to-face communication is that people tend to be a little more human and respectful; if people did hard work, you thank them first instead of compaining first. In the cyber-world of rants and flame-outs, people are more likely to vent their frustration and sometimes forget the pleasantries of respectful communication and collaboration.
Part of the fun of LoGroNo is that tangents and thread drift sometimes (often) unfolds, the way that a conversation among friends strays into other topics, like wandering through a garden. This is the pleasant and positive face of thread drift.
Thread drift on this blog post discussion, however, has included quite a bit of relatively harsh stuff:
Peter, you bring up all your complaints about public education, some of them pretty traditional Republican/conservative anti-teacher, anti-public school complaints. Ray (Cox), you do a bit of the same, assuming (in bad faith?) that maybe teachers just want an extra coffee break once a week during PLC time, and that perhaps they won’t get any real work done that could improve education.
This would be like Democrats assuming that Repbulcians on the school board will come up with knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip (without aiming) responses to most situations, based on Republican talking points. It doesn’t really help get things done, but it reassures the shrinking local Republican base that a Republican talking-points view is being represented on the board.
Kathie and Jane, both of you use this thread for dumping all kinds of frustrations and complaints unrelated to the issue of scheduling and possible administrative failure on this point.
I read a recent comment from Kevin Bacon that applies here, and that Griff might enjoy: Bacon was asked about the secret of his long marriage to Kyra Sedgwick. His reply: Keep the fights clean and the sex a little dirty.
A marriage counselor I know might say that what is happening here is a little like “kitchen sink” arguments betwee married couples: It’s often better to make progress in a marital disagreement if the couple stays focused on the issue at hand. If one or both parties wants to bring up every possible complaint against the other (“including the kitchen sink”), it’s often seen as unproductive, and sometimes unfair. If one party feels that much resentment, maybe it’s time to split (and send your kids to a different school).
Sometimes this kind of arguing is simply unfair: Instead of staying focused on the matter at hand (a poorly written survey and a very inconvenient schedule option), and if you use this as a springboard for the kitchen sink (to mix metaphors), things become unproductive very quickly.
It’s even more unfair when, in this situation, we have many teachers in the district who may lurk and follow discussions like this, but who feel unable to take part because it may cross certain professional boundaries they feel they should not, or cannot cross.
Teachers have many complaints about parents: They sign up for a certain slot at parent-teacher conferences, and then don’t show up. They look at their child through rose-colored glasses, and sometimes, when a teacher points out some very real academic or behavioral needs that should be addressed, the parent is in denial. Teachers expend a great deal of energy, time and thought for students, but some parents have checked out. Some others are much more quick to use the teacher as a scapegoat for any problem that arises, picking the splinter out of the eye of the teacher while refusing to consider the plank in their own eye.
So in this blog discussion, continuing the marriage metaphor, we have on one side, the rants and complaints (including the kitchen sink) of a small group of vocal parents, and on the other side, we have some teachers reading, following the discussion, but feeling unwilling or unable to participate because of some sense of their professional or personal code of ethics.
All the hammers here are (hopefully?) feeling better, hitting at nails, voicing all their complaints about public education, many of which I share as a parent and educator myself. Meanwhile, there are teachers who are members of our community, and who may take offense, may see things from another side, but feel unable to chime in.
And even if they felt able to why try? Why go in a room full of hammers where everyone might view you only as a nail?
Here’s a view that has been woefully under-represented so far in this discussion:
We just elected a new batch of school board members last November. We didn’t elect them to put every issue up for referendum; we elected them because most of us don’t have the time to follow and research every issue that comes up before the school board, but we trust their judgment.
I voted for Rob Hardy, Ellen Iverson and Anne Maples, among others, and I’m glad that Ellen and Anne were elected, but disappointed that Rob didn’t make it.
Now obviously, there are teachers, administrators and board members who believe enough in the possibility that PLC’s could do a lot of good, that they are willing to keep the teacher contract the same length, but subtract from the school year the time needed for PLC’s.
I tend to trust their judgment. As citizens, taxpayers and (some of us) parents, we should have a voice in the process: We get that voice not only on election day, but also when we email or phone a school board member, and they talk to us, or when we attend a meeting and speak up. But this doesn’t mean we should micromanage the process. We won’t be fully satisfied with every decision they make, but if we pester them too much, we might unintentionally tax the system and make it fail at some point.
Now you can second-guess the those school board members, administrators and those teachers who are behind this, and go off and do your own independent research.
You might find evidence that PLC’s are a socialist plot, hatched deep in the bowels of some teacher’s union, merely to get an extra coffee break once a week and to reduce the number of classroom hours each week that our darling children get to spend with their teachers. Or that might be a Republican talking point with little basis in reality. Or any number of other things might turn up. Go for it. Do the research and pass it on to Richardson and the board.
But consider how you might view the school board’s deliberations if you were a teacher who had exprienced great things with PLC’s, and read about them, and promoted them. What might the school board do?
Reject PLC’s outright, whether they affect parent schedules, or classroom hours or not? This would be discouraging.
Accept PLC’s, but say that in spite of the fact that wages are not keeping up with inflation, and in spite of the fact that health coverage is taking a larger and larger bite out of take-home pay, the school board has decided to lengthen the school year so as to preserve classroom hours, but demand that the union renegotiate and accept PLC time, in essence, as a freebee that teachers offer as a gift, a concession. Add time to the contract to allow for PLC’s but in these hard economic times, you get nothing in return. This might be seen as a kind of slap in the face to PLC fans, and to teachers who don’t know about PLC’s (haven’t read about them, haven’t experienced them), this would be a strong disincentive to embrace and make the most of them. In fact, it might be incentive for some of these teachers to see to it that they fail.
As a compromise, the district might have considered extra study-hall, lunch or recess time, which paraprofessionals supervise, while teachers have PLC’s. This would be a large burden on paraprofessionals, and if it didn’t involve hiring more of them, what should it involve? Spreading them more thin? What do you do on a rainy or sub-zero day, when teachers are scheduled to meet with their PLC’s, and when elementary students have, in efffect, no safe playground? This might be unwise and unfair to many in the process.
Instead, the school board and administration made an interessting decision:
- They trusted, for the most part, the judgment of those who believe PLC’s can do good things.
- Instead of punishing all teachers for this interest and belief of some teachers who have this strong committment to PLC’s, and instead of adding extra time to the contract without compensating teachers, they decided to ask parents to step up to the plate and take up the slack. Imgaine that.
Now it may end up being a damn inconvenience to me as a parent, but I tend to think the school board made the right decision.
Regarding those who may have a knee-jerk, shoot-from-the-hip approach to assessing whether PLC’s are working by using standardized tests:
We have to think more broadly about education than NoChild LEft Untested. If testing, and teaching to the test, become too much the focus, it can really wring some of the soul out of education and out of the educational experience for students. I have many students at the college level who have already been tested quite a bit, and while this may help them master certain math and literacy skills, it doesn’t always help them develop good judgment and awareness of the world. When I do an initial survey of my students at the start of a semester, they often claim that their favorite teachers were those who were fun, who were willing to explore instructive tangents, etc.
We have to face the very real possibility that a too-tested child may develop a certain proficiency in certain skills that can show up on a standardized test, but they may be left with less love of learning.
On the flip side, then, it’s sometimes better to tend to the student as whole person, and develop love of learning in ways that may not show up on a standardized test, than to sacrifice love of learning on the altar of standardized testing.
So I would strongly encourage the school board to use more than test scores to judge the success or failure of PLC’s:
These parts of the picture are important besides standardized test results.
Paul (197): I appreciate your post — most of it anyway — in that you asked people look at things from a diffeent perspective. However, it seems you always need to throw politics into the mix even when it is not warranted and that can weaken the effectiveness of your post.
Up until a few days ago I was looking at this issue only from the perspective of a parent. While having dinner with friends the other night; one who is a teacher and one who is a paraprofessional I asked for their opinion on PLC’s. Neither of them felt they would amount to much good.
So now I am trying to look at this through the eyes of a school board member. Yes, they were elected by the people to the board. But at the same time they were elected to represent the people. They need to (and I am sure they do) carefully listen to the parents when they voice a concern. And from what I am hearing, there if great concern over this. I am don’t envy the school board members. They have a tough decision ahead of them. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Again, thank you for making us look at this issue from a different perspective.
To restate my position (for the last time?): I am NOT against weekly PLCs; never have been. I hope that they will result in great things for all students. In fact, PLCs helped one of my students before I really realized what PLCs were. The Reading Recovery teacher met with the classroom teacher’s PLC at GVP to see what they could do collectively to help my student succeed. I think by doing so, they collaboratively worked together to help to the best of their abilities. For that I am grateful.
My issue/concern is the continued erosion of student contact time to allow for weekly PLCs to meet. IMHO, there was never the appropriate level of data put forth to document why they could not have been done outside of the school day. The only concrete item was the clause in the current NEA contract where the District was limited to one 1 hour meeting per week before or after school. If the educators felt so strongly about the weekly PLCs benefit, why were they so unwilling to negotiate that in to their new contract? I can only assume that there are other issues that cannot be openly communicated at this time.
So, due to the fact that we, as parents, are having to make a concession (giving up student contact time), I think it only fair that there is appropriate accountability for the PLCs. Had it been implemented without the loss of student contact time, I would have been less concerned about the accountability because there would have been no impact to the students. It would have been a win-win. But, with the proposed approach, all the students are at an immediate loss – the loss of 20+ hours of student contact time. Therefore, the onus is now on those who chose to implement it this way to make sure it is not ultimately a lose-lose.
In my one-on-one discussion with one of the Board Members, we discussed the fact that as parents we only get one shot at doing it right; there is no rewind button. Therefore, I feel compelled to make sure it’s done right and I think every parent would agree (whether they are commenting here or not). It becomes even more important when you have an “at risk student” because they are already at risk of failure. Failure of the PLCs would have a profound impact on those students.
IMHO, the proposed Accountability Plan lacks some key elements to ensure success. And, although the calendar issue needs to be put to rest before 1 April, there is ample time between now and September to work on the Plan. I hope that the Board can recognize this and encourage further development of the Plan. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Please note that my comments and position on this issue were not developed without input. I read all the information provided. I sought out and spoke with both proponents and opponents, including teachers, on this issue to better understand the pros and cons. Other parents spoke to me about their concerns. I appreciate the fact that one of the Board Members took time out of their busy day to hear my concerns and discuss this topic. So, I tried to see this from all perspectives, but nothing or no one could really answer “why not before or after school?” Even Jeff Quinnell at the last Board meeting stated this concern.
So, it is what it is. I hope the loss of instructional time is outweighed by the gain of weekly PLCs. I encourage them to prove me wrong. For in the end, it is the students that will ultimately win or lose.
Finally, I feel that teachers have one of the most difficult jobs. I cannot even imagine the number of challenges they must face on a daily basis; including those created by “absentee” and “overly engaged” parents. It truly takes a special person to be a good teacher.