The Personel & Policy Committee meets at 6 and the Curriculum Committee meets at 7:15.
The Curriculum Committee will be hearing several science related subjects, including an our science assesment data, UW admissions requirements and standards, and an overview of the district's science offerings at the high school.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Peter-
I have heard through the grapevine that there are strong concerns about the science program at the HS. What do you think, and are we doing our kids a disservice by going with this integrated program? I have heard from a lot of parents with recent graduates that they were not prepared in Sciences when they got to college.....
What do you think?
Yes, I agree there are some concerns about our students science "readiness".
On the other hand I don't believe that an appropriately structured integrated science program is in itself a problem. In many ways science makes more sense from an integrated approach, and the traditional order in which science is taught might be considered backwards - we should learn physics before chemistry because chemistry depends on the phenomena described by physics, just as biology is chemistry with legs. The traditional approach is structured the way it is for historical reasons, if I were to design a science program from scratch I probably wouldn't structure it the way we do. Indeed Princeton University just started an integrated science program for science and engineering majors and this is becoming more common.
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't use a traditional approach- our customers (colleges and the workplace) and assessments may find the traditional approach more valuable for any number of reasons, and it just might be a better way to teach science.
But any science curriculum needs to be well designed with rigorous standards and assessments and must be well taught with motivated students -any of these things are more important than the structure of the coursework. Expecting a change from integrated science to another curriculum to fix problems that lie elsewhere might simply waste time. Lets get at the root cause.
" this is becoming more common."
Not true in Wisconsin-you have no evidence of that one and a number of districts have recently left an integrated approach.
" and must be well taught with motivated students"
How can you have that -when you have a one size fits all approach?
Further, why aren't we teaching integrated Social Studies and Math if the approach is so great?
"Expecting a change from integrated science to another curriculum to fix problems that lie elsewhere might simply waste time."
I am not sure of your point-do we have problems in other places?
"Further, why aren't we teaching integrated Social Studies and Math if the approach is so great?"
That's pretty obvious don't you think?
Peter’s response was thoughtful and right on, but did not address the "root cause". The problem is not the integrated curriculum, the problem is we don’t differentiate the science curriculum and challenge all kids during their freshman and sophomore years.
For example, we are not willing accept that maybe not all incoming 9th graders need to sit through a one-size-fits-all integrated physical science class (IPS). In this case, current policy discourages, rather than encourages, qualified freshman from opting out of IPS and substituting an upper level physical science class for the IPS requirement. If this were to change it would allow more students to get through life science, chemistry, and physics by their junior year, and in turn to take advanced chemistry, physics, and/or one of the many upper level life science courses senior year.
There is a growing awareness of the lack of progress our students make in science during their 4 years at MGHS and it is disturbing. Reports of recent graduates struggling with university level science classes is disheartening. Peter is correct that we have to get at the root cause. A good place to start is to critically examine the required 9th and 10th grade curriculum, and find ways differentiate so we challenge all kids during their first two years at MGHS.
Differentiation has lead to an abysmal "regular" track in the English Department. It is widely perceived that the "best" teachers teach the English A courses and that the difference in rigor between the English A and English AB curriculum is enormous. For myself, I have had two kids go through MGHS, one in A Englsih track and one in AB English track, and that was indeed our experience. My AB kid wasn't ill prepared for science in college, but sure as heck was in writing. So if we're going to go this route in science, our track record at the high school isn't so good with maintaining rigor in the so-caled "regular" track. Tracking also leads to issues with the SES of the kids who end up in each track. I hope the board has a vigorous discussion about this particular issue in tracking.
Not to disagree with anyone, but I did very well in high school english and science, and was still not prepared for college. I did not attend Monona Grove, but I think they might have a similar problem.
I think the problem for me was it was easy to do high school evaluations: short papers (1-2 pages), multiple choice tests, and group projects. However, almost none of these methods were used in college. I knew the subjects, but didn't show it to the teachers in the format they wanted.
It may be that MG kids are prepaired for the concepts, but not prepaired for the exams. Maybe the district can contact the UW or MATC and get old exams for the kids to take, or essay questions for the kids to write on short notice.
The calendar is designed for interrupted learning and it is not good for kids. Do you think the school calendars in Japan, South Korea, Austria, Finland, Great Britain, or any of the other dozen or so nations that are above the U.S. in educational rankings, are as chopped up and as short as ours?
Between September 1, 2008 and June 11, 2009 there are 38 weeks in which kids are in school but only 24 weeks have 5 full days of instruction. The middle school calendar has 12 half days, and all the schools have 7 days off for WEAC convention in October, Thanksgiving, SWEIO in February, and Memorial Day. Add to this 10 days off for Winter Break, and 5 days off for Spring Break. And wait, don't forget 4 days off for snow or cold this year.
The Teachers Union is not to blame for the goofy calendar. It is a negotiated item in the contract with the Board. The Superintendent and the Board need to show some leadership, and work with the teachers to increase the number of full days the kids are in school. You don't need a district committee to study it, a high priced consulting firm to analyze it, or any other foot dragging nonsense. Cut down on the number of interruptions and breaks in the calendar, increase the number of full days of school, and kids will have more opportunities to learn. How about it Peter?
Post a Comment