Been busy with work, so I haven't been prompt with this. By now you all know the election results, so welcome to new board members Lionel Norton, Jessica Ace and Jason McCutchin.
Mike Duplayee has served the district with integrity and dedication for 9 years. He brought an essential wealth of experience to the position that was indispensible. At this time especially his experience will be missed.
And I hope everyone who didn't get to the polls takes note of the one vote difference in the Monona Council race!
That said, I have a question for you: What goals should the new board set for the coming year? I have my ideas, and ideas like reforming the school calendar and the HS science curriculum have been mentioned in the comment sections. But I would like to hear some community perspective on this question. So weigh in please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Oh Golly, I'll start off the discussion. Let's hope it stays civil.
First things first. Before you can take up issues, you need to be able to function as a group. While this huge change may end up being a good thing, I hope the board acknowledges you are in difficult territory with the most experienced member having barely two years of experience. Nobody is born knowing how to work effectively on an elected board, and let's be real - there is some divisivness on this board - anybody who actually watches the meetings can see that. There are certainly people outside this district with expertise in this area. I hope you tap into them for some development activities so this board can serve us effectively. Lots of tough decisions ahead and you need processes in place to make them in the best interests of the rest of us.
It may also be time to tell us, the public, that you are taking the focus off facility issues. You will make some decisons about those issues for the near term and move on to focus on student learning, figure out what your goals are for student learning and make clear to the adminstration these expectations. We pay a lot of property tax in this district and I'm not sure we've ever gotten the return on those dollars in terms of student learning that we have the potential to achieve. Not that we don't have a few exemplary programs, but overall we are no better or worse than the rest of the suburban school districts in the area.
Anonymous,
I respectfully disagree. I want the facilities questions answered, and now.
A group to study the issues wouldn't have been appointed were it not of utmost importance.
As a taxpayer, I want to know what to expect for the next several years. That means I need an answer to the facilities questions.
As a parent, I want to know where my children will be attending school.
As a community member, I want to know what we are selling.
Can't answer any of this without resolution.
AND, there is going to be a big old hole in next year's budget, because there is unlikely to be additional stimulus money.
Thoughts?
I don't think we disagree all that much. The board needs to take decisive action on the facility issue very soon in order to move on to what happens inside of the facilities. Due to what happened with the housing market in Cottage Grove, the solution may simply need to be one that gets through the next few years until we know what the future brings for enrollment. Or maybe the board will push for something longer term - I really don't care one way or the other, but they need to make a decision soon and move on. As a taxpayer, I am tired of seeing ho hum returns on what we spend per student. This is brand new board and brand new superintendent. They have an opportunity to shape the conversation in this district that might not come along again for quite some time.
I agree let's start working on a district that is better than any other.
If we keep fighting over our share of the pie we will end up with hardly any pie at all. Instead we need to work to(in the immortal words of G.W. Bush) "Make the Pie Higher"- so that there is plenty of pie to go around.
I feel that I would like a board that at least is willing to listen. I have felt too scared to speak my mind in the past due to the outright heckling and nasty comments to constituents when they have tried to speak at public forums. Or lack of response all together when emailing board members. Sometimes, people just want their ideas to be heard and responded to (even if that just means a simple "we are looking into this matter"). In addition, I am excited to see so many fresh faces on the board. In the past, it is the newer members that still take time to listen.
I would like to have the facilities issue answered. I feel that my children's education hangs in limbo until it is decided. I also feel like the divide between the 2 communities will continue to be larger until something is decided. All candidates swore they were working for what is best for the district as a whole...I hope that the campaign promise comes true.
I would like to see that the classrooms are not packed to the gills. I know putting the most kids possible in a classroom is cost effective but will it result in better education?
I would love to see us consider some forward ideas like charter schools and interdisciplinary projects through team teaching at our upper levels.
But, I am not as down on the achievement as some. Could we do better? Of course! But on a small 1:1 level...I must be the only one who really believes that our teachers are doing great things. I have been very happy with my child's education. But maybe that is because my child goes to our smallest school. I think that small schools work. Creating mega schools for our kids may be cost effective but we lose things that "work" when inflating the sizes of our schools. I also love the idea of creating schools within schools of some of our bigger schools.
Peter-
I don't think this is a board initiative, but I think the board could encourage the administration to look into it more....
No surprise from me, but I would like to see a look at the practice of Gigs in the middle school. I am very, very supportive of the music program, and I appreciate all the hard work that the teachers do. I am wondering if there is a way to structure "gigs" so that kids are not pulled out of their core classes for them.
I have looked at some other middle schools, and chatted with some other middle school parents, and I think there are ways to structure the middle school schedule so that kids are not popping out of core classes every day for music lessons.
I do think it affects academic achievement at the middle school, I think it puts kids in the untenable position of choosing between two teachers/classes, and I think core teachers at GDS have the right to have a full class everyday. You read my comments from the curriculum committee.....
At the very least, I think a policy should be instituted at the middle school for next year that involves parental sign off on the gig times. An acknowledgement that parents know and accept that their kids will be missing part of math once a week, for example. I think that simple step is a very positive one towards open and clear communication. I have also suggested an anonymous survey of the GDS teachers to get a sense of how disruptive this is.
As you know, I made a public appearance at the curriculum committee meeting about this and am anxiously awaiting follow up from someone about a next step. I would be interested in what any other parents think. I don't blog anonymously, so sign your name if you can....
Thanks,
Sue Carr
While the number of responses to Peter’s call for goals for the new board has been a bit underwhelming, the ones that were printable have been thoughtful and positive. I found a common thread in several. They all came from someone named Anonymous: (Come on people, sign your name; the first time is the hardest.)
“…move on to focus on student learning, figure out what your goals are for student learning and make clear to the administration…”
“I am tired of seeing ho hum returns on what we spend per student.”
“We pay a lot of property tax in this district and I'm not sure we've ever gotten the return on those dollars in terms of student learning that we have the potential to achieve.”
If you have lived in the District for a while you have probably heard comments such as these, and other whispers and anecdotes that question just how good we are. Recently the Board and the Administration had the wisdom to become one of the very few school districts in the State to begin using the EPAS tests. This program, unlike the WKCE, assesses post-secondary readiness in grades 8-11, so we finally have some concrete data to consider.
Here is an example. The following information was available to the public at a curriculum meeting February 18. The MGHS class of 2009 was the first class in which all students took the ACT (in April of 2008). The number of then 11th graders that scored at or above the College Readiness Benchmarks was as follows: Mathematics – 46%; Science - 32%; Reading – 49%; and Language Arts – 65%. In three of these four curricular areas we have a majority of students that are not ready for introductory college courses. Who knew? Just as disturbing, about half of the MG grads that pursue post secondary education go to MATC, where significant percentages have to take remedial math and English. Ouch.
How can this be? It did not happen overnight. One culprit is clearly the DPI who has been passing out happy juice in the form of the State mandated WKCE test. MG has regularly had 75-85% of our 10th graders scoring in the advanced or proficient categories. For a long time the State has been telling us what a good job we are doing when in fact we are not. Another culprit is certainly us. Perhaps we have been patting ourselves on the back for too long, but now it is certainly time to roll up our sleeves and make changes.
The most important goal for the new Board is to take a hard look at student learning and achievement, especially at the middle and high school levels. The Board needs to promote an open and honest evaluation and discussion of our curriculum and instructional practices, in an effort to understand why we graduate so many students who lack basic skills and are not college ready. The Board needs to involve the community in this process, as well as teachers and staff, and provide the leadership necessary to effect change. It is a tremendous challenge, but one we must undertake for the sake of our children and our society.
"Here is an example. The following information was available to the public at a curriculum meeting February 18. The MGHS class of 2009 was the first class in which all students took the ACT (in April of 2008). The number of then 11th graders that scored at or above the College Readiness Benchmarks was as follows: Mathematics – 46%; Science - 32%; Reading – 49%; and Language Arts – 65%. In three of these four curricular areas we have a majority of students that are not ready for introductory college courses. Who knew? Just as disturbing, about half of the MG grads that pursue post secondary education go to MATC, where significant percentages have to take remedial math and English. Ouch."
Giving people stats is just giving people stats and creates a vacuum for some people to say: this is bad or this is good by their own definition w/o any context for peasants.
Thus, we need to compare the above stats to the state and then to districts within the state that have similar size and socio-economic profiles and then MAYBE we can asses if it is good or bad.
Joannes Zonaras
"The Board needs to promote an open and honest evaluation and discussion of our curriculum and instructional practices, in an effort to understand why we graduate so many students who lack basic skills and are not college ready"
This is not a new issue for this district. My daughter graduated in 2000 and I will never forget when, during her freshmen orientation, one of the administrators said "Monona Grove is not a college prep high school" My jaw dropped. There should be options for all students - those who do and don't want to go on to a four year college- but to hear that was really discouraging.
One thing I'd like to see discussed is regarding the future location of students within the district - that is things like, what's going to happen with Maywood, how are we going to deal with overcrowding in CG, etc. These facilities issues, I think, are really important.
For many people, the simple 'where are our kids going to be going in the future' is the main question.
To figure this out, I don't want to see four or six people huddle in a room and come up with an answer that fits them - but a true district wide committee that works for both communities.
Personally, I really think we should try to avoid busing CG kids to Monona and vice versa as much as possible.
Without the facilities issues decide, I think it's hard for either community to sell itself to families with young kids when they look at the school situation. The uncertainty of where kids are going to go only hurts everyone. What parent wants to move to CG if they hear we have overcrowding at the elementary school? Or move to Monona if schools are possibly closing and more kids getting bused to CG? It doesn't pass the smell test for many people, even if they are impressed with our district.
I think we should discuss all the options, but I really want it to be something that everyone feels is in the best interest of both communities.
And the district really needs to communicate well to the families of kids about what's going on. Too many times in the past things get passed on with rumors, and you never know what is true. Communicate early, communicate often.
I know some of this is underway, but getting answers will help everyone. I know it's not an easy answer either, but I think it's one that needs addressing as early as possible.
There's lots of other things, but this is one issue I have on top of mind.
Post a Comment