As part of the Career and Technical Center at the high school, the Diversified Occupations program - in a terrific partnership involving dozens of local employers - students get “real-world” work experience and marketable job skills in preparation for life after graduation. This is for students who are interested in occupations for which no specific CTC program currently exists.
In addition to their other classes, students meet one period per day in the classroom and work with employers in the afternoon or on weekends.
One of the students who was honored at last week’s Employer Appreciation ceremony talked about his experience with the classroom part of the program.
Among other things, the course syllabus included sections on budgeting (students had to develop and maintain a budget throughout the year); credit, what's involved in renting an apartment, as well as employer expectations and how to prepare for a job interview.
At the conclusion of his remarks, I turned to the high school principal who was sitting next to me, and we said in unison, "every student should take this course."
Of course, that's probably not practical, but still...
Subscribe To SchoolBoardBlogger
Posts
All Comments
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Math Wars
A couple of weeks ago, Steve Piazza requested that the current candidates for school board respond to the following question: Do you support the recommendation of the SCASD math coordinators that the 2nd edition of "Investigations" be adopted throughout the District as the core math curriculum? He has posted the responses on his web site.
My reply follows:
I fully support the recommendation to adopt the 2nd edition of "Investigations". The new edition will allow our teachers to build on the progress that our students have made over the past few years, while specifically addressing the aspects of the program that needed strengthening.
As I’ve stated previously, I certainly understand the frustration of parents, who having been taught Math the old, “algorithmic” way, struggle to help their children with their homework. I also think that more can be done to bridge the “old” and “new” approaches. The latest edition of Investigations Math addresses both of these issues.
The parental involvement piece is very important. Our children’s success depends on a partnership of students, teachers and parents; we should do everything we can to ensure that parents are fully engaged in their children’s education. I applaud the efforts of teachers, administrators and fellow board members who have reached out to address the legitimate concerns of parents, and the parents who have reached back.
We also need to recognize that for most of our elementary teachers, this was a new approach to math instruction. As with any new teaching strategy – particularly one that is being applied across an entire organization - even with good training, there is a learning curve. (As well there should be! Educators who aren’t continually learning and getting better at what they do are in the wrong business.)
While it is important to allow teachers to adapt their strategies and resources to what works best for particular students, it's also important that we maintain curricular consistency across the district. The improvements in the new edition mean that our teachers will be less dependent on outside resources.
From my personal perspective - as someone whose best subject in school was Math - this conceptual approach to Math instruction is a very welcome change. Although I was taught the old, algorithmic way, the reason I excelled at Math – and perhaps, just as importantly, the reason I enjoyed it – was that I understood it conceptually.
It is a crime that generations of Americans have been trained to believe that “they’re not good at Math” or that “Math is boring”. Forty years ago, it may have been sufficient for 10-20% of our students to be “good at math”. That is no longer acceptable; maintaining the status quo would have been a disservice to our students.
People are generally resistant to change, especially when the "way we used to do it" worked just fine for them. Clearly, if you're a university math professor, the "way we used to do it" worked exceedingly well for you.
But I also think there's an important distinction between having a deep knowledge in a particular field of study - as university professors have - and knowing how to impart that knowledge to others. Universities have struggled with this conundrum for generations.
If I need the solution to a difficult math problem, I'll go to a math professor. But if I need to know how to teach a math concept, I would look first to the professor in education who has that expertise.
Finally, the evidence in support of Investigations Math – as it is taught in the State College school district – is overwhelming. It would be irresponsible for the school board to ignore that. Parents have a right and an obligation to advocate for their children. As school board members, we have the obligation to advocate for everyone’s children.
My reply follows:
I fully support the recommendation to adopt the 2nd edition of "Investigations". The new edition will allow our teachers to build on the progress that our students have made over the past few years, while specifically addressing the aspects of the program that needed strengthening.
As I’ve stated previously, I certainly understand the frustration of parents, who having been taught Math the old, “algorithmic” way, struggle to help their children with their homework. I also think that more can be done to bridge the “old” and “new” approaches. The latest edition of Investigations Math addresses both of these issues.
The parental involvement piece is very important. Our children’s success depends on a partnership of students, teachers and parents; we should do everything we can to ensure that parents are fully engaged in their children’s education. I applaud the efforts of teachers, administrators and fellow board members who have reached out to address the legitimate concerns of parents, and the parents who have reached back.
We also need to recognize that for most of our elementary teachers, this was a new approach to math instruction. As with any new teaching strategy – particularly one that is being applied across an entire organization - even with good training, there is a learning curve. (As well there should be! Educators who aren’t continually learning and getting better at what they do are in the wrong business.)
While it is important to allow teachers to adapt their strategies and resources to what works best for particular students, it's also important that we maintain curricular consistency across the district. The improvements in the new edition mean that our teachers will be less dependent on outside resources.
From my personal perspective - as someone whose best subject in school was Math - this conceptual approach to Math instruction is a very welcome change. Although I was taught the old, algorithmic way, the reason I excelled at Math – and perhaps, just as importantly, the reason I enjoyed it – was that I understood it conceptually.
It is a crime that generations of Americans have been trained to believe that “they’re not good at Math” or that “Math is boring”. Forty years ago, it may have been sufficient for 10-20% of our students to be “good at math”. That is no longer acceptable; maintaining the status quo would have been a disservice to our students.
People are generally resistant to change, especially when the "way we used to do it" worked just fine for them. Clearly, if you're a university math professor, the "way we used to do it" worked exceedingly well for you.
But I also think there's an important distinction between having a deep knowledge in a particular field of study - as university professors have - and knowing how to impart that knowledge to others. Universities have struggled with this conundrum for generations.
If I need the solution to a difficult math problem, I'll go to a math professor. But if I need to know how to teach a math concept, I would look first to the professor in education who has that expertise.
Finally, the evidence in support of Investigations Math – as it is taught in the State College school district – is overwhelming. It would be irresponsible for the school board to ignore that. Parents have a right and an obligation to advocate for their children. As school board members, we have the obligation to advocate for everyone’s children.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Legislative Update: Charter schools
One more item from the advocacy conference in Harrisburg.
It was enlightening to hear from the respective chairs of the state House and Senate Education Committees, Rep. James Roebuck, and Senator Jeffrey Piccola.
Among others things, Senator Piccola is a strong supporter of the charter school movement.
When the Pennsylvania charter school law was passed in 1997, it was based on the premise that it would create opportunities for experimentation with educational innovation on a small scale, without the usual red tape. The result would be another option for parents, and if the innovation proved successful, perhaps a model for broader implementation.
(State College has a couple of good examples of this theory in practice: one charter school dedicated to project-based learning and the use of technology, another to foreign language instruction for elementary students.) The objection of local school boards is not to the theory, but that charter schools are funded predominantly through the local budget, even though local boards have little control over what charter schools do.
So the comment that turned heads was Senator Piccola's assertion that "if a charter school is ineffective, the local school board has the right not to renew their charter." While that statement is technically true, what he left out was the fact that PDE (the Pennsylvania Department of Education) has to give its approval anytime a school board declines a charter school application, or fails to renew one - and except in the most egregious of situations, that never happens.
School boards understand that if the "I"s and the "T"s have been dotted and crossed, they have little recourse. State College has learned from experience that PDE will overrule their decision on appeal, so it's not worth the time and taxpayer money to fight it.
During the Q and A, a school board member suggested that local schools be allowed to create their own charter schools (under the same basic premise of encouraging innovation). To which the Senator replied, "you already can." When challenged, the senator repeated his statement.
The language of the charter school law doesn’t permit this, but it doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, either. So perhaps, it is technically possible, like the aforementioned approval process. But it seemed a bit strange that the chair of the Senate Education Committee didn't seem to understand how the charter school law works in practice.
But he did say he would look into it.
Postscript: And indeed, he has. Just this week Piccola announced the need “for a comprehensive rewrite of our commonwealth’s Charter School Law, which I have made clear is one of my legislative priorities.” So we shall see.
It was enlightening to hear from the respective chairs of the state House and Senate Education Committees, Rep. James Roebuck, and Senator Jeffrey Piccola.
Among others things, Senator Piccola is a strong supporter of the charter school movement.
When the Pennsylvania charter school law was passed in 1997, it was based on the premise that it would create opportunities for experimentation with educational innovation on a small scale, without the usual red tape. The result would be another option for parents, and if the innovation proved successful, perhaps a model for broader implementation.
(State College has a couple of good examples of this theory in practice: one charter school dedicated to project-based learning and the use of technology, another to foreign language instruction for elementary students.) The objection of local school boards is not to the theory, but that charter schools are funded predominantly through the local budget, even though local boards have little control over what charter schools do.
So the comment that turned heads was Senator Piccola's assertion that "if a charter school is ineffective, the local school board has the right not to renew their charter." While that statement is technically true, what he left out was the fact that PDE (the Pennsylvania Department of Education) has to give its approval anytime a school board declines a charter school application, or fails to renew one - and except in the most egregious of situations, that never happens.
School boards understand that if the "I"s and the "T"s have been dotted and crossed, they have little recourse. State College has learned from experience that PDE will overrule their decision on appeal, so it's not worth the time and taxpayer money to fight it.
During the Q and A, a school board member suggested that local schools be allowed to create their own charter schools (under the same basic premise of encouraging innovation). To which the Senator replied, "you already can." When challenged, the senator repeated his statement.
The language of the charter school law doesn’t permit this, but it doesn’t explicitly prohibit it, either. So perhaps, it is technically possible, like the aforementioned approval process. But it seemed a bit strange that the chair of the Senate Education Committee didn't seem to understand how the charter school law works in practice.
But he did say he would look into it.
Postscript: And indeed, he has. Just this week Piccola announced the need “for a comprehensive rewrite of our commonwealth’s Charter School Law, which I have made clear is one of my legislative priorities.” So we shall see.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Legislative Update: GCAs
The other issue to generate a lot of heat at the Harrisburg conference was the agreement between PSBA and PDE to replace the GCAs with the Keystone exams (no acronym).
To recap: there had been enormous opposition to Governor Rendell's proposal to require ten Graduate Competency Assessments as a condition for a high school diploma in Pennsylvania. Educators opposed it, school boards opposed it (including a resolution by the State College school board) and legislators opposed it by overwhelming majorities in both houses.
None of this discouraged the governor, who doggedly continued to allocate funds to move his initiative forward, in spite of current budget constraints.
Then about six months ago, PDE commissioned a study by Penn State to evaluate the extent to which the graduation requirements of individual school districts aligned with state standards.
The result - which shouldn't have surprised anyone, really - was, shall we say, uneven. Some districts aligned well, some not-so-well, some districts didn't respond at all.
PSBA saw the handwriting on the wall and decided that it was time to make a deal.
In my opinion, the deal is actually pretty good. The key differences (improvements) in the Keystone exam proposal:
Nevertheless, some school board members appeared to be upset that they hadn't been consulted. (Myself, I was happy that someone took the initiative.) Others - I would call them the purists - seemed to argue against ever using a standardized test for any reason.
I'm not sure whether those arguments are valid, but they seem to ignore the political reality that, at the very least, we needed to give the governor a way to save face. Second, we have other issues to deal with. (It would be nice to talk about something else for a change.) Finally, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Some people just don't know how to declare victory and go home.
To recap: there had been enormous opposition to Governor Rendell's proposal to require ten Graduate Competency Assessments as a condition for a high school diploma in Pennsylvania. Educators opposed it, school boards opposed it (including a resolution by the State College school board) and legislators opposed it by overwhelming majorities in both houses.
None of this discouraged the governor, who doggedly continued to allocate funds to move his initiative forward, in spite of current budget constraints.
Then about six months ago, PDE commissioned a study by Penn State to evaluate the extent to which the graduation requirements of individual school districts aligned with state standards.
The result - which shouldn't have surprised anyone, really - was, shall we say, uneven. Some districts aligned well, some not-so-well, some districts didn't respond at all.
PSBA saw the handwriting on the wall and decided that it was time to make a deal.
In my opinion, the deal is actually pretty good. The key differences (improvements) in the Keystone exam proposal:
- The Keystone exams will be voluntary: districts are free to use some, all or none of them.
- Districts may continue to use multiple types of assessments for graduation purposes.
- PDE is required to provide technical help to districts who want to develop their own assessments.
- The criteria for determining the validity of local assessments will be made by a committee comprised equally of state and local school officials.
Nevertheless, some school board members appeared to be upset that they hadn't been consulted. (Myself, I was happy that someone took the initiative.) Others - I would call them the purists - seemed to argue against ever using a standardized test for any reason.
I'm not sure whether those arguments are valid, but they seem to ignore the political reality that, at the very least, we needed to give the governor a way to save face. Second, we have other issues to deal with. (It would be nice to talk about something else for a change.) Finally, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Some people just don't know how to declare victory and go home.
Legislative Update: District Consolidation
In a more logical world, David Davare's conference presentation would have been unnecessary. (Merger/Consolidation of School Districts: Does it save money and improve student achievement?) But the issue refuses to go away.
A key part of the session was the discussion of several pre-merger studies showing the potential for savings, one of which was produced by Standard & Poor. Not included in that study: the impact of salaries, benefits, transportation or debt service.
Then, with just a touch of irony, Davare added: "no post-merger studies have documented any savings."
What explains this?
Consider a "trivial" issue such as school mascots. Just think of the controversy, the effort, the administrative time - and the money - that would be expended coming up with new mascots, logos, colors, uniforms and signs for three schools who, by virtue of physical proximity, have probably been fierce rivals for decades. (I think “Bald Raiding Rams” has a nice ring to it; don’t you?)
When the last major state-wide consolidation occurred almost forty years ago, some districts were designated NSDs (Necessarily Small Districts). The necessity was related to geography: do you really want to bus your kids over the mountain in the middle of a western Pennsylvania winter?
Then there are the more substantive issues: teacher contracts that would have to be aligned across the new district – and not just by salary. You would also have to resolve different salary scales (the degree to which experience and education are compensated), benefits, and contract expiration dates. And that’s just one of the employee contracts that would have to be renegotiated. (Which do you think is more likely: would contracts migrate towards to high end or towards the low end of the merging districts?)
On top of that, every district has its own curriculum - would you toss out half your textbooks? Try to picture a 27-member school board deciding on who the new superintendent would be.
All of this ignores the fact that school districts already have a mechanism that allows them to pool resources: Intermediate Units were created specifically for that purpose. In addition, nothing prevents PDE from assisting those districts who think consolidation might be a good idea.
Overheard at breakfast the next day: if the governor was really serious about this, he wouldn't have waited until the last two years of his administration to bring it up.
It's a waste of everyone's time that we're giving this idea any attention at all.
A key part of the session was the discussion of several pre-merger studies showing the potential for savings, one of which was produced by Standard & Poor. Not included in that study: the impact of salaries, benefits, transportation or debt service.
Then, with just a touch of irony, Davare added: "no post-merger studies have documented any savings."
What explains this?
Consider a "trivial" issue such as school mascots. Just think of the controversy, the effort, the administrative time - and the money - that would be expended coming up with new mascots, logos, colors, uniforms and signs for three schools who, by virtue of physical proximity, have probably been fierce rivals for decades. (I think “Bald Raiding Rams” has a nice ring to it; don’t you?)
When the last major state-wide consolidation occurred almost forty years ago, some districts were designated NSDs (Necessarily Small Districts). The necessity was related to geography: do you really want to bus your kids over the mountain in the middle of a western Pennsylvania winter?
Then there are the more substantive issues: teacher contracts that would have to be aligned across the new district – and not just by salary. You would also have to resolve different salary scales (the degree to which experience and education are compensated), benefits, and contract expiration dates. And that’s just one of the employee contracts that would have to be renegotiated. (Which do you think is more likely: would contracts migrate towards to high end or towards the low end of the merging districts?)
On top of that, every district has its own curriculum - would you toss out half your textbooks? Try to picture a 27-member school board deciding on who the new superintendent would be.
All of this ignores the fact that school districts already have a mechanism that allows them to pool resources: Intermediate Units were created specifically for that purpose. In addition, nothing prevents PDE from assisting those districts who think consolidation might be a good idea.
Overheard at breakfast the next day: if the governor was really serious about this, he wouldn't have waited until the last two years of his administration to bring it up.
It's a waste of everyone's time that we're giving this idea any attention at all.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Legislative Update
As one might expect, the greatest interest at last month's advocacy conference in Harrisburg was generated by discussions about how Pennsylvania school districts would be impacted by the federal stimulus package.
Governor Rendell has proposed to use the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund" (SFSF) portion of the stimulus money to fund years two and three of his "six-year plan to adequacy." (If you recall, the state released a study last year which indicated that the majority of Pennsylvania school districts were significantly underfunded, in terms of what it would take to provide a "free and adequate education" for every student. He proposed a six-year plan to make up the shortfall.)
This seems consistent with the spirit of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (i.e., the stimulus package). However, the state senate just voted in support of the "Rollback Plan" (as it was called then), which essentially uses the money to balance the state budget. Another proposal from the house side of the hill would set these funds aside to help pay down the upcoming pension spike. I suspect that neither idea is likely to meet with the approval of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
In any event, most school districts - as usual - are not likely to know how much money they will or won't get until after they have passed their budgets for next year.
All of this is moot for State College, which would see very little of this money under the governor's proposal, because our average spending per pupil is already just about where the costing-out study says it should be.
Governor Rendell has proposed to use the "State Fiscal Stabilization Fund" (SFSF) portion of the stimulus money to fund years two and three of his "six-year plan to adequacy." (If you recall, the state released a study last year which indicated that the majority of Pennsylvania school districts were significantly underfunded, in terms of what it would take to provide a "free and adequate education" for every student. He proposed a six-year plan to make up the shortfall.)
This seems consistent with the spirit of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (i.e., the stimulus package). However, the state senate just voted in support of the "Rollback Plan" (as it was called then), which essentially uses the money to balance the state budget. Another proposal from the house side of the hill would set these funds aside to help pay down the upcoming pension spike. I suspect that neither idea is likely to meet with the approval of Education Secretary Arne Duncan.
In any event, most school districts - as usual - are not likely to know how much money they will or won't get until after they have passed their budgets for next year.
All of this is moot for State College, which would see very little of this money under the governor's proposal, because our average spending per pupil is already just about where the costing-out study says it should be.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The budget vote
As my readers probably know, I was one of two dissenters in the 7-2 vote in favor of the "proposed final budget" early Tuesday morning.
Because this issue has so many moving parts, it might not be entirely clear why a person voted as they did. Even if you voted "yes", it is likely that there are parts of the budget that you would like to change. If you voted "no", it is likely that there are large parts of the budget that you support. So an explanation might be useful.
I have two primary concerns with this budget.
Rather than using an "all-at-once" strategy, State College has been very deliberate in its approach to technology. As we've gradually increased the access that students and teachers have to computers in the classroom, teachers have had opportunities to develop and share ideas for improving instruction, and our students have benefited.
While it was never realistic for us to "fully-fund" our technology budget this year, I think it is important to do enough to maintain our momentum, which I believe the administration's modest recommendation would have accomplished.
My second concern was about the additional 1 1/2% tax increase, to be set aside for future payments into the retirement fund.
This is almost certainly a case of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Unless the stock market has an amazing recovery (thereby boosting the value of the state pension fund), we will be facing a substantial increase in the district's contribution to employee pensions, beginning with FY2013.
I would normally be on the other side of this issue (that is, on the side of putting money aside that will be needed later) but given the current state of the economy, this strikes me as one of those times when it might be better to "pay me later." If the economy doesn't begin to improve by next year, then I think we'd have to begin to bite the bullet. But given all the effort that was made to minimize this year's tax increase, it strikes me as counter-productive to almost double that increase in order to pre-fund PSERS.
But reasonable people can disagree, and they did.
Because this issue has so many moving parts, it might not be entirely clear why a person voted as they did. Even if you voted "yes", it is likely that there are parts of the budget that you would like to change. If you voted "no", it is likely that there are large parts of the budget that you support. So an explanation might be useful.
I have two primary concerns with this budget.
Rather than using an "all-at-once" strategy, State College has been very deliberate in its approach to technology. As we've gradually increased the access that students and teachers have to computers in the classroom, teachers have had opportunities to develop and share ideas for improving instruction, and our students have benefited.
While it was never realistic for us to "fully-fund" our technology budget this year, I think it is important to do enough to maintain our momentum, which I believe the administration's modest recommendation would have accomplished.
My second concern was about the additional 1 1/2% tax increase, to be set aside for future payments into the retirement fund.
This is almost certainly a case of "you can pay me now, or you can pay me later." Unless the stock market has an amazing recovery (thereby boosting the value of the state pension fund), we will be facing a substantial increase in the district's contribution to employee pensions, beginning with FY2013.
I would normally be on the other side of this issue (that is, on the side of putting money aside that will be needed later) but given the current state of the economy, this strikes me as one of those times when it might be better to "pay me later." If the economy doesn't begin to improve by next year, then I think we'd have to begin to bite the bullet. But given all the effort that was made to minimize this year's tax increase, it strikes me as counter-productive to almost double that increase in order to pre-fund PSERS.
But reasonable people can disagree, and they did.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)