By Antonio D. French
Filed Monday, November 13 at 10:08 AM
Some St. Louis City public school officials are tossing around the idea of establishing school board committees to focus on specific areas, such as facilities or finance. One board member says he wants to see parents involved in those committees.
Downs asks any parents interested in working on a committee to contact him.
"If you are a parent interested in working on a committee to help the district move ahead in such areas as facilities, finance, or instruction, or you know of a parent who is interested in serving in that way, please let me know," said Downs.
Downs can be emailed at pdowns@speakeasy.net
12 Comments:
It is common for organizations to have their "official board" and an "advisory board". Parents on these committees could have a status similar to advisory board members.
The textbook selection committees over the last few years had parents on them. The parents couldn't vote, but the parents were able to participate in the discussions. They had influence at least within the committee, even though the board ignored the committee recommendations.
Any increase in transparency is certainly welcome!
CP
Monday, November 13, 2006 7:35:00 PM
I am glad that this old idea has finally found an advocate(voice) with Mr. Downs. Students and "other" district stakeholders should also be considered as potential committee members when and where their expertise and input could be utilized.
CP...My experience (as a parent) on the textbook committee was very different from what you described. I was able to vote on the committee in which I served, and in fact just utilized the text that we as a committee selected while helping my son with some homework last evening.
It was an interesting experience. I learned a great deal from the process. I hope I contributed to the process as well.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:07:00 PM
This, to me, has a 'safety in numbers' air to it. 'Not only were we, the board, in favor of it, but the advisory board was, too.' When things go wrong, and not every decision is going to be right, blame can be spread.
Also, I sense that well-meaning gadflys will somehow not be on the boards, for better or worse.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:36:00 PM
Anon#3, do you wait until your team loses to boo them, or do you just start right in before the game begins?
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:39:00 PM
ec,
It is nice to hear that you (a parent) had a positive experience on the textbook committee.
When Spampinato and Roberti ignored the recommendations of a textbook committee made up of parents, educators, and administrators, it resulted in the adoption of "Open Court". This Reading and Language series is (almost) univerally despised by those who must use it. (For those who don't know, "Open Court was rated LAST out of six series examined by the committee, but was adopted anyway)
Every day the children become more and more bored with it, and teachers struggle to make it more palatable, while trying to avoid being caught by the "Open Court/Reading First Police" who patrol the halls and listen in outside classroom doors. (Yes, it is still going on.)
Let's hope that the recommendations of well-rounded textbook committees are followed in the future, not thrown aside to put money into the coffers of someone connected up with NCLB and huge textbook publishers.
By the way, McGraw-Hill boasts of record profits ever since NCLB and Reading First was adopted.
Some day people will be indicted for all of this corruption...I just hope it is not too late for the students and educators who must try to use this piece of crap.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 9:20:00 AM
Hey Jim (and others) -- I've been wondering what your (and other teachers')beef is with Open Court. My read (pun intended) is that it's a pretty solid program backed by a lot of research, but was somewhat thrust upon the district. Is your opposition to the program itself or the way it was implemented (or both)? If something "works" and schools aren't readily adopting it, is it OK to encourage them to do so? As always, I appreciate your input -- BeeDub
Thursday, November 16, 2006 9:39:00 AM
I find the Open Court stuff that my kids bring home droll, the topics uninteresting, and the format itself (paper hand-stapled together) not very durable. Beyond that, the actual words and vocabulary are far under what should be considered *average* for that grade level.
The idea of a common curriculum is interesting, but it's based on a notion that all classrooms are equal. The reality is that all classrooms are not equal, since different classrooms contain different people and different personalities--they WILL be different.
Parents on committees is a good idea. The problem that I see is that parents and kids are already overcommitted. Moreover, the whole point of having a school board is so that the board can *represent* the community and the parents. If we have to have parents serve in a specific advisory role, then what real function is the board serving other than that of self-aggrandization?
Whenever I see The Board act as a whole, I think that State takeover wouldn't be such a bad thing.
Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:04:00 PM
Bee-dub - I would love to answer your question on "What's the big beef about Open Court - it's backed by all this research" - okay - okay - when you speak about Open Court, always ALWAYS put "reseach" in quotations because the research is so full of BS it's a crime!! The research the program touts is pulled from it's very own authors!!! Please don't believe everything you read - don't even believe my words - simply get on the internet and get informed - the reading program stinks and teachers are forced to teach what they know is a very poor program. I wish more parents would complain - their children are definitely going to be "Left Behind" - George Bush calls Open Court, "One heck of a program!" - Adios - Glorybea
Thursday, November 16, 2006 4:29:00 PM
Bee-dub,
Hey, covering the problems with Open Court is huge. I'll try to keep it short for everybody. I have been hoping to address this issue in depth, but there is so much it is hard to find the time.
Anyway, from a teacher's perspective the program is very cumbersome. The Teacher's Editions are almost unusable and poorly organized. Much of the text is actually an advertisement for the series! When it was authored, they must have had people from the advertising/marketing team working side by side with the authors. I'm not kidding.
I believe Open Court was designed for those districts that cannot recruit quality teachers. I think this is why Lynn Spampinato brought the series to the SLPS. The Roberti/Slay/Archibald, etc. team believes the teachers in the SLPS are unqualified and brought in Open Court because it is so heavily "scripted" that they think any moron can follow it and be a teacher. The series goes so far as to tell you how to hold your book, where to stand, when to speak, etc. The amount of direction is so ridiculous that no one would have the time to "rehearse" the lesson. And the series expects this every day and in every lesson! It assumes that the instructor is incompetent and must be programmed like a robot. This series completely removes what makes a good teacher...CREATIVITY AND FLEXIBILITY! What you end up with is BORING and the kids shut down almost immediately.
This is already getting too long. I am going to list SOME of the other problems and give details in some other forum.
1. Most of the stories are poorly written. There are few, if any, stories written by well-known children's publishers. This results in BORED students.
2. The workbooks are nearly unusable. Many of the questions aren't even numbered! When the teacher is trying to guide the student, there is no way to reference where the student should even be! I end up saying things like "Look at the third little blue triangle, halfway down the paper".
3. The language in the directions is written for college professors! The students don't have a clue what they are being asked to do! You can't increase a student's vocabulary if they don't first understand the directions!
4. There is very poor preparation for the next story. No matter what the authors' "research" tells you, I see very little link between stories.
5. The difficulty level jumps all over. The stories and assignments should build in difficulty throughout the school year...they don't.
6. The program tries to cram in so many different lessons and mini-lessons into one day that all of the lessons get lost. It also attempts to use a spelling or grammar rule for everything. If there is no clear-cut rule (they don't exist in English) the authors make one up.
7. There is no use of visual aids in the workbooks. Instead, everything relies on written instruction. Many children cannot follow along and don't even want to try.
I am going to stop here because I know this is getting too long to read. I will let you know if/when I get around to a more detailed answer. One last thing, the program might not be quite as bad if the teachers were allowed a little flexibility without being threatened with their jobs. In my class, the kids know that when the Open Court/Reading First police show up, they are in for a BORING day!
Saturday, November 18, 2006 1:17:00 PM
It's true that the quality of research often quoted by the Open Court sales force is shoddy at best. This research was mostly subsidized by the McGraw Hill Company, which sells Open Court and many of the annual state tests now required by the No Child Left Behind Act. McGraw Hill, of course, is headed by golf buddies of both Bush presidents, which explains way too much of how things work in Washington, unfortuantely.
Saturday, November 18, 2006 11:13:00 PM
Thanks for the input y'all! As someone on the policy/research side, it's always good for me to hear the teacher's side of things. -- BW
Monday, November 20, 2006 10:28:00 AM
The high-performing districts in the area have moved away from heavily scripted programs like Open Court, and instead are implementing Guided Reading (also known as Four Blocks or Balanced Literacy), in which reading and writing are taught in the context of high quality children's literature. These districts are documenting steady improvement in MAP scores, and, in some cases, even achieving the elusive AYP. That is the direction SLPS should be moving-- instead teachers are being forced to deny their students access to effective reading instruction!
Saturday, November 25, 2006 4:29:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home