|
| Board Update March 19, 2001 Harassment Policy and Reporting Procedures Questioned In last night’s Board meeting, safe schools advocate Katherine Gardner expressed concern about the District’s existing harassment policy as well as the District’s reporting of harassment incidents. Research into the characteristics of those responsible for the recent school shootings reveals that all of the shooters could be identified as “avengers”, outcast and alienated individuals who were victims of on-going harassment in the schools. While the District currently has a harassment policy (despite Adams’ vigorous objections), Gardner is concerned that it fails to comply with requirements of the Office of Civil Rights. Notification of rights regarding the District’s policy (racial, sexual, ethnic, religious, etc.) is not currently given to all parents and students. Gardner asked how the District planned to comply. There were questions, too, about the wording of the policy itself. It mentions harassment in school buildings, but leaves out “property” – harassment on buses or during school sponsored events. A third point involved the way that the District reports harassment incidents to the State in the mandated “Violence and Weapons Annual Report”. For the past three years, in all five of the district schools, only 4 incidents of harassment were reported. In 1997-1998, there was 1 reported incident of racial harassment and 1 reported incident of intimidation. In 1999-2000, there were 2 reported incidents of sexual harassment. Can these figures be accurate, Gardner asked? Or is there a trend of under-reporting incidents. The worst thing that can happen is apathy. The District must take an active stance in publicizing and enforcing their harassment policy. Finally, Gardner make a public request for a copy of the findings of the State Attorney General’s 2000 Audit of the District’s compliance with the Safe Schools Act. Turns out that our District was 1 of 34 chosen from across the state for this type of audit. Should be interesting to see what Gardner discovers. Does the District take an active role in preventing harassment of students? Or is there an attitude that kids will be kids? I have to admit, though, it does seem odd that there have only been 4 reported incidents in the past three years… Researcher Requests Information On All District Students And what’s up with item 10, “Allow sharing of transportation database with SRU for purpose of developing computerized bus routing software”, on last night’s agenda? Business Manager Cessar explained that a university researcher has requested this information and the District apparently plans to provide it. Board President Watson assumed that parents’ signed consent would be required, but no, that’s not the case. Instead, it’s the University that will sign a confidentiality agreement, promising not to disclose this information to anyone else. Youngman and Angerett wondered why actual names were needed, why not just a head count of the number of children at each address? It’s encouraging to see such a concern for confidentiality, given all of the state and federal investigations into violations of students’ privacy rights. And surely the solicitor has reviewed this request. Still, it’s painfully obvious that the Board and some District employees desperately need training in privacy rights and confidentiality. First of all, students’ names and addresses are considered “Directory Information”. According to FERPA, directory information includes a student’s name, address, phone number, date and place of birth, participation of officially recognized activities and sports, weight & height of athletic team members, degrees and awards. No consent is needed to disclose this information. It is available to army recruiters (remember the Seneca Valley flap a few years ago), photography companies, or anyone who is just curious. Period. That’s why it’s ok to post the honor roll in the paper. Districts have to provide an annual public notice that tells parents of their right to refuse to have any of their child’s information identified as Directory Information. All a parent has to do is send a letter. Now in many Districts, the school calendar has this information. In our case, the District puts the notice in the paper (well, they have been ever since the Feds ordered them to) – so I hope parents have saved this information for future reference. This is where the curious part starts. If it’s simply names and addresses (Directory Information) then no consent is needed. Why does the University have to sign a confidentiality pledge? But wait, it says “Transportation Data Base”. What other information does that contain? Must be something more than names and addresses – but that’s not what the public’s being told. Hmm. Seems to me that the Transportation Form filled out at the beginning of the year has other information – emergency numbers, names of babysitters, medications and allergies…Could that be part of the Transportation Database? All of this is moot, though. According to Chapter 4, parents have the right to have their children excused from any research study conducted by an outside entity, unless prior written consent has been given. Sounds like it’s an outside research study to me. And no parental consent is being sought? It’s pretty hard to have your child excused when you don’t even know a study is going on. Oh well. The Solicitor, the Board and the Business Manager must know best. They wouldn’t knowingly subvert both state and federal laws. We all know that the Board takes every opportunity to pay the attorney $105 an hour to write resolutions against Chapter 4 (this week it’s a resolution against requiring Special Education students to take the PSSA), but surely that doesn’t mean the Board is willing to violate the law just because they disagree with it. Isn’t that some form of, what would Adams call it, tyranny? Core Knowledge Training – It Really Works! Board member Giesler has come back from the Core Knowledge Conference in Boston touting the new party line. I guess all that training took! Giesler, Beaton, Cokain, Allen, and 2 (or maybe 3 – it wasn’t clear) teachers (one from the Middle School and one from Har-Mer) represented the District at the National conference. Giesler expressed his growing understanding of Core Knowledge and guess what he learned? In most places, he explained, Core Knowledge is a teacher’s movement and we have to remember that they - the teachers - are the true experts on curriculum and teaching (Is he campaigning or what?!). Giesler also told about the infamous misconceptions regarding Core Knowledge (the only school reform movement that has a published list of “misconceptions”). Did you know that as the District can choose how much of Core Knowledge to implement? And they can even leave some areas out (Would that include, say, world religions?). According to Giesler, ‘there’s nothing wrong with being less than a Core Knowledge school’. No, there’s nothing wrong with that, but there is also no research showing the effectiveness of picking and choosing your way through the Core Knowledge sequence. Improved test scores come from schools that go all the way – common planning time, 80-100% of the sequence taught at the appropriate grade level, etc. If we aren’t replicating the conditions of the research studies, then we aren’t going to see the same benefits. As all good cults do, the Core Knowledge Foundation Corporation is seeking ways to find new converts, and Mr. Giesler was an effective mouthpiece for the changes underway. It turns out that just a little is enough. Beginning this month, there are now 3 levels of implementation for Core Knowledge (Anyone wanna buy some Amway products?). First, there are the “Friends of Core Knowledge”, schools who have expressed an interest in Core Knowledge (do you think this will affect the number of schools Core Knowledge claims?). Then come the “Official Core Knowledge Schools”, schools that have documented that they teach 80% of the sequence and have site visits from representatives of the Foundation (does anyone in our District count as an official representative?). Finally, there’s the “Certified Core Knowledge School”. These schools teach 100% of the sequence and have students take the Core Knowledge Curriculum-Referenced Tests (I’ll bet when Pearson publishes the new Core Knowledge textbooks, they’ll be required too.). Seems like Core Knowledge is undergoing some changes. They’ve gotten a Federally registered trademark for Core Knowledge, Core Classics and Core Chronicles. They’ve gotten a company to write Core Knowledge Tests. They’ve sold the knowledge to an international company and Core knowledge textbooks are coming. What does that mean for our District? According to Giesler, Core Knowledge has common ground if we can find it and the Board just needs to listen and take direction from the administrators about where to go regarding Core Knowledge. Ah, there’s the truth. Not the teachers. Not the parents. It’s the Board and the Administration who want Core Knowledge, by any name. As long as the District does some if it, they can claim victory. Click here to read about the SHOCKING failure of Core Knowledge in the Fairfax Co. Va. schools! It Was Just An Informational Meeting The District’s solicitor has sent Dr. Beaton a letter, explaining that the Board’s secret meeting with Connie Jones was really a training session, not an open meeting governed by the Sunshine Act. Is he paid to say that? I’m sure there were no real discussions going on during the meeting. It was just coincidence that the plan for voluntary Core Knowledge came up right after their meeting… Hmmm. Wonder who paid for dinner? In the "Oh yeah" Department The board voted last night to hire the contractors to perform the renovations at Har-Mer. Adams, Youngman, and Christmann voted no. Go figure. Board Update 3-27-01 Contract Negotiations Gone, But Not Forgotten The plan developed by the Act 48 Professional Development Committee (written by teachers, administrators, parents and business people) was tabled last night. You’ll remember that last week Brad Smith expressed concern about how the plan fit with the new contract and whether or not there would be additional costs to the District. Well, solicitor King has gotten involved, and as expected, there are “philosophical” (or would that be political??) questions concerning the teachers’ contract, the board’s power, and the right of the State to mandate anything under Chapter 4. Dr. Nogay is to be commended for all of the work she put into the committee. She involved parents, conducted a survey of teachers, and put everything on a fast track so teachers could begin to keep an official record of their professional activities. She wanted to bring the District into compliance with the law. And she had a nice Power Point presentation to share it with the Board. Ah, but it wasn’t meant to be. Mr. King began, speaking to “what Mr. Smith had in mind”, and explained that there were three issues that needed to be resolved before the Board approved the Professional Development plan. Issue one – that pesky contract. Should teachers be permitted to earn Act 48 credit for something they’re being paid for? Apparently the current CBA allows for teachers to be paid for participation on certain committees. Apparently some members of the Board still resent this. Apparently inserting a statement like “the plan will not supersede the contract” (Watson liked this idea and Asst. Superintendent Nogay had found a place to insert the language.) just wasn’t good enough to allay Mr. Smith’s concerns. Because it’s not really about a conflict with the Contract (unless it’s the inner conflict that some Board members seem to have about approving that contract in the first place. But hey, it just makes them determined to be there for the next contract talks, come hell or high water…but that’s another story). No, it turns out that this is really about power and politics. Who’d have suspected? Issue two – ultimate power. Why isn’t there pre-approval by the Board for everything teachers might do in the name of professional development, especially if it’s outside of their control, um I mean outside the district? And if the Board doesn’t approve it, then at least leave it up to the superintendent (now you wouldn’t want those building principals to think they had any power, would you?). Issue three – the real political agenda. It seems that Act 48 is one of those gosh darn unfunded Chapter 4 mandates from the State. The Committee’s proposed “curriculum mapping” (I thought the mapping was just to see how the existing Board approved curriculum fits with the state law – Chapter 4). Mr. King, again speaking for what Mr. Smith had in mind, believes this would be realigning the curriculum to fit the PSSA. They’d feared this all along (who are “they” anyway?). If it’s curriculum re-design, then the Board must approve it (Is mapping a re-design? What is being changed?). Which turned into the recurring theme of this board – additional cost to the District (Does additional cost also include all of the solicitor’s work fighting Chapter 4??). Business manager Cessar stated that a half-time clerk’s position had become full time in order to keep up with the required documentation. And that teachers might be going to college more, since it’s a way to get even more Act 48 credits. It doesn’t, according to Adams, facilitate learning. It’s just levying more taxes to pay for a boondoggle. That’s right. I’d forgotten. It’s all tied to the right wing beliefs of most of our board members. It’s John Dewey and progressivism that has ruined American education. Continuing professional education doesn’t improve teaching. There’s a research study that proves that teachers’ higher education doesn’t necessarily result in improved test scores. Indeed, there may just be a correlation between higher levels of teacher education and declining test scores (because we all know colleges of education are just more pigs at the trough). We need a proven, teacher-proof curriculum. How ‘bout Core Knowledge (seems like so long ago when Smith first asked for a speaker to come and enlighten us all. Yep. A review of the Board minutes shows that the FIRST mention of the Core Knowledge Corp. came from Smith)? If we don’t like it, we just don’t understand…and we can all just quit whining, too, cause the board doesn’t care about what the teachers or the parents want. Instead, they are the leaders, they hold the power. Teachers, they’re not professionals. Just a necessary evil…just like their dang contract… More Contract Stuff School Safety advocate, Katherine Gardner, was appointed to the District’s safety committee, a committee mandated by the current contract. She’s certainly knowledgeable about the law and will be an effective advocate for students and parents. Good move. If you haven't visited the Message Board lately, you should check it out! |
|
|