Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Abby Klein's experiences with the reconfiguration issue

My name is Abby Klein. My family just moved here last summer from California. Both of my children are in the upper houses at Williston Central.
I actually ran for School Board in the last election just for this reason...I wanted to have a say in the reconfiguration process because I could tell that the parents were being completely left out in the cold. One of my platforms in the election was the creation of two year instead of four year houses.
When I attended the FAP meeting in March, (incidentally, it is the only one I could attend because normally the meetings are held in the morning. I am a classroom teacher, so I cannot attend morning meetings. When I inquired about why the meetings weren't held at night, I was told it was because the teachers are not at school then and they are supposed to have representatives on the council. Why can't they rotate who attends and sign up to come one meeting a year?) Anyway...

At that FAP meeting, every parent there was starving for information about the reconfiguration. Walter Nardelli was VERY evasive and only spoke of the philosophical underpinnings of the new plan. He said he wanted to create more connectedness within the school community because that was a characteristic of successful schools. I pointed out that the current house system was the antithesis of connectedness. The houses are keep very separate and each house has its own identity. I think kids revere their own houses and stereotype others. Isn't this stereotyping behavior just the kind of behavior the school works so hard to eradicate? Imagine my shock when bits and pieces of the plan started to leak out and it was virtually maintaining the status quo! How does that improve connectedness, the linchpin of Mr. Nardelli's new philosophy?
I actually did not attend the School Board meeting when the plan was being unveiled because at that FAP meeting the School Board member who was present was asked if the Board was going to be taking input, and she basically said they were really just going to rubber stamp the administration's plan. I could see the writing on the wall then...
Why is the current Board being so passive? I, too respect teachers (as I am one) and their input, but I also feel that the most successful schools treat parents as partners and value their input, not just look at them as people who help with fundraising. I find it ironic that the PTA (as we called it in California) is specifically not called the PTA here, but the FAP, families as partners. Are we really partners?
As an educator, I am in complete agreement with you regarding the lack of academic rigor which I also feel is the result of the inflexible house system. When I asked why the children did not have social studies and science all year, I was told it was because if they only had it half a year, then they could have it for longer blocks of time. In other words, they could have it all year for 30 minutes a day, or half a year for an hour a day. My response was that they should be having it for an hour a day all year!! You show me another middle school in the country where the students only have the subjects for half a year. It's ludicrous! I am also stunned that there are no advanced math classes until eighth grade. There should be advanced math being offered as early as sixth grade. I definitely feel that enrichment room is a very poor answer to meeting the needs of students who need more academic challenge. If the scheduling were more flexible and kids were not confined to their houses, then more of these advanced classes could be offered.
I think what I am most upset about is the process through which this whole plan was devised. I would have sat on a committee to work on a new configuration plan; however parents were never invited to join the dialogue. I even asked when the meetings were (thinking I had missed my opportunity to sign up) only to be told that there already was a planning committee that consisted of parents, teachers, and administrators. Really? I still don't understand why this is all a big secret.
Obviously, I don't know all the history since I just moved here, but I am appalled to find out that this conversation has been going on for some time now. I think the administration and the board had a golden opportunity here considering they were forced into restructuring due to budgetary shortfalls and declining enrollment and they squandered it! I commend you for speaking out and will do whatever I can to support you. Sorry I didn't write to you sooner, but I was out of town.
Don't give up. Our voices need to be heard!

Sincerely,
Abby Klein

posted with permission of the original author

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks so much to Abby Klein for sharing her experience. She brings many great insights both as an area teacher and as a newcomer to the Williston system.

I'm sad to say that her observation of the administration's evasiveness with regard to configuration is all too familiar.

In my experience, rather than addressing the specific concerns about educational equality that continually emerge from the community, the administration instead puts forth the standard "transitions are bad" line along with vague pronouncements about how well the system really works!

In truth, the four-year system as practiced in Williston hardly resembles the utopian descriptions of multi-age settings in the educational literature.

I particularly want to commend Abby Klein for highlighting the hypocrisy of an administration that professes to promote connectedness and community. Everything about the four-year structure works in opposition to a whole school community.

At the last FAP Council meeting I attended (two years ago), there was a discussion about ways to increase the sense of school community. The answer?? A school t-shirt!

Finally, building on Jeff Smith's original letter, Abby Klein aptly highlights the failure of this system to provide rigorous academic programming. My fear is that we cannot begin to address the academic failings of the school until the current system is disbanded.

Wouldn't we all prefer to be engaged in a discussion about improving the science curriculum for our middle-school students or meeting the individual math needs of all our children?

Unfortunately, these conversations cannot take place as long as we are saddled with this fruitless struggle to make the four-year system work for everyone.