We have posted Walter Nardelli's written responses to the questions compiled at the Reconfiguration For Change Forum on May 5th (Hit "read more" below). We encourage everyone to provide feedback regarding his responses and to provide VERY SPECIFIC follow up questions which you would like answered further. PLEASE refer to specific questions by number when commenting/asking further questions on a topic. You may reply anonymously or with your name by hitting "Comment". Feel free to also respond via email to reconfig.williston.schools@gmail.com and we can post your responses for you.
School Reconfiguration Forum
May 5th, 2008
Questions from the Open Discussion Period
Questions & Answers
1. Q: How much input did the consultant (Ray McNulty) have to the reconfiguration decision? Is his report publicly available?
A: Ray McNulty gave us information about Williston compared to other high performing schools. We talked about the characteristics of high performing schools. We could not afford to hire him to write a report. He worked as an unpaid consultant.
2. Q: If the reconfiguration plan is halted now, will the administration be able to put a workable structure into place by the end of August?
A: No. Remember, teachers have no contractual obligations over the summer.
3. Q: Do the current teacher contracts preclude the administration from considering a different configuration plan at this point?
A: No. However, we must give teachers their specific assignments by June 1.
4. Q: Why were the two other configuration options eliminated by Program Council and/or the administration?
A: We did “+” &”-” charts on all of them. No configuration will be a total win. We looked at the negative factors of all and eliminated the ones that had little to gain but much to lose.
5. Q: The community configuration survey was seriously flawed. Was this the only parent input given to the configuration discussions? Why?
A: The survey was developed with input from a consultant that had worked in Williston before on a different project. We also looked at parent and student input from the past. There are house satisfaction surveys along with fifth to fourth to fifth grade transition surveys done every year.
6. Q: Did the teachers consider input from parents on the Upper House satisfaction survey, which shows that 53% of those parents do not support the four-year structure?
A: The survey in part was designed to clarify that input. The key switched on how you would show support on that question only. People may not have noticed the difference if they were skimming the survey. On the follow-up survey, 61 % of the respondents supported the upper house structure.
7. Q: Why are we forced into this four-year house system? Is there some economic benefit?
A: Our research showed that fewer transitions mean less “starting over”. Also, it allows for strong relationships to be created between teachers, students, and families which have a positive effect on educational outcomes.
8. Q: Why did the school administration not properly inform all families affected by the dissolution of houses? Why were Phoenix students rather than their parents given details about the reconfiguration plan?
A: During the April break, parents had already been discussing the changes that were about to happen. The students returned knowing much of the information already and were asking their teachers questions about next year. It was decided to give them the information rather than having them speculating about what may happen. We knew it was not ideal but felt it was in the best interest of the students to be open with them. We also emailed parents that day and followed up with a mailing the next day.
9. Q: Why can't the school district offer different options for configuration? What about piloting houses with two-year or looping options?
A: The school district can offer different options if the community supports the concept. This is a broader discussion that needs to happen. Changes of this type also take a great deal of work to implement them properly. We want to be sure we spend our energies where they will make the most difference for our students.
10. Q: What is the "educational philosophy" of the new Upper House?
A: The philosophy and mission statements are the same for all houses. They are located on the school website under administration. The new house is in the process of working out how it will operate on a day to day basis.
11. Q: What role will the new teachers play in Voyager House and how will they influence its educational philosophy?
A: The teachers are meeting together to combine the best practices from each house as they move forward.
12. Q: Does the school have an "educational philosophy"?
A: Yes. It is located on the school webpage under administration.
13. Q: Can't we look to other schools to see what structures are most successful and why?
A: Ray McNulty worked with us on the characteristics of high performing schools.
14. Q: Why is there such inconsistency in academic quality between all houses (Upper and Lower)?
A: We have a common curriculum shared by all schools in the Chittenden South Supervisory Union. We have meeting among teachers of different houses and schools to share how they are implementing the curriculum – best practices. Teachers have the responsibility to implement the curriculum based on their students and what will work for them. We agree that addressing the rigor of the implemented curriculum is valuable work.
15. Q: Given the complexities of the different house schedules, how will we ever manage to bring same-grade students together to make academic connections?
A: We will make a concerted effort to make this work coupled with best educational practices for all students.
16. Q: How will the school manage the problems associated with more frequent house changes (supply and demand imbalance between stronger and weaker houses, inconsistency in curriculum from house to house)?
A: We are looking to put the curriculum on a two year rather than four year cycle. That means that all student s would have covered a similar curriculum in first and second grade and fifth and sixth grade making changing an easier process. We are always working on making all houses stronger. That is a journey not a destination. Parents provide input in the process through the Satisfaction Survey.
17. Q: Why won't the school consider a straight-grade system?
A: 78% of the people who answered the survey favored multi age classes. We would need to explore this issue further with the community.
18. Q: How will the time gained by separating our buses from the CVU system be used?
A: Planning takes time and we are still working on how to best use this time.
19. Q: Many students spend more time in band than in science and social studies. Shouldn't band be held at the end of the school day?
A: Band meets before school along with during the day since there is more than one band. Some schools have offered band during the last period of the day only to find that some parents and students interpret that as the day ends early if you are not a participant. If you mean band being offered after school then it would conflict with sports.
20. Q: Isn't configuration a separate issue from the rigor problem? How are they related?
A: They are separate issues. Configuration deals with structure and rigor deals with the level at which students engage in learning.
21. Q: Why is there no unified curriculum in both Lower and Upper Houses? Shouldn't the school put a unified curriculum in place first and then build the structure around that?
A: There is. See my response to a previous question. Curriculum is an issue we frequently return to for further refinement.
22. Q: Why is the administration not establishing a lower elementary school at one site? Doesn't this make more financial sense, since special education and other resources could be shared rather than duplicated?
A: Due to school capacity restraints, we cannot put all elementary students under the same roof. The number of students we have generates the same number of resource people necessary to meet their needs regardless of building. Enrollment will have to decrease more before we can consider this option.
23. Q: How can the school ignore the 78% of parents who want children of the same grade housed together at one site? Can't the community take a look at the numbers to see whether it would work?
A: This is a capacity issues. If we could house the students at the same building, we would. We would be happy to share the numbers with a committee appointed by the Williston School Board to look further into configuration.
24. Q: How can parents find out how much time different houses allocate for instruction in core academic areas?
A: We are conducting a time study right now. We will share the results when it is completed.
25. Q: Doesn't the School Board represent us (the voters and taxpayers)? Why is the Board not demanding accountability and a guarantee of academic rigor from our administration?
A: They are. This is a question for the School Board. Remember the School Board represents everybody and there are a variety of opinions held on most issues.
26. Q: Why is there such enormous inconsistency in Upper House curriculum?
A: The curriculum is the same. The implementation differs depending upon the house. Three houses currently give grades and students are taught by subject specific teachers. Three houses use standards based reporting systems and the content is more integrated.
27. Q: How will students be able to move from house to house given the lack of continuity of the curriculum from one house to another?
A: This question has been answered previously.
28. Q: How is the school helping prepare those children whose houses have been dissolved--and who are being dispersed throughout the school--for this major change?
A: They have had a chance to talk to their administrator and guidance counselors. We are also listening very carefully to their parents about what placement would best support them.
29. Q: Can the School Board sponsor a forum? How can a community member get an issue on the agenda? How much advance time is required?
A: We are working on a date right now. Of course there are many conflicts at this time of year. The forum is open to comments from the community.
30. Q: Why is the school unable to answer basic questions about how the reconfiguration plan will be implemented? How can parents possibly give meaningful input to placement forms, which are out this week?
A: Planning takes time to do well. Teachers of affected houses are actively working out the details for next year. They are also highly engaged on their teaching commitments from now until the end of this school year. Parents will be giving us valuable information about their child as a learner. We will match that information with house placement.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Walter Nardelli's Responses to the Forum Questions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
14. Q: Why is there such inconsistency in academic quality between all houses (Upper and Lower)?
A: We have a common curriculum shared by all schools in the Chittenden South Supervisory Union. We have meeting among teachers of different houses and schools to share how they are implementing the curriculum – best practices. Teachers have the responsibility to implement the curriculum based on their students and what will work for them. We agree that addressing the rigor of the implemented curriculum is valuable work.
What disturbs me about this question and response is that the "Teachers have the responsibility to implement". I think the school board and the administration should have the responsibility to make sure the teachers are accountable, this is the consistency problem. Each teacher is left to interpret what is expected and given the freedom to teach however they please and if your child does not "get it" then, they are not held accountable. I have heard that's the parents/child's problem. The teachers should all be held to the same accountablity of academic standards being taught so that no child is left behind. If there are a number of students in a particular teachers class that are getting poor grades, then the administration should be looking at the teacher and how the subject is being delivered. Academic grades given by the teacher and standardized test scores. Is this type of information ever looked at to judge or determine the performance of a teacher?
I completely agree with this writer. It is the lack of accountability of our teachers to the administration that allows inconsistencies between houses to flourish.
It's fine for teachers to share with each other so-called "best practices." However, inequalities will continue to exist as long as teachers are not required to follow a uniform curriculum. As this writer suggests, teachers must be held to a measurable standard to ensure they are all implementing the curriculum in a way that works for students.
Parents in this community need to advocate for more accountability in the school system. It shouldn't be enough that your child is in a house that "works." In a four-year system, ALL houses need to work well. This is a public school, after all.
15. Q: Given the complexities of the different house schedules, how will we ever manage to bring same-grade students together to make academic connections?
A: We will make a concerted effort to make this work coupled with best educational practices for all students.
I am thoroughly disheartened that Mr. Nardelli did not even attempt to answer this question. Whether the school makes a "concerted effort" to do anything is completely beside the point.
The question was HOW exactly the school plans to bring students together with their same-grade peers for academic activities (something Mr. Nardelli has pledged to do in this reconfiguration effort).
Can he really not give us some concrete idea of how this might work? Or are we left to assume that it is simply not going to happen under the current house structure?
In general, I am extremely disappointed in all of Walter Nardelli's responses. I feel that he offers little to no detail and his responses sound more like avoidance of the issues than answers. It makes me question whether he truly does not know the answers or does not understand the problems and questions.
Overall I have great concerns about Walter Nardelli's leadership abilities. We have had a number of serious issues arise over the past year which causes me to seriously question whether Mr. Nardelli is capapable of moving our schoools in the direction they need to be going. The old adage "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" seems very appropriate here.
Regarding the questions, however, I have issues with nearly each one. I find his response to question #1 most disturbing however, as it is telling of how things are being accomplished under this administration.
Q: How much input did the consultant (Ray McNulty) have to the reconfiguration decision? Is his report publicly available?
A: Ray McNulty gave us information about Williston compared to other high performing schools. We talked about the characteristics of high performing schools. We could not afford to hire him to write a report. He worked as an unpaid consultant.
My Response/Questions: Ray McNulty's input was VERY influential in development of the current reconfiguration plan. If there is no documentation regarding his input, research, etc. then Ray McNulty's input is nothing more than HEARSAY which is open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. In a school district fraught with distrust and miscommunication this just adds fuel to the fire.
I would like to pose the following questions in response:
1. What specific schools were used for his comparison? (Were any local middle schools used or any of the "Spotlight Middle Schools of New England" that Jeff Smith described at the first forum used for this comparison? Did ANY of the comparison schools have a 4 year house system like WCS? If not what does this tell us?)
2. What specific criteria designated them as “high performing schools?”
3. Who specifically defined/designated these schools as “high performing schools?” Was it just Mr. McNulty's opinion or is there data to back this up?
4. What specific criteria/issues were compared?
5. How was this information on the “highly performing schools” collected and who collected this information?
6. How was this information analyzed and used for comparison to WCS?
7. If there is absolutely no written documentation of this information then how was it communicated to and evaluated by the program council to determine the best reconfiguration plan for our schools?
8. If there is written documentation/information available, it should be shared with the public.
Thank you!
Bingo!! To the writer who expressed concerns about Walter Nardelli's abilities to be an effective administrator. I have questioned this for quite some time and could never quite put my finger on it until now.
I understand that Mr. Nardelli is currently performing an audit to determine if the various houses are or are not meeting state minimum requirements of 120 hours of instruction in science, social studies, math and language arts.
I do not understand why he needs to perform an audit to "learn" this information in the first place. Hasn't he been our district principal for 3 years already? Shouldn't he have known this information within the first week on the job? Isn't this one of his prime responsibilities as our district principal; to insure that our children are getting the quality and quantity of education entitled to them by law? How incompetent is it to publically announce the need for an internal audit to determine whether or not he is actually doing his job!!
This is proof that he is not an effective administrator. Is this acceptable? I am curious if the school board is concerned about this?
I also think that the question and answer below are prime examples of this incompetence and the inappropriate priorities currently in place at our schools.
Q: Many students spend more time in band than in science and social studies. Shouldn't band be held at the end of the school day?
A: Band meets before school along with during the day since there is more than one band. Some schools have offered band during the last period of the day only to find that some parents and students interpret that as the day ends early if you are not a participant. If you mean band being offered after school then it would conflict with sports.
I say that children/families need to make difficult choices between band/chorus and sports. Those are appropriate choices to be made. Choices between band/chorus and science or band/chorus and social studies are never appropriate! Band and chorus need to be second fiddle. Band/chorus needs to be taken out of the school day schedule so it does not hold the academic schedule hostage.
If Walter is held to his response above he is effectively advocating that band is more important than sceince and social studies!
To the discussion re teacher accountability via grades and test scores. Be careful there; a bright child will always have high scores/grades, but that doesn't mean the teacher is doing a superb job or that the education offered is comparable to that of another house or school.
I agree that teachers MUST be held accountable, but let's not rely on just scores/grades for proof that they've done a good job except when looking for improvements among under performing students.
15. Q: Given the complexities of the different house schedules, how will we ever manage to bring same-grade students together to make academic connections?
Mr. Nardelli avoided answering this question. Its simple. In order to bring same grade students together each house must be on the same schedule for math, language arts, science and social studies. This will enable them to make academic connections as well as social connections (recess and lunch). It will also ensure that they are on the same academic schedule which will make the houses more equitable.
I am growing very tired of these skewed survey results and the skewed interpretation that Walter Nardelli keeps quoting below:
6. Q: Did the teachers consider input from parents on the Upper House satisfaction survey, which shows that 53% of those parents do not support the four-year structure?
A: The survey in part was designed to clarify that input. The key switched on how you would show support on that question only. People may not have noticed the difference if they were skimming the survey. On the follow-up survey, 61 % of the respondents supported the upper house structure.
I want to know why doesn't the result of the Upper House survey carry the weight it should carry? The people with the most knowledge, the most concern, the most experience with the upper house structure are the parents of students in that structure! When you water down the results with community members who may have no experience with the upper house structure and front it with biasing "data" which support the four year house system, OF COURSE you are going to get more people assuming it's a good thing! They haven't been there!
Why doesn't Walter reference the Community survey more completely?
According to the handout "Configuration-The answer! Survey Information" handed out at the February Board Meeting (when all of this was revealed) the following information was also gleened from the community survey
44% of PARENTS do NOT support the Current Upper House Structure!
47% of PARENTS do not support 5th grade students with older students!
42% of PARENTS do not support four year houses!
Find me a statistician anywhere in the country who would say that 44%, 47% and 41% are not SIGNIFICANT!!!! They are absolutely significant and we are absolutely being ignored.
Our children's education cannot be determined by Australian Ballot. It's not a "I win!" "You lose." "Sorry, that's the way the cookie crumbles" issue. If nearly half of the families (at least) are not satisfied NOBODY in our administration should sleep until something is done to resolve this discrepency.
This is not ok and there is no time to waste to see how this evolves. Our soon to be seventh and eighth graders have NO TIME TO WAIT. The time is now. They will NEVER get this time back. Middle school is not going to wait for them.
I hope, beg, and plead for a great turn out at the forum on Monday. We really need to stand together, be strong and be clear in letting the administration and the school board know that our voices count!
24. Q: How can parents find out how much time different houses allocate for instruction in core academic areas?
A: We are conducting a time study right now. We will share the results when it is completed.
This answer tells me he does not know whether they are meeting 120 hour requirements but he will check. Come on, this should not require an audit. As district leader, this is the first thing he should have compiled when he was hired three years ago. After all, it is a requirement of the department of education. I never thought I would have to add hours in my childrens schedule to see whether minimum instruction hours have been met. We should not have to do Mr. Nardelli's job.
I have children that are in and have been through Central School. My concern's stems from vacations and field trips. It truly coincides with teacher’s interpretation / discretion. Why is it whenever an upper house field trip is in progress, do the lower houses have, what equates to, an in school vacation? Trips have always been extra curricular and work should be made up after, or prior. And what of the other houses that don't have the same schedule. Do they have in school vacation on those days? Is it me, or has anyone else pondered this? It may seem immaterial but prior to vacations, during field trips, etc, there are quite a few days not being utilized for education.
Post a Comment