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

Read more!

School Configuration Update (4/22/2008)

Dear Williston Community,

We want to personally thank everyone who has responded to the original email campaign regarding the school re-configuration issue. The response has been wonderful particularly given the 24 hour turn around necessary for responses to appear in the Observer and the fact that this is vacation week and many families are out of town. This is something we should be proud of! We need to keep our momentum moving! (See attached letter which spurred this campaign if you missed it previously.)

We do want to stress that it's not too late to respond! Although the Observer deadline has passed for this week it is still vital that we get as much feedback as possible to the school administration and school board. Your letters can be published in the Observer next week as well. If you have personal anecdotal information to share or wish to present your own views for or against change we urge you to write and to spread the word throughout the community! The ones submitted thus far have been powerful!!

The school board has finally acknowledged Jeff and me and now other responders. However this was not until after I sent a follow up letter asking why they had not even acknowledged receipt of or responded to Jeff's original letter/ Observer article.

FYI: The school board was elected by the people of Williston as our link to the school. Per the Vermont School Board Association (www.vtvsba.org) website "Board members' primary agenda is raising student achievement and involving the community in the attainment of that goal." The Vermont School Board Association has clearly defined frameworks for "raising student achievement through community engagement." This is their elected responsibility and we need to hold them accountable.

The Williston school board has now proposed that there be a community forum with the school board, administration, teachers and community. We, however, would like to propose a separate community forum without the school board, administration and teachers so we can organize our efforts and create a plan of action which will finally result in change. We can discuss our options openly and without interruption or persuasion.

Here are a few additional bits of information for those who may not be fully abreast of the issues:
Per an email to the teachers/staff prior to vacation and leaked to some of the students, the administration has proposed to eliminate both Phoenix house and Verve house next year. Two teachers will also be moved out of Voyager. The 2 ex-Voyager teachers and 2 teachers from disolved houses will be joined to create a new house. One teacher from Phoenix will join Swift to make a 5 teacher team and another teacher will join Full house to make another 5 teacher team. Two teachers from the disolved houses will be paired with the remaining Voyager house. Does this impact you and your child? Of course it does!

One of the 5 teacher teams will have an additional 8th grade group, the other will have an additional 5th grade group. This will create even further educational and social inequity within these houses!! I certainly will not allow my son who will be entering 5th grade in the fall to be in a house with double the amount of 8th graders. Would you??? Ditto for an 8th grader in house with double the amount of 5th graders. This is ludicrous and inequitable!

My 6th grade son currently has over 30 hours more band instruction per year than he does science or social studies! All students at Essex Middle School and Tuttle Middle School in So. Burlington have a full rigorous hour of all core subject areas per day all year long. Williston 5-8th graders have anywhere from 30 minutes a day all year to 50/60 minutes a day for half a year. Our kids are typically 2 years behind in science and social studies by the time they leave WCS! This is not acceptable and is perpetuated by the house system's ineffective and inefficient scheduling inequities.
There is no data out there that supports this model of education because this model does not exist outside of our school district! It's time to enter the 21st century.

Lastly I feel compelled to say, with full protection our my First
Amendment Rights as Americans, that Jeff and I
consciously chose to go public with our concerns because history in this town has proven time and time and time again that there is NO accountability within our school system. This fight for re-configuration has surfaced innumerable times over the years only to be shut down by some well established, well polished and very powerful teachers. Even if you are not
familiar with this history we all need to seriously ask why it keeps coming up over and over and over again!!! The
press is our assurance of accountability and we have an inalienble right to express ourselves through any medium of our choosing.

Keep writing! Keep spreading the word! Keep fighting! We'll keep you in touch. Let us know if you wish to help us accomplish this goal. Also please let us know if you would like to stop receiving these emails.

Thank you!
ANN and Jeff Smith

Read more!

Sarah Hibbler's Letter to the Board (4/21/2008)

Hi All,

Below is the text of a letter I sent yesterday to the School Board, Williston Observer, and school administration in support of configuration change. Ann Smith asked me to share this with you in the hopes of encouraging others to express their support and opinions with the school community.

I hope that you, too, will consider giving feedback. Jeff's guest column last week laid the groundwork for all of us to speak out on this important issue. Please don't let this opportunity slip away.

Regards,
Sarah Hibbeler


================================

To the Williston School Board:

I wish to register my extreme disappointment in the school administration's proposed changes to the house configuration in the Williston schools. Rather than addressing the limitations inherent in the four-year structure, the changes will actually amplify certain problems in the current system, particularly the issue of educational equality. The creation of several oversized houses (a six-classroom team in the Lower Houses and two five-classroom teams in the Upper Houses) only serves to increase the differences between teams.

My main purpose in writing to you, however, is not to argue for configuration change, although I wholeheartedly endorse the points made by Jeff Smith in his thoughtful guest column in the Williston Observer last week. Rather I am writing to express my frustration over the lack of inclusion of parents in the discussions of configuration this spring and the limited role of the School Board itself in the process.

The only input parents were allowed to contribute to the process was through the configuration survey. Not only did the survey employ the questionable technique of prefacing questions with selective survey data, but it failed to offer anything other than the current four-year model for people to consider. If given the opportunity, respondents might have registered even greater enthusiasm for other configurations that would work within our physical structure, such as two-year houses.

Moreover, the administration has chosen to ignore certain survey results. Most notably, the survey indicated strong (78%) support for housing same-grade students under one roof, a finding that the administration is radically choosing to ignore in creating a completely separate lower elementary school within WCS. And as Jeff Smith pointed out, the administration has also discounted the opinion of a majority of Upper House parents who registered their desire for change in the four-year structure on previous satisfaction surveys.

All subsequent discussions of configuration models between teachers and the administration were--and continue to be--explicitly kept secret from parents and the community. This is a marked departure from what was done when I served as a member of the Williston Conceptual Frameworks Committee in 2004. That committee comprised School Board members, teachers, administrators, and community members, and the group met weekly throughout the summer to discuss configuration and other issues.

The administration often refers to the findings of the Frameworks Committee as proof of parental endorsement of the current system. In fact, a number of parents on the committee, particularly those with Upper House students, expressed longstanding concerns about the lack of equality among houses, academic inconsistency, and the lack of interaction with similar-age peers. These are the same concerns that emerge continually over the years as new families experience the four-year system. The committee did support the principle of multi-age teaching and the overall concept of a house system, but it also charged the school district with evaluating the appropriateness of four-year groupings and with ensuring that students have increased interaction with same-age peers.

As a parent and taxpayer, I am especially distressed by the limited role this School Board has chosen to take in considering the issue of configuration, particularly given the long history of parental concerns. The balance of influence in this district is entirely weighted toward the administration and teaching staff. When parents who do make an effort to attend School Board meetings speak up to voice opinions, they are frequently interrupted and invariably come away with the sense that their input is unimportant.

It is healthy for some natural tension to exist within a school district--between teachers, administration, the board, and community members. And it is the responsibility of the School Board to engage all parties in the decision-making process. I acknowledge that educators are trained and paid to consider best teaching practices. However, the administration and School Board must acknowledge parents as partners in making the decisions that affect the education of our children.

I urge the Williston School Board to consider what parents are saying about configuration. Only through true collaboration can our district lay claim to a reputation for being a great place to teach and to learn.

Sincerely,

Sarah Hibbeler

Read more!

Jeff Smith's Letter to the Williston School Board on 4/16/2008

Dear Fellow Williston Families,

Attached you will find a letter which has been sent to the Williston School Board, Williston School Administration and Guidance Counselors and will also be featured in this week's Williston Observer. It discusses Jeff's feelings about the lack of meaningful change to the school configuration plan for next year which was proposed at last week's school board meeting.

Jeff wrote this letter because feels passionate about the issue and wants to see options for the families of Williston. As a Middle School Guidance Counselor a Essex Middle School, Jeff has first hand knowledge of how Middle Schools can be better organized and run. He is hoping to garner some support for this important issue.

Please read this letter carefully. Whether you agree, partially agree or disagree with this letter, we urge you to let the School Board and Administration know how you feel!! Let's not let this opportunity for change slip through our fingers.

Thank you for your time. Please forward this on to other families who you think will be interested.

Jeff and Ann Smith

=================================

Dear Williston Central School Board,

As a Williston tax payer and parent as well as an experienced Middle School Educator I am writing to express my concerns regarding the lack of meaningful change to the proposed Williston Upper House Configuration Plan.

Instead of listening to the voices of your consumers who clearly voiced great dissatisfaction with the current configuration you have chosen to continue to support an unorthodox 1970's type educational model that, to my knowledge, very few public school systems throughout the nation follow. If the Williston School District truly believes in “families as partners” then they should respect and honor the input of the community who entrust their child’s future to your hands.

Key issues regarding the lack of change include but are not exclusive of the following points:

• According to the Upper House Satisfaction Survey 52% of respondents felt students’ social needs were met; 39% felt they were not.
  
  
• 54% supported a change in the upper house structure (33% “strongly” supported this); 25% did not, and 21% didn’t know.
  
  
• According to School Board minutes from a June 29, 2007 retreat, Ms. Parks commented that “she didn’t think the staff understands the reality of the concern with the upper house structure. Board members felt there needs to be more understanding of what parents actually want.”
  
  
• This sentiment of dissatisfaction has existed for as long as I have been a resident of this town (1991) and has been repeatedly ignored by the school.
  
  
• What percentage of dissatisfaction will it take for the school to listen? Why is 54% dissatisfaction not enough to result in change?
  
  
• Why did Ray McNulty’s sole opinion regarding the results of the Configuration Survey hold more weight than what the community has repeatedly and clearly said it wants?

There are numerous inherent problems with the current house structure which include but are not limited to:

ACADEMIC CONCERNS:

• Although Williston has always valued the individual needs of children it is inconsistent and inappropriate to ask any child to be rendered the same teaching style in a subject area for four years, particularly if the teaching style does not mesh with the child’s learning style.
  
• A child who has a learning style which does not match the teaching style of a teacher or teachers in a house and is there for four years will NEVER recover those skills and is set up to struggle or fail.
  
  
• Williston’s NECAP scores are not where they should be given the socio-economic demographics of this town. We should be scoring at least as well or better than other schools of similar socio-economic backgrounds in Chittenden County, but we in fact are not!
  
  
• As an example, students have a full hour of all core subjects (math, language arts, social studies and science) every day for the entire school year in other Chittenden County My oldest son at WCS has an hour of science OR social studies 4 days a week, with just a half an hour on the fifth day AND this is for only half of the school year! This academic pitfall is due in great part to the inflexibility in scheduling inherent in the House system.
  
  
• With scheduling like this how are we meeting GLE’s (Grade Level Expectations) for our children in the core subject areas?
  
  
• How will our students meet minimum criteria in the upcoming 8^th grade NECAP Science exams if there is no time to cover the curriculum?

SOCIAL/EMOTIONAL/DEVELOPMENTAL CONCERNS:

• Despite some attempts to improve social opportunities within grades, a four year commitment to a house limits meaningful and consistent exposure to age and gender matched peers.
  
  
• The house system creates competition for house assignments which is unhealthy and unnecessary and creates fear, anxiety and stress for families of fourth graders who are about to be placed into a four year commitment which might not be a good match for their child’s learning style.
  
  
• Fifth/sixth graders and seventh/eighth graders are socially, academically, developmentally, emotionally and physically worlds apart with very different needs and concerns.
  
  
• Fifth graders (and sixth graders) are exposed to social, emotional and developmental information and experiences which they are not socially, emotionally and/or developmentally equipped to handle when grouped with seventh and eighth graders.
  
  
• The proposed “slow transition” for the fifth graders does not address the grouping problem. It simply postpones the inappropriate groupings this configuration creates.

SYSTEMIC CONCERNS:

• The current Williston Central School structure provides no options. It’s the House system or nothing. Multi-age or nothing. Four year commitment or nothing. If you don’t like it, sorry we have nothing else to offer.
• The attempt to appease the four year commitment issue by allowing families to move their child ONE time during their middle school years is not the way to repair this configuration problem:

o It is extremely unfair to the child who will feel singled out by such a move.

o This will create administrative nightmares if lots of changes are requested within a “weaker” house and there is nowhere for these children to go.

• If change occurred naturally for everyone on a more consistent basis (e.g. every 2 years) there would be less competition, less stress, less dissatisfaction, less risk of children being left behind, less social isolation, fewer scheduling limitations, more time for academics, less struggle to meet the wide age/academic variances of the students and it would FINALLY increase the satisfaction of your consumers in the Williston community.

This system of no options other than four year groupings is not working and a large portion of the community has said that it does not like it. Let’s not wait another year to see if we can get to 75% agreement on the part of educators, parents and students. We can get there now with options, diversity and progress and we owe it to our children.

Read more!