Saturday, February 11, 2012
Board vs. Central Office
Is the Board holding Central Office hostage over Core Curriculum? The State Department of Education told us we were making good progress. Why change course now? How could a superintendent allow a Board of Education committee to dictate curriculum? Did anyone ask about the cost of this drastic change? Is this curriculum being dictated to Central Office or is there any choice here? Is the Lighthouse training given by the State Department having an effect? These questions need to be answered and answered now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If what you say is true - then there is no point of having a Superintendant - thats a quick savings of $200k.
ReplyDeleteIs this really what the mayor wants?
ReplyDeleteThe district improvement plan is working. The only change to the curriculum will come from the state as part of the common core state standards. You should get your facts straight before posting crap like this. All this does is start ridiculous rumors.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you need to catch up on what is happening with the curriculum committee of the Board of Education.
ReplyDeleteStop picking on the Central Office! We have enough problems...
DeleteWith 2 instructional specialists left standing in central office for curriculum (Math and LA) and a new core curriculum mandate coming down from the state, I think the fact that the board is looking into different off the shelf options is refreshing. Some standardization in curriculum across the schools would be refreshing! Maybe the days of every principal doing their own thing will come to a close.
ReplyDeleteWhat seems to be confusing to most is that the Board is pushing Hersch's Core Knowledge. This is NOT the same as the State Department of Education's Common Core Standards.
ReplyDeleteCommon Core are just standards. They lack the curriculum that meets the standards. Core Knowledge is the curriculum that is being considered to fill the need.
ReplyDeleteWe already have a curriculum in place that is working. Why not just tweak that one to meet the standards? Why adopt a curriculum that is from the 1990's? I think these are legitimate questions. Besides, won't a new curriculum cost a lot of taxpayer dollars? Would someone please explain?
ReplyDeleteWe won't have a curriculum that is working once the higher level and deeper level knowledge of common core standards come into play. Again, CC is a standard and not a curriculum. One could argue that we don't have a sufficient Language Arts curriculum today. Just look at our reading scores. Then there is the whole debate over whole language vs. phonics and are we really teach reading the kids to read. As for writing skills...no grammar, no vocabulary, no spelling, limited non-fiction in K-8. Standards vary across the schools. So, I would argue that the curriculum is NOT working.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to learn about the core knowledge curriculum then go to the website (www.coreknowledge.org). This is what you'll find:
ReplyDeleteFirst, they claim to be the curriculum needed to implement the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)--but, CT has to flesh out all of the specifics of the benchmarks students will need to hit.
Second, the core knowledge program is an integrated program that includes English, social studies and arts. It is not designed to be picked over-- so, the big question for Norwalk is how willing will we be to include the parts of the program that don't fit the CCSS.
Third, we are talking about all new materials, extra training for teachers (which includes hiring subs and paying for travel to converences), new books for the libraries AND we don't even know if it will necessarily work well with the CCSS. So, I don't know about you, but I don't think the BoE should be thinking about spending millions on a hope that the core knowledge program will measure up to the CCSS.
Fourth, introducing a new curriculum takes over one year--- six to eight months to assess the problem and the options, and then a full school year to work on getting teachers ready for the next year of implementation. Why the big rush now? Isn't there a looming budget crisis these people need to be thinking about?
Fifth, the curriculum is working-- at least according to the State Department of Education.
If the curriculum is working, why do so many parents pay for tutoring to ensure their kids can read at the elementary level or can write or do well on the SAT at the high school level. With only 50% of our 3rd graders reading on grade level (CMT AT GOAL) clearly something is not working. I believe Math is OK (now) but Language Arts is still suffering tremdously. 1 in 3 students entering college (nationally) needs remedial assistance. Is it the kids? The parents? The teachers? The curriculum? Or all of the above?
ReplyDelete@3:56pm, I believe I can answer you. The curriculum today is far superior to the curriculum of yesteryear when students learned to read. The problem is multifold. First, teachers have many problems in the classroom today that did not exist in classrooms of yesteryear. Teachers have many disciplinary problems as well as many students with special needs. They must deal with parents who give lip service, but do not help their children at home. Teachers have students who do not do homework and who do not read at home. Students sit in front of electronic games or television sets, but do not read. If you find a student who reads every night, you will find a successful reader. If you find a parent who willingly helps his/her child with homework and reading, you will find a successful student. It's not the curriculum. The reinforcement of what children learn in school needs to come from home. The motivation to learn needs to start with interested parents who are good role models. And thart's my $.02.
ReplyDeleteAnon @4:42pm has got it right. If you want to help the kids, you've gotta help the parents learn the importance of getting involved and making reading and other homework a priority at home.
ReplyDelete