Looks like the latest addition to the MCPS lexicon isn’t going to go away. A local television news station has just done a story on the PIA (Pain In the Ass) comment of Board of Education member Patricial O’Neill. No imbed code provided, but here’s the link to the page with the video.
Meanwhile the local newspaper, the Gazette, has followed up the story and gives mention to GTAMC advocate Fred Stichnoth:
And Frederick Stichnoth, a well-known advocate for a separate gifted and talented curriculum, sent an e-mail to media outlets this week, saying that his comments to the school board about school improvement team policy were both “respectful” and “professional,” which was an apparent swipe at Barclay’s comments last week.
I’ll vouch for Fred. Yes, he’s got laserlike focus on the issues and the process–but he’s not a bomb thrower. I’ve always found him in both written and personal communication to be personable (more a mild, wry type than than a backslapper), and yes, respectful and professional. Here’s what he has to say in response:
Marcus Moore, Gazette, has given us a follow-up on the “PIA” controversy. I appreciate his presentation of the perspective shared by Ms. O’Neill and Mr. Barclay, and the invitation for further reflection and dialogue.
I share Mr. Barclay’s goal of a “broad interpretation” in the school improvement plans. The plans I’ve seen focus on “cusp” kids reaching for MSA proficiency. As Mr. Barclay says, SIPs should address the respective needs and abilities of “all kids.”
I think Mr. Barclay makes a mistake in welcoming only parents pushing for all kids, and exluding advocacy by parents who push only for their own kids. I appreciate that leaders like Mr. Barclay and Ms. O’Neill must address the needs of all parts of our student population. But we must acknowledge that parents have a special bond with their own children, a close view of their children’s needs and abilities, daily close experience with how those needs and abilities are being addressed by the schools, and a continuing prompt to consider how those particular needs and abilities could be better addressed.
Also, I think we accept that in our society and political system the needs of all are addressed, in fact, over time, by serial attention to first the particular needs of this group and then the particular needs of that group; and that the respective groups clamor for their moments of attention. And we respect parent groups that give particular attention to segments of our student population: NAACP, Asian American Parents Advocacy Council, Latino groups, Special Education groups, MCEF–focusing on ”on-level students.” Principals look at Ms. O’Neill’s “big picture” by looking at data segmented for disaggregated populations: African and Asian Americans, whites, Hispanics, FARMS students, English language learners, Special Education students and even, still, gifted and talented students. Even the BOE has its Committee on Special Populations that gives its exclusive attention to certain distinctive segments of the student population.
The Policy AEB comment, rejected by the BOE in its PIA discussion, that schools should facilitate SIP participation by parents representing “the full spectrum of students’ needs and abilities” in addition to stakeholders representing the “diversity”–in MCPS’ customary sense–of the school and the community) was intended to follow this pluralistic model so that “all kids” would be represented.
Now isn’t that respectful?
And now The Washington Post has now followed up as well.
Yesterday they published “Parents Take Pride In New Moniker” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/20/AR2009052001900.html
I love this:
“The board was discussing School Improvement Teams, groups of administrators, parents and faculty members that meet regularly to make decisions at public schools. The teams are central to the concept of school governance: that running a school is the job of the community, not just the principal and a few sycophants.”
What is my friend Dan DeVise smoking? “Meet regularly” to “make decisions” about running the school? SITs meet maybe 4 times in a year, tops. The plans (with goals from on high, driven by NCLB) are presented in the fall, largely complete. The staff tinkers with who reports what to whom when, but in terms of meaningful discussion of goals, priorities, etc. … believe me, it’s not happening in the SIT. In my experience, parents are largely observers, rather than full, meaningful participants
While, no doubt at times it is a challenge for school leadership to include those parents whom they feel are less than willing to “agree to disagree” it is critical for meaningful school improvement to include all of the steakholders if we are to promote meaningful collaboration on School Improvement Teams or Human Relations Committees. Doesn’t it seem just a little-self serving if principals only include parents whom they can influence? More group think is not the stated purpose of the SITs. When such selective and single focused selection occurs it diminishes the purpose and potential benefits of the Team; change for improvement. It’s a huge disincentive for a parent to agree to serve and then find that you are largely just an observer…
Despite evidence of the positive affects of school, family and community partnerships, its potential is still largely ignored in schools. Principals and teachers do not often systematically encourage meaningful family involvement, and parents do not always participate when they are encouraged to do so. Several major barriers to family involvement exist in public schools:
School environments may discourage family involvement “…due to lack of adequate time and training of teachers and administrators and a predominant institutional culture in the schools that places little value on the views and participation of parents.” (National Task Force on School Readiness, 1991, p.24)
Not all types of family involvement are equally acceptable to both parents and teachers. Different expectations can further inhibit strong home-school partnerships. (Epstein, 1987)
Negative attitudes toward family involvement can be commonly held by both teachers and parents. Teachers often believe that parents are neither interested in participating in their children’s education nor qualified to do so. (Hoover, Dempsey and Sandler, 1997) Teachers often lack the confidence to work closely with families, especially if they have not had experience doing so. Epstein found that although teachers thought that family involvement would improve student achievement, they had reservations about whether they could motivate parents to become more involved. (Epstein and Sanders, 2000)
It maybe time the district develops a practical guide, for administrators, teachers, resource professionals, and parents, to manage meetings and the skills and confidence to help them work as a unified team… This resource should address effective meeting management; how to promote and maintain the collaboration that leads to consensus. A comprehensive guide to conducting successful meetings, from setting ground rules and managing time to planning agendas and accomplishing goals.