The original intent of this blog was to provide proof to counteract the negative (and now proven minority) view that was being pushed as the only way to go in Lebanon. I will continue to provide links and other documents when I can, but right now the conversation is more about the opinions of those involved as to what direction we should go. We can provide research that supports every single position in the community, that isn't the point. The true question is, what system or program is best for LEBANON kids?
I admit that the negativity is contagious, I have fallen into the trap as well, and while I definitely believe there is still a long way to go to get our schools back in good shape, I want to recognize the common effort that brought us all the way we have indeed traveled since the problems that prompted the votes of no confidence and the strong community reactions to what was going on.
We have made a bold choice. We now need to make sure that we don't just allow another single individual to "rule the roost," we need to have a leader who will listen to ALL sides and create conversations that make it possible for logical solutions to our problems.
I apologize in advance if anyone feels threatened or upset, because that is not my intention.
The fact of the matter is, if I could just wave a magic wand, there would be many people who are currently employed in the district who would suddenly find themselves placed in jobs elsewhere, and not in Lebanon... however... in all fairness, they should have the opportunity to improve, change and/or decide to leave on their own.
However, it would appear that many of them did not realize that the vote last week was an indictment, not just on Mr. Robinson, but on many things happening in the district.
A few of you have expressed support for the SAS and the academies, but I would wager that you are not aware of all the side effects these programs have caused.
The SAS has created special education violations, 11 year olds in High School (who then fail miserably), 14 year olds in elementary school (who also fail miserably), students who were "moved up" who have huge gaps in their curriculum and social skills, children whose home situations provide no permanance (who need to feel safe, and like they belong) being yanked, yet again, from a group that they have developed relationships with just because they got different test scores, etc.
The academies have created four deeply engrained cliques that have embedded negative stereotypes into the curriculum and the relationships. When students say things like, "we're physical kids, we don't care about graduating" or "we don't do homework in Info.." they are promoting very negative behaviors as the status quo. Teachers who are mediocre at best find themselves "the veteran teacher" with the most seniority in their academy and therefore the administrators who have no experience evaluating rely on them for advice about the curriculum. This has created a steep decline in coherence and effectiveness of instruction. The teacher in the academy with the most students enrolled in the advanced courses was one assigned to the advanced program, even if they had no experience with the course and the best teacher in the area was in the building. (e.g. Mr. Selby and Mr. Helland no longer teaching Calculus classes or Ms. Williams not teaching APLA.) How can that be what is best for kids?
Prior to the SAS and the academies there were probably about 15 to 20% of our students who were in serious need of interventions and special attention. We then changed 100% of the program to accomodate approximately 15% of the students. We have lost most of the vocational program, the alternative education program, The vast majority of the advanced program that used to exist, 50% of the athletic program, 70% of the PE, Music and Counseling programs.
How can the existence of the problem ridden academies and SAS be worth the losses?
We have administrators who play favorites with those who supported Robinson's agenda and punished those who spoke against it.
We have directors who have created more programs to justify their continued employment.
We have leadership that has allowed such chaos to rule that it is virtually impossible to have professional conversations.
What we need is a strong change of direction with very clear expectations, goals, and expected outcomes. We cannot afford to have this, "Think outside the box and do whatever you want until you are told 'no'" kind of leadership any longer.
We need to move swiftly, but with care and consideration.
Our students deserve better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So you are saying that Mr. Martens is not qualified to teach Calculus? In the last five years that class has alternated with Mr. Selby, Mr. Hellend, Mr. Martens, Mr. Hellend, and now Mr. Martens. On what basis do you say any one of the three are more qualified? According to LBCC, Mr. Martens is the most qualified as he is the only one allowed to write his own tests without clearance from LBCC. He also taught Calculus prior to coming to Lebanon. Or is Mr. Hellend the most qualified since he taught it previously? Or is it just that Mr. Selby is upset that he hasn't taught it recently? If you go just by coursework alone, Mr. Martens has all the coursework for a Master's in mathematics lacking just the research paper. So he must be the most qualified. This is the problem with departments. People believe just because they are in the school for the longest time, they should have their selection of courses. I have talked to both Mr. Hellend and Mr. Martens and neither claim Calculus as their course. Both are confident that either of them do an exemplary job when they teach the course. They are also qualified to give college credit which Mr. Selby is not. So for the benefit of the students, either Mr. Hellend or Mr. Martens should teach the course. In fact I think they are alternating so that the students each teach in Pre-Calculus also have the same teacher for Calculus.
Or is Mr. Martens one of the teachers you think should be magically moved out of the district(fired)? If that is the case why not just say so and state your reasons for his removal. The same with any other teacher. One thing people should realize, seniority does not give you the right to a course. Ideally, your best teachers should teach the lowest level courses so those students benefit from the experienced teacher. But in a typical situation, new teachers are given the dregs and often burn out and leave.
One other point for Mr. Martens, in all the years he has taught at the high school his desire has been to teach every level every year. He has resisted being placed only in upper level courses. His opinion is that in order to be effective, all teachers should teach as many levels as possible. That way everyone knows what is going on at each level.
I think what the community wants is to bring stability to the school district. This won't be accomplished by changing everything right away. There are many programs (SAS, academies, etc.) that need to be evaluated, but the main problem this district suffers from is changing too often and not evaluating the current programs. We need to slow down. Let's begin a conversation about what positive steps can we make. Those that are not able to move forward will move out on their own. I believe most people will do the right thing. With an open dialog now available, teachers will be able to find their voice and help us help our kids.
IE here -- I agree that we need to move deliberately and only after careful reflection.
We need to immediately focus on hiring a quality superintendent skilled with helping fractured communities heal, and educated in research-based ideas suitable for our district. It may be that we need to hire a superintendent and an a new assistant superintendent to accomplish this.
Let's get a quality educator on board as superintendent and let them recommend our next courses of action. I have long held that hiring a quality superintendent we could trust makes more sense than any of the rest of us trying to play superintendent.
We also need to hire a new legal firm for the district -- a quality firm with a track record of effectively representing school districts vs. a good-ole boy pal of a superintendent.
I think it's best if both the new superintendent and the new legal counsel come from outside of Lebanon/Albany. We need new personalities -- very trained and skilled players with a proven record of success. We must hire carefully. I don't know how it was only after Lebanon began to suffer under Robinson, we learned Reedsport suffered similarly when he worked there. Did they have a "do not disclose the truth" agreement with Robinson when he left there? I don't know.
Let's be thorough and thoughtful as we hire the next professional to lead the education of our young.
Post a Comment