After more than a year of discussion, a long-term plan aiming to increase rigor and inclusivity across District 181 has been approved.
The District 181 Board of Education approved by a 6-0 vote Monday night an advanced learning plan 13 months after gifted consultant Tonya Moon pointed out problems she saw with District 181’s approach to advanced learning and six months into a curriculum transition year during which an advanced learning task force has developed the long-term plan.
While all six board members in attendance voted to approve the plan (Glenn Yaeger was absent), Brendan Heneghan and Yvonne Mayer delivered a prepared joint statement before the vote that pointed out what they see as problems with the plan and the process by which it was developed and approved.
The plan, which has been the primary focus of the last three board meetings, would eliminate exclusive ACE programs in the district’s elementary and middle schools while standardizing ACE principles and increasing rigor in math and English language arts for all students.
READ: End of D181's Pullout ACE Program Proposed for Elementary Schools; Exclusive Middle School ACE Program Phased Out Under D181 Proposal
Beginning in 2016-17, the administration's executive summary of the plan reads, the district wants students to enter sixth grade already having mastered sixth-grade math curriculum according to the new Illinois Common Core standards and, beginning in 2018-19, to graduate eighth grade with the ability to place into high school geometry.
In language arts, the district wants all students entering sixth grade to meet current enriched language arts standards beginning in 2016-17, and all eighth-grade graduates to qualify for District 86’s honors English program beginning in 2019-20.
READ: D181 Curriculum Overhaul: How Much Will It Cost?
Board President Michael Nelson said he does not believe he cast a vote Monday night for a “rigid” multi-year plan, but one that can evolve if need be.
“We’ve asked this group … to go out, review all the research that’s been done, come back with best practices, lay out a roadmap, and engage with people throughout the professional education community to help guide us in a vision, and then show us what year one, two, three, four and five would look like,” Nelson said. “They’ve done that.”
But Heneghan and Mayer said in their joint statement that they believe the plan “is not faithful” to Moon’s recommendations, is not fully explained in one document, was approved after the administration and task force avoided tough questions from board members, and is not well understood by the community as something that will affect all students, not just those previously identified as “gifted.”
Heneghan asked, “Is it fair to parents and community members to vote on the plan before there’s a public hearing to hear concerns?”
Mayer said she questioned whether acceleration across the district will benefit all students.
“It is ridiculous to conclude that this will have a positive impact on all learners,” Mayer said. “In fact, it will mostly likely increase the number of struggling learners who will need remedial and support services in order to keep up.”
In the end, however, both board members voted yes because it was clear the plan would be approved with or without their support.
Heneghan said “the only way to continue to help implement change is to support [the plan],” while Mayer voted yes “with the expectation that the administration will come to this board on a regular basis and report what’s been done, what is and isn’t working, and back it up with data.”
Along with Nelson, Sarah Lewensohn, Russell Rhoads and Marty Turek spoke positively of the plan.
“I am from the notion that we can’t afford not to do this at this point,” Turek said. “We must expect more from our kids in this highly competitive, dynamic world that we’re catapulting them into.”
Rhoads, who along with Mayer will be leaving the board after this spring’s election, had strong words before casting the final vote Monday night.
“I do think this is the best thing we’ve done since I’ve been on the board,” he said.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There are plenty of ways to keep up on local news:
- Sign up for the daily Burr Ridge newsletter or Hinsdale-Clarendon Hills newsletter.
- Like Burr Ridge Patch and Hinsdale-Clarendon Hills Patch on Facebook.
Finally, CC standards for the primary grades are now considered to be developmentally inappropriate -- much too advanced for most children. For the district to accelerate these primary years could create a good deal of stress and change the way the children view school. For the sake of argument, we might assuming that roughly 25% of the district's students could be considered gifted. When considering these three conditions, the implementation of accelerated CC standards could well mean that most of the good and even some of the gifted students will require remediation to meet a developmentally inappropriate curriculum. That could amount to 50% of students. How will this affect college admissions?
Letter to the Community: Last night I voted to yes to approve the Advanced Learning Plan (ALP) proposed by the D181 administration. I did so with a heavy heart, after reading a joint statement in opposition to the plan along with Board Member Heneghan. This joint statement (which I would encourage all to listen to on the board meeting podcast available through the D181 website) described all of our concerns with the ALP. End of Part 1. Yvonne Mayer, Out-going D181 Board Member
These concerns included the fact that the name of the plan is a misnomer, as it is no longer what it was originally intended to be – a plan to improve the identification and programs for the gifted students in the district. It has morphed into a plan to accelerate all students one year beyond the grade level Common Core Standards that will, by law, require districts to increase rigor for all students. To accelerate all students one grade level beyond the Common Core standards for all students, without first implementing the Common Core grade level programs and determining whether our students are successfully performing under the more rigorous curriculum, will, in my opinion, hurt many of our students. The community has not been given an opportunity to come before the board after reading a single, comprehensive document outlining the plan. Rather, the plan has been created in piecemeal fashion over a multitude of documents, and only recently have parents of non-gifted students realized that the plan will impact their children. Despite written requests from parents that the board provide a meeting at which they could come and ask questions about the plan before the board would vote, last night the majority of the board insisted that this was not necessary. End of Part 2. Yvonne Mayer, Out-going D181 Board Member
I have only 3 meetings left before my term on the board expires. It will be up to the new board to ensure accountability by the administration. It will be up to the parents in the community to monitor the impact of the ALP in their children. Please do not remain silent if you have concerns about how the ALP is impacting your children. Speak up. Demand accountability. Immediately after approving the plan, the board approved a tentative calendar for 2013-2014 that will reduce instructional time by adding 8 late start days. Again, without allowing time for parent input on a plan that will require then to pay for D181 provided day care if their circumstances do not allow them to keep their students home those mornings. Bus service will not be provided for daycare, rather parents will be required to drive their children to school, even if they would otherwise have used bus transportation. This calendar can be revised before June. If you oppose this plan, please speak up now. The board also voted to approve a 4 days/ week summer schedule for administrators, despite all of the work that needs to be accomplished to implement the ALP plan by the start of school. I voted no because I do not think this is the summer where $80,000 in energy cost savings justifies reducing the required days administrators should work. Speak up now if you believe this shortened work schedule should not have been approved. Yvonne Mayer. D181 Board Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/02/26/why-i-cannot-support-the-common-core-standards/
"I have come to the conclusion that the Common Core standards effort is fundamentally flawed by the process with which they have been foisted upon the nation. "The Common Core standards have been adopted in 46 states and the District of Columbia without any field test. They are being imposed on the children of this nation despite the fact that no one has any idea how they will affect students, teachers, or schools. We are a nation of guinea pigs, almost all trying an unknown new program at the same time. "Maybe the standards will be great. Maybe they will be a disaster. Maybe they will improve achievement. Maybe they will widen the achievement gaps between haves and have-nots. Maybe they will cause the children who now struggle to give up altogether. Would the Federal Drug Administration approve the use of a drug with no trials, no concern for possible harm or unintended consequences? "President Obama and Secretary Duncan often say that the Common Core standards were developed by the states and voluntarily adopted by them. This is not true."
"Another reason I cannot support the Common Core standards is that I am worried that they will cause a precipitous decline in test scores, based on arbitrary cut scores, and this will have a disparate impact on students who are English language learners, students with disabilities, and students who are poor and low-performing. A principal in the Mid-West told me that his school piloted the Common Core assessments and the failure rate rocketed upwards, especially among the students with the highest needs. He said the exams looked like AP exams and were beyond the reach of many students. "When Kentucky piloted the Common Core, proficiency rates dropped by 30 percent. The Chancellor of the New York Board of Regents has already warned that the state should expect a sharp drop in test scores."
What is the purpose of raising the bar so high that many more students fail? Rick Hess (American Enterprise Institute) opined that reformers were confident that the Common Core would cause so much dissatisfaction among suburban parents that they would flee their public schools and embrace the reformers’ ideas (charters and vouchers). Rick was appropriately doubtful that suburban parents could be frightened so easily.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/15/open-letter-to-arne-duncan-from-chicago-teachers/?fb_action_ids=10200449691422832&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map=%7B%2210200449691422832%22%3A428395740575352%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210200449691422832%22%3A%22og.recommends%22%7D&action_ref_map
Candidates for the board need to ask parents opinions on the ISBE's proposal to lift the limits on class sizes for special ed students. Also, they need to hear what parents have to say about the state's agreement to provide highly detailed student data to a Gates Foundation funded non-profit, for use by any edu-tech company. Ask how the candidates will prevent ed "reformers" initiatives and RttT policies from hurting district students?