Fraser does not want to get rid of him. He is loved there. He said in his interview that this is the only superintendent opening we would see his name attached to; that Rochester is the only district he would leave Fraser for. He worked at Rochester for ten years, which were formative to his career and leadership philosophy. It is pretty easy to understand why he would want to return to a district that gave helped shape him as a leader. The Richards interivew was inspirational and we would be lucky to have him on our team

Perhaps you are mistaken in your assumption that Frazer wants to get rid of Richards.

School people are not like that... if someone has a new opportunity, their superiors are generally supportive.

A quick look at the situation in Fraser next week will reveal the obvious...Fraser isn't trying to get rid of Dr. Richards, he has broad support in the district with students, staff, and the school, board. This is why site visits are part of the interview process...get information from the source.

I have concerns about Dr. Richards as well. While I have admittedly not done much research, I have met parents of children in that district who are not so happy with the Ipad initiative. Their children are suffering headaches/migraines from excessive computer usage. Ipad usage is usurping the fundamentals of writing for children as young as 5 and 6. Dont children have enough of this with computer games home use?

There is much to be said about the links between brain/visual development and the physical process of writing. I doubt very much thought went into this aspect of learning when these Ipads were introduced into the classrooms of kindergarteners and first graders. Forget about the days when we lamented the absence of cursive writing. Sounds like we are on the verge of lamenting the absence of handwriting altogether! 'Individual learning initiative' is most likely code for 'fewer teachers'! Enough said!

And, excuse me, but arent we on a budget here.......in Michigan? IPads for everyone? Why dont we give them all video games too? Something doesnt click here!

And.........I am still not over the Carol Klenow connection! I have friends in Utica who are still in shock from the changes there......both teachers AND parents!

Sounds like Michael Zabat will be a GREAT asset to our Board! So GOOD to hear!

Hi Cheryl,

I do think that overuse of computers and tablets can be detrimental to small children, I don't think that this is what the iPad initiative is proposing. When monitored and limited (and used correctly), tablets and iPads can be an important tool for learning. Whether we like it or not, times are changing, and our children will be living and working in a highly technological time. They need to be prepared for this. While handwriting is important (I'm a former language arts teacher, so trust me, I think it's important), most industries utilize technology as their sole form of communication. Everything is computerized. Our children must become computer literate, and this needs to start young so that they can be competitive in their fields.

"Lets NOT waste our money on unproven methods of instruction."

I find this statement interesting. I don't necessarily agree and I don't necessarily disagree. Any innovation starts out as unproven. Some will be successful and others will not be. It can be foolhardy to rush into spending large amounts of money, time, or resources on something that ends up giving little return, but if we wait until every technique is proven, we will not be a leading district.

Technology can be a wonderful tool to help teachers, but it is either often unproven or stale. For it to be proven, someone needs to take the risk. We have a great district for most kids, but if technology can be used to meet the needs of some students that need different resources, it should be an option.

There may be teachers or parents who do not want this form of instruction for their students. Others may feel that their students will benefit greatly from this. As all of our schools have multiple classrooms per grade, some classrooms could be iPad-supplemented and others iPad-free, with parents being allowed to choose which their children will be in. I would prefer a classroom where teachers have this tool available.

I also am very interested to hear these gentlemen's views on G/T education and how to best educate academic outliers. Dr. Richards provided some information during his interview, but Dr. Shaner's information was limited. Dr. Richards appears to believe this is one avenue to helping educate gifted learners. I would like to hear from Dr. Shaner what tools and methods he suggests to teach high ability students.

Thank you Joshua and Meredith for your thoughtful responses. I admit that I have been surrounded by too many computer geeks for the last 20 years to maintain objectivity on the subject:). ( My college boyfriend got his PhD in computers and now works for Intel ). That said, I will try hard to open my mind a bit to this whole 'competitive world' phenomenon that seems to be the phrase of choice when it comes to 'plugged' vs. 'unplugged' learning. I am currently struggling with the amount of on line learning my daughter has to do and the amount of distractions I need to battle when we face an evening of homework in front of the computer. It literally feels like she is doing homework in front of the 'TV' as we used to say.

Suffice it to say, I could elaborate, but have to get two kids to bed. Thanks for discussing.

Cheryl, I don't think I will have the time and I don't pay much attention to Florida, but I think you should find some statistics from this page - http://www.msubillings.edu/caer/quality_rankings_of_education_in.htm - interesting:

Michigan ranks #3 on Education Input.* Michigan ranks last on Educational Output.**

It's going to be hard for us to get worse.

*Education Input

Four measurements were standardized and then averaged for this variable:

Average teacher salaries,
Pupil/teacher ratios,
Education cost per student, and
The Thomas Fordham results.

**Education Output

Output was calculated by using the standardized average of:

Percent of 4th graders at or above grade level as measured on NAEP tests on
Reading, and math
Mean ACT score for the state.

I know many people don't like Gov. Snyder's reforms. I have three issues with how the opposition to these reforms have been handled.

1) Opponents are not suggesting reforms of their own. Obviously our education system in Michigan needs to change. If the choice is between one party's reforms and the status quo, I'll take the reforms. Presenting other reforms would at least give people a choice.

2) Opponents have ceded their seat at the table. Instead of working with Snyder to create reforms palatable to all, solely working against meant giving up opportunities for input.

3) Opponents are not seeing this as a chance to meet the needs of students who would leave.

Why would advanced and gifted students leave the public schools? Because their needs aren't being met there. Meet their needs with new gifted education programs.

Why would students head to cyber schools? Perhaps a disability prevents them from attending class. Perhaps bullying is making school miserable. Perhaps they learn better via computers. Perhaps their parents believe the schools are too liberal or conservative. Perhaps they waste an hour each way on the buses or roads are often impassible from snow. Perhaps their schedule doesn't work for normal school. Find out their reasons and needs and meet them.

Why are students in struggling districts heading to charters? Perhaps parents believe uniforms will stop gang colors. Perhaps they hope students at charter schools will be there to learn and not disrupt class. Find out their needs and meet them!

To recap, those opposing Snyder's reforms need to
1) Propose reforms of their own;
2) Work with reformers to guide the dialogue, not just shout from the outside; and
3) See this as an opportunity to meet the needs of those who might leave.

Whining about these reforms, whether it is from a district or ISD superintendent, a Board of Education, a PTA council, or a supporter of public schools is absolutely horrible public relations! It sends the message that public schools can't compete with charter schools and cyber schools. It says that the only way schools can retain their students is if the parents have to pay extra to put them in different schools.

Now, back to superintendents. I've talked to superintendents, administrators, and Board of Education members from some districts. Some are stuck on complaining about Lansing and organizing parents to try to stop this legislation. Others say this reform is a challenge, but also an opportunity. I want a superintendent who will meet this head on, organize the parents, teachers, administrators, and community members to provide better education for ALL students, and doesn't waste our time on attempting to stop needed reforms, but looks for ways to use technology, volunteers, modified programs, and other methods to target students on the edge of leaving. That is who we need in charge of our district!

Joshua,
Thanks for the info. I look at data these days with a great deal of skepticism. My first step is to check out the funding Foundation and its donors. Having done some reading on the privatization movement, it usually does not take long to sift through the circuitous maze of donors to come upon a few recognizable names.

It is very difficult these days, if ever, to find objective statistics regarding anything of 'Value'. By this, I mean, anything that can be bought, sold, or otherwise profitized. Education is no exception. It is right up there with drug efficacy, medical research and energy resources. Everything can be spun to substantiate a point.

As far as Ohio, Florida, Tennessee and Indiana, the only reason I mention these States is their successful passage of ALEC legislation regarding school privatization. I dont necessarily expect there to be any reliable data on their educational outcomes, despite numerous attempts on both sides of the aisle.

As always, thank you for your enlightening discussion. We may differ in our goals, but I respect your valiant effort in achieving yours.

"Michigan for Quality Schools"... a/k/a "Status Quo for Change"

Here is their website: http://miqualityschools.net/

Comprised of:

Michigan Association of School Administrators
Michigan Association of School Boards
Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators
Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals
Michigan State Board of Education
Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association

I could not find a single proposal on there, except that we should be "anti"

Diane, I would be very interested in a list of these reforms based on best practices. I just went through the website for Michigan for Quality Schools - http://miqualityschools.net - hoping to find one, but all I found was opposition to Snyder's proposals. I did see them reference using the best practices from a few states, but they didn't even detail which practices.

If a collection of public school administrators can't even list reforms they believe should be done, why should they expect lawmakers to come up with reforms the public school administrators will agree with? Unfortunately, the silence on school reform from the public schools themselves has been deafening.

Hi Diane,

This can be a tough crowd but sounds like your up for the challenge.
Bottom line, none of our lawmakers CARE about public schools. As we all know by now, legislation is written by ALEC who represent Corporations for which the legislation will benefit. Its a no brainer......legislators are paid off, bills get passed, education is privatized, CEOs make it big, teachers MAY still get paid and if we are lucky a few kids will be educated. The rest is collateral damage. Cheap labor is produced and we no longer have to go to China to get it.......sounds like a WIN WIN to me.....dont you think? Who needs an educated populace? They just get in the way......

I saw the rhetoric. What confused me was that I thought I was supposed to be looking for the "proposed reforms."

Diane, if you have no desire to discuss the issue but merely to throw out glib and sarcastic comments, why do you bother posting in this discussion?

Would you prefer to have legislators or public school administrators take the lead in reforming education? If it is the legislators, you have that right now and you can stop complaining. If it is the public school administrators, then take your complaints to them and suggest that they provide better suggestions than "copy off the smart states".

Me too.....at least he LIVES in Rochester!

Joshua, I believe that your agenda is gifted/talented. In the interests of furthering that agenda, why aren't you appealing to Gov. Snyder to fund g/t programs, or at least stop making cuts to education so Rochester/Oakland ISD would have the money to fund a g/t program? Or possibly you could look at districts that have g/t and find out how they funded them. It occurs to me that there are several options to further your agenda other than jumping on the current "reform" bandwagon. If these reforms go through, we will be left with defunded and gutted public schools, lower property values, no say on education at the community level, and charter schools that (with a very few exceptions) have not performed better and usually worse than our public schools.

Diane, the committee I work on with the Michigan Association for Gifted Children does petition the governor and legislators for funding to G/T programs. However, the direction the governor appears to be heading is ending the vast number of pots of money that are allocated for various programs and having it in a few large pots. Having specific funding for G/T goes against this.

The districts that have G/T have chosen to do so. When Dr. Markavich talked at Rochester High School, she said it costs about $4500 to educate an elementary school student breezing through school. Some school districts, like ours, have chosen to not fund any G/T programs and take the rest of the allocation and use it to fund programs for struggling students, athletics, drama, etc. Other districts have chosen to use at least some of the G/T students about $6000 remaining allocation to fund G/T programs. I have absolutely no reason to believe that stopping spending cuts would lead to G/T programs in RCS. It is not a funding issue, but a philosophy issue.

What part of the reforms do I like?

First, there will be a change from a butt-in-seat funding model to a partial growth funding model. Part of a school's funding will be based on how much each student grows year to year. A school that just ignores its G/T students will end up losing some funding if they don't have a year's growth, something that often happens now when they sit in class reviewing material they already know.

Second, selective charter schools would allow a G/T charter school. This would be a school where students would be guaranteed to have a G/T education. Some may think this would be a cash cow, but with G/T private schools usually running over $15000/year in tuition, a properly run G/T charter school will need to be very careful with money to even break even. A G/T charter school would mean that the entire per pupil allowance would be spent on G/T students, not taken from them to be spent on other programs while G/T education is non-existent.

Third, the EAA uses a different model of school. Instead of an elementary student remaining in the same classroom the entire day, they have a homeroom but head to other classrooms for classes based on ability and pace. This is the essence of G/T education, understanding that every child has his or her own natural pace and ability and teaching at that pace and level.

I am still wanting to hear your suggested reforms. If you like, we can narrow it to the G/T issue, but I believe all students should be considered.

BTW, the CREDO study from Stanford showed that 54% of charter schools perform as well or better than public schools and that within three years most students at charter schools had academic growth higher than in public schools.

The CREDO study I found says "that there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s several thousand charter schools with, in the aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as well as students in traditional public schools."
BTW I pay lawmakers (with my tax dollars) to do due diligence and review best practices before supporting any legislation. And I am within my right to criticize them if they do not do this. I am not obligated to do their due diligence for them, or for you, just because I am criticizing this poorly thought out legislation. If you want the specifics of what best practice reforms would look like, find out what Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota and Iowa are doing and you'll have your answer.
What I don't understand why neither yourself or Mike support best practices. If we, as a state could model our educational practices on what more successful states are doing it would be a win for all students here in Michigan.

The term “best practices” is such an overused generality. And where did you get the idea that Joshua or I don’t support them?

I’m all for seeing traditional public schools adopt “best practices”. Of course, we then argue about who is identifying them, and labeling them. I hope you can see that the idea of “best practices” is largely subjective, based on the philosophies and criteria of those judging.

Really, the notion of “best practices” must really be viewed in context of how you view the present system. If you like the way things are structured – with all of its inherent limitations – then you will be looking for the “best practices” of those who are subject to the same limitations. I simply don’t see the need to live within those limitations.

The concept of the present reforms stem from the belief that there are too many needless limitations and flaws in the present system. These reforms are rooted in the notion that reform of the PRACTICES within the system will not be enough, and that the SYSTEM itself needs restructuring.

I don’t necessarily argue that our Michigan public schools are failing to follow best practices. On the contrary, some certainly are. But that’s not the point.

There are no "best practices" that will create a win for "ALL" students. We can't even agree on what is a "best practice".

Diane, the key phrase is "in the aggregate". In the aggregate, Michigan and Texas schools rank low. Breaking out the data shows that both have some really great schools and some really abysmal schools. In the aggregate, some schools score really high. Breaking out the data might show that certain groups have lower than expected test scores or growth. If you take the average charter school student, which is heavily weighted to students in their first year at charters, they aren't faring as well. Breaking out the data shows that some are doing very well, some are doing poorly, and many are doing about the same.

Mike and I do support many best practices in general. It is just that you or Michigan for Quality Schools won't provide a list of best practices they believe should be implemented. I didn't say that you cannot criticize the legislation, but I believe that your reluctance and the reluctance of Michigan for Quality Schools demonstrates that little actual effort has gone into reforms needed for Michigan schools by these groups and more effort has been placed into preventing reforms that would change the status quo. I also lose respect for those who simply stand in the way of problem solvers while offering no solutions of their own. I would rather work with people who vehemently disagree but try to solve a problem than those who simply prevent others from trying to solve the problem. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Joshua- Here's some info a friend just sent me:

"According to the Washington Post, January 8, 2009, two independent studies determined Maryland has the best public schools in the U.S.

Editorial Projects in Education, which publishes the trade newspaper Education Week, conducted a three-year study of public school performance following the 2002 federal Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act. The study evaluated school systems on a number of criteria, including accountability standards, college readiness of high school graduates, spending and equity. The composite results placed Maryland at the top of the rank.

A second report by MGT of America found that "proficiency levels statewide [in Maryland] have improved dramatically for all students," particularly in elementary schools. The state cut the gap separating proficient from below-proficient students by 50% between 2004 and 2008, an impressive achievement.

MGT of America attributed much of the improvement to hiring new, better qualified teachers, improving student-teacher ratios by creating 8,300 new teaching positions, and increasing school and classroom accountability for achievement."

So Maryland's "reform" was simply upgrading its current public school system - not replacing it. If Michigan, for example, improved student-teacher ratios, teachers would better be able to customize curriculums for g/t students and low achieving students for better outcomes...

Diane, thanks for providing some suggestions on how to improve our schools. I don't think our school system needs to be replaced, but do believe that improvements to our traditional public schools can happen in conjunction with increasing parent choice.

"hiring new, better qualified teachers"

I believe some of the educational reforms of the past few years have helped this, including revisions to tenure where the teachers let go are not the newest but the least effective. It would be horrible to hire new, better qualified teachers and have them let go when the population shifts.

"improving student-teacher ratios by creating 8,300 new teaching positions"

This is really a district policy in conjunction with union negotiations. If per student funding were increased 10%, would it go towards more teachers, higher pay, or programs? I don't think the state gets a lot of say in this.

"increasing school and classroom accountability for achievement"

I believe some of this is in the new reform bills. Schools can earn extra money through increasing student achievement and, once a measurement system is put in place, some of it will be tied to growth instead of proficiency, giving schools a greater incentive to meet the needs of students who will never be proficient on the MEAP and students who are already proficient on the MEAP.

Thank you for providing some ideas on how we can improve our schools.

While reduced class sizes may help slightly for meeting the needs of G/T students, what is really needed is reducing the number of levels a teacher must differentiate for. A reduced class size will probably still have the same five levels - low, low-average, average, high-average, and high. This will leave the teacher with close to the same amount of work. A technique called cluster grouping tries to give each teacher no more than three levels in a single classroom. This reduces the work load for a teacher even if the number of students remain the same. It has been shown to help every level of students, not just G/T. However, this technique is rarely used in Rochester Community Schools.

Another technique is ability grouping. This is used more in RCS. For certain subjects, students travel between classrooms where they are placed with students of similar ability. At our current school, we have seen this work very well for reading and would like to see it implemented for math as well since time appears to be an issue for providing differentiation there as well.

Smaller class sizes could be a benefit, but I would like to see RCS begin using techniques that have similar effects but do not cost any additional money. Our funding will remain limited and if we were to implement some of these other methods, we may be able to increase performance, receive extra money from the state, and have options on where to spend it.

Joshua-

Here's a NYT article about G/T I thought you might like. (It's not really related to our discussions and I'm by no means using it to make a point. Just thought you might find it interesting given it's about G/T...I think you may have done a post about something similar.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/education/in-one-school-students-are-divided-by-gifted-label-and-race.html?src=me&ref=general

Joshua-
Thanks for the insight. I have just one concern and wondered if you thought about it from this perspective. If "reform" means linking achievement with funding what does that mean for schools with higher percentages of disadvantaged kids? Schools with a lot of poverty, ESL, emotional/learning disabilities, etc are not going to be able to show the kind of achievement that schools without those same challenges will be able to show. Does that mean they get less funding - when in reality they need more funding to overcome those challenges? It seems at a glance that kind of "reform" favors wealthy/privileged schools leaving poor schools right where they are now, or worse.

Diane,

I've also written a bit about why G/T programs are often full of "neurotypical wealthy white children" at http://rochestersage.org/2012/02/10/the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations/ It is definitely an issue that is addressed in G/T communities. Many of us see G/T education as a way for low-income and minority groups to escape cycles of poverty and discrimination.

The bill doesn't specify how funding would exactly be based, but they may use a formula similar to what is found in this report: http://bridgemi.com/2013/01/state-champs-see-how-your-local-district-ranks/ This compares how well a school district does to expectations based on demographics. Also, using growth instead of proficiency would help negate the vast differences that occur when entering kindergarten.

I would also like to mention that local G/T advocates and supporters are actively involved in Great Start Collaborative-Oakland, the Rochester African American Parent Network, and United Way for Southeastern Michigan's Early Literacy Initiative.

Here's a great article about how local G/T supporter Amanda Itliong is working to help children in low income families succeed. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013301010015

Mike...I know you are referring to choice in selecting a school, but you got me thinking about choice in public education with Curriculum & Instruction today. When I started teaching, the state mandated .5 credit of Government only and left the rest up to school boards. Now, the state mandates over 16 credits...& 18 credits in some districts. We now have PLCs and common assessments to make sure our students' education is as uniformed as possible.

Part 2:-)

Then we have added International Academies and Early/Middle College Programs. We are now allowing 9th graders to dual enroll & are awarding middle schoolers high school credit. We have Personal Curriculums if you go above & beyond grad requirements which happens often in advanced Math/Science/Technology Programs. We even have Seat Time Waivers if you want to work at home.

This is all available at the high school where I work, and while I think we are awesome...we are not unique:-) What more do you want? I just don't get it.

Quality.

And the things you mention are not all available here in Rochester.

We have no elementary G&T program in Rochester. Those first 5-6 years are an waste of opportunity for many bright children. Middle school has a weak curriculum. High school has more choices, but has it's share of curriculum issues, and a HUGE quality problem with instruction.

Of course, many like it as-is, so it's not going to change.

So what choices are left for parents like me?

Mike,
You are right! We are not likely to agree on the philosophical side of things. But what you have stated that I believe we can both emphatically agree upon is this...

"After years of examining issues, I find there is very little definitive, rock-solid, hard "proof" of anything in education. There are simply too many variables, and too much is subject to interpretation."

This is the most honest statement I have heard you make in years and I couldn't agree with you more!

I will happily answer your rhetorical question, though, on behalf of the 'socialists' out there :)

I pay taxes as do many who do not have kids in the public schools and would like to see those dollars stay in the pockets of teachers rather than CEOs.

Whether or not you feel those teachers are doing their jobs to your satisfaction is only one part of the equation. The other part is that those teachers are neighbors and live in our communities unlike most of the CEOs who run the 'virtual schools' and 'charter school' companies. Paying teachers liveable wages goes a long way to supporting our local economy AND retaining good, qualified teachers in the profession.

We want the 'best' professionals teaching our children and the only way we are going to do that is by respecting those entering the field enough to offer them competitive wages. I just dont see how that is possible if we have to skim some of our 'education' dollars off the top for 'profit'.

Fair enough?

There are lots of opportunity for innovation and leadership.

The state only sets minimums. They do not speak much to pacing, for example.

In elementary, just because they need to know certain things by 4th grade does not mean they must be taught in 4th grade. They could certainly be taught in 3rd.

Or, in high school, the requirements are very broad. Technology might allow a good science kid to zip through a lot of the material at a much faster pace. What would be needed is an opportunity to do labs after school. That is the sort of logistics and planning that a new supt. could address.

And you seen interest from either candidate in exploring the issues you mentioned? Any sense whether they have the skills to chase their interests?

Historically speaking, CREDO's methodology has been suspect. With regard's to CREDO's research on New Jersey's charter schools released late 2012: 
"The CREDO study did not evaluate the other dramatic demographic differences between charter and traditional public schools: income. Instead, the CREDO data treated all students from families earning up to 180 percent of the poverty line as interchangeable. 
In other words, the study lumped together students who are homeless with students whose families have an income of $50,000 a year. Such differences in income are very significant when it comes to predicting academic performance. For example, a child whose family makes $40,000 a year averages 100 points higher on the SAT than a child whose family makes $20,000 a year. 
CREDO tried to address these demographic differences by factoring in students’ standardized test scores at the time of charter school enrollment. However, as Professor Baker points out, this ignores the post-enrollment impact of differential poverty and disability on students’ learning."

Diane, you cited the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice above, an organization founded by the Michigan Education Association and run by local and national education associations. I'm thinking that could qualify as "not a disinterested research institution".

CREDO also produced the previous report which has been cited by many traditional public school advocates for poor charter performance. It has not been strictly pro-charter and its data has shown that charter schools in some states are performing quite poorly.

Professor Bruce D. Baker writes for the National Education Policy Center, which receives funding from foundations established by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.

(just correcting for post order)