Common Core ≠ Learning For All. Fact or Fiction?

Today we begin our second series focusing on Common Core and Acceleration under the Learning for All Plan in District 181.   Part 1 of this series will explain that the D181 Administration’s crusade for classroom heterogeneity and unnecessary acceleration-- currently called the Learning for All Plan -- has resulted in an inaccurate perception that this plan is part of Common Core. Instead, we will demonstrate that the two are not related and that there are serious concerns about the origins of D181’s Learning for All philosophy and the impact it will have on our students. (Don't worry -- we haven't forgotten about our series on D181 Administrators and will publish the next post in that series very soon.)

Common Core (click to open link to Common Core) is required by many states and is now highlighted in discussions during board meetings and communications with teachers and parents.  All Illinois districts are required by law to implement grade level Common Core learning standards in math and language arts. The belief is that the Common Core standards will increase the grade level rigor and performance expectations for all students.

D181 appears to be using this Common Core mandate for its own agenda – implementation of an accelerated inverted Learning for All instructional model.  What is troubling about the concurrent promotion of the Learning for All Plan and Common Core by the District Administration and the Board of Education is that the messaging has become so confused that many parents believe the Learning for All Plan = Common Core.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Experimentation on Our Children Must Stop -- The Board of Education Must Halt The "Living Plan" of D181's "Own Design"

Guinea Pig.  Look in a thesaurus for its synonyms.  Lab rat, experimental subject, experimental animal, test animal, test subject, testee, victim. 
(Source: http://thesaurus.com/browse/guinea%20pig.)

The last word in the chain sums it all up – guinea pigs are "victims," because we all know that things don't usually bode well for the lab rat, test animal, or whatever name you want to give the "subject" of an experiment. Why are animals usually used as "test subjects?" Because until scientists know with certainty that their experiment will be beneficial and not cause more harm than good to people, they prefer to run their experiments on animals. The lab animals that are unlucky enough to be experimented on in the first round of testing suffer the most harm - sometimes irreversible.  The "scientists" then try and learn from their initial mistakes, will "modify" or "tweak" the experiment and then conduct more tests on a new group of unlucky subjects.  

And so it goes, experiment, victim harmed, "tweak," experiment, victim harmed,  "tweak," until perhaps one day, after many rounds of experimentation, the scientists might achieve positive results. But then again, they might not and the experimentation is cancelled. Regardless of the outcome, the scientists will justify the harm they caused to the test animals as unintentional consequences of trying to achieve a greater  "good" for all.  But others in the scientific community would call such experiments "torture" of innocent victims and ask if they were worth the permanent damage caused to the unknowing, innocent subjects of the experimentation in round 1, round 2, round 3...?

Good questions, and questions we, as parents of the D181 students who have been turned into guinea pigs, lab rats, test animals, and yes, victims, must ask ourselves and demand answers to.

Last week, we posted for your review the comments published on “Dr. Schuster’s Blog” found on the D181 website.  We hope you have read them and reflected upon Dr. Schuster's admission that the Learning For All Plan is a product of "D181's own design."  It is a "living plan" that she expects "will be modified based on the data we receive throughout each year of its implementation." (Click to open Dr. Schuster's Blog.)

Continuing Series, Part 3: A Critical Analysis of the "Doctors in Training" at the helm of D181 and their Questionable Qualifications – The Director of Learning (Pupil Services)

Christine Igoe is D181's Director of Learning (Pupil Services). 

Since joining District 181 in April 2010 as a building level special education coordinator (PPS administrator) for Madison and Hinsdale Middle Schools, Ms. Igoe has rapidly risen to become the administrator in charge of Pupil Services/Special Education with the newly added major task of providing Common Core Math units to this year's math program. How she has managed to become a leading contributor to the "Advanced Learning Plan" (now referred to as the "Learning for All Plan") remains a mystery in that Ms. Igoe does not appear to have the educational background nor the qualifications to be advising on general curriculum issues, especially the infusion of Common Core Math to the Everyday Math Program. The fact is Ms. Igoe's experience in special education prior to coming to D181 was in the form of being a special education teacher or a building level administrator in Plainfield, Naperville and for the Northwest Suburban Special Education Organization. It does not appear that she has any background or experience in the areas of math or general curriculum. (Sources: D181 website and the publicly accessible Illinois Teacher Certification system found on the Illinois State Board of Education website.) To now be in charge of the entire special education program and the Math Committee overseeing the math curriculum changes in a district such as 181 is quite a leap, but this appears to be the new norm in D181 where background experience and education seem to matter little in who is promoted within the district.

Welcome Back to our Wonderful Teachers

At the close of this first week of the 2013-2014 school year, we want to take a moment to welcome back all of the wonderful D181 teachers. We want to express our appreciation for all the work they did over the summer to prepare for the start of school and recognize in advance all they will do for our students this year.

Last year, the teachers faced many challenges as the administration made radical changes to the curriculum.  Far too many initiatives were thrown their way.  Some were forced to come up with their own curriculum materials in elementary math,  which was a chaotic mess since the Administration refused to use the Everyday Math Common Core Supplements  (which, after a total about face by the Administration, will be used this year). Throughout all of this, the teachers did not receive the administrative support that they should have.  Nevertheless, the teachers worked diligently and did their very best to provide our children with an outstanding educational environment and experience. Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, student performance suffered in the grades where the "experimentation" took place.

Teachers at all grade levels expressed frustration regarding the many changes that took place last year

2012-2013 Year in Review: Elementary Math (with focus on 3rd grade) -- What Will Happen Next Year?

With data showing that the 3rd grade Math Compacting Experiment was not successful this year, the biggest question is:  What about next year?  Our last blog posting ended with the following question that we hope the administration answers:

How will they make the current 3rd graders whole?  

2012-2013 Year in Review: How did the curriculum change process evolve?

How did the curriculum change process evolve?

To fully understand why Curriculum changes are taking place in D181, it is important to briefly review legislative and internal mandates that took place in the last few years.