We Are So Over the Moon (Report); What is the Status of D181 Two Years Later? (Part 2)

(taken from Wikipedia fat cow/moon images)

As we reflect on how D181 has traveled off course during the past several years, it’s important for us to recognize that we bloggers believe in equal access and opportunity for every educational possibility that exists within a school setting. We, through reviewing parent and community comments since the inception of this blog, realize that there are probably parents who are happy and relieved that the tiered services of the past are now a distant memory, despite the fact students while in the tiers across the district demonstrated solid gains on ISAT and MAP tests. For soon after Dr. Moon submitted her report to the D181 administration, Dr. Schuster took the first steps in eliminating tiered services and the ACE program for students who had been identified as gifted and talented, or what we now refer to as advanced learners. Subsequently, the Advanced Learning Plan was developed, which then morphed into Learning for All, despite the fact the initial goal was to better meet the needs of gifted and talented students. As many of our readers realize, D181 is in the throws of a massive, unfounded, non-researched ideology called Learning for All, which the administration claims was created as a result of Dr. Moon’s report.

Within the hallowed halls of the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education are the offices of two professors whose area of focus is the field of Gifted and Talented Education. Yes, at the University of Virginia, the term Gifted is not considered a dirty word, despite the fact Dr. Tonya Moon believes this term should not be used as a label within educational settings, particularly those within impoverished school districts. You can read about Ms. Moon’s education and interests by clicking: http://curry.virginia.edu/academics/directory/tonya-r.-moon . Moon’s focus is largely centered on the use of multiple measures and assessments within educational settings to identify children for gifted and talented programs.  Here is a sampling of her publications:

Standards Reform in High-Poverty Schools: Managing Conflict and Building Capacity  Tonya R. Moon 2004

A Primer on Research Ethics in the Field of Gifted Education

Tonya R. Moon, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400265, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4265, USA

Moon, T. R., Brighton, C. M., Jarvis, J. M., & Hall, C. J. (2007). State standardized testing programs: Their effects on teachers and students (RM07228). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.

Also at the University of Virginia is Dr. Holy Hertberg-Davis, who is a colleague of Moon’s. Ms Davis also consults for various school districts in the areas of gifted education and student performance. Her views on the field appear to differ from those of Moon in that her research promotes the notion that gifted students cannot be fully served within the regular classroom using differentiation as the main strategy. A recent article that appeared in Gifted Child Quarterly illustrates this fact:

Hertberg-Davis H. 2009. Myth 7: Differentiation in the Regular Classroom Is Equivalent to Gifted Programs and Is Sufficient: Classroom Teachers Have the Time, the Skill, and the Will to Differentiate Adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly 53: 251-253. (Click to open article.) 

We encourage our readers to read the Hertberg-Davis article which states in its conclusion: 

"For all these reasons—lack of sustained teacher training in the specific philosophy and methods of differentiation, underlying beliefs prevalent in our school culture that gifted students do fine without any adaptations to curriculum, lack of general education teacher training in the needs and nature of gifted students, and the difficulty of differentiating instruction without a great depth of content knowledge—it does not seem that we are yet at a place where differentiation within the regular classroom is a particularly effective method of challenging our most able learners."

Also of interest to our readers, the following text will offer a review of the most relevant aspects of the field of gifted:

Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives

books.google.com/books?isbn=1136946438 (Click to open link to text.)

Within these readings, one will quickly discover that there are basically two major viewpoints concerning the appropriate educational approach that should be taken for gifted/advanced, high-ability students in today’s educational settings.

The first viewpoint, which our very own Kurt Schneider, Co-Assistant Superintendent for Learning, espouses to be a proponent of is the full inclusive strategy with the sole source of teaching through differentiation within a single classroom. He, along with certain college faculty (Moon, Tomlinson, Capper, Frattura, Friedman (newly minted D181 consultant effective June 2013 - click to open Friedman's contract)  believe all students can have their learning needs met by one teacher, maybe the use of a support aide (MRC director, a former gifted specialist (now differentiation specialist), and whoever else might be qualified to come into a classroom to lend support to 22 plus children.

Moreover, much of their descriptive research (compared to empirical research with data driven statistical results) centers on impoverished school districts and students of challenged socio-economic backgrounds. In addition, the use of labels for children is discouraged, and thus all children are collectively treated as a whole within a classroom. There are supposed to be no pullout services or special instruction provided within this framework. We believe this has been the goal of Schuster and Schneider since they began their employment with D181, and we now see the effects of their desire to become “pioneers” in the field of education by also foisting automatic grade-level acceleration into the brainchild of Learning for All.

The other viewpoint concerning gifted/advanced populations centers on the plain and simple fact that not all students should be accelerated. There is simply no research that indicates with certainty that acceleration for all is effective. Let’s take a look at a statement from the National Association for Gifted Children:

We Are So Over the Moon (Report); What is the Real Status of D181 Two Years Later? (Part 1)

(Taken from Wikipedia Moon images.)

In anticipation of Dr. Tonya Moon's return to D181 next Monday, February 24, 7pm at Elm School, today we begin a new series.  Part 1 will provide links to earlier posts from last year in which we discussed when and for what purpose Dr. Moon was initially hired and the district wide curriculum changes that morphed from her original report.  We encourage our readers to read these earlier posts, as well as the additional commentary below, prior to Monday's meeting.  Part 2 of this series will be published prior to Monday's meeting and will provide our readers with insight as to backgrounds, relevant research in the field of gifted and talented education, and the impact of hired consultants Drs. Moon and Friedman on D181. We suggest setting some time aside prior to Monday’s meeting as there is a great deal of information for you to review. You will want to become especially versed in the terminology and semantics that will be on display during Monday’s meeting. Let’s begin by referencing several of our previous posts:

Our 6/5/13 post titled "2012-2013 Year in Review: How did the curriculum change process evolve?" described the chronology of events leading up to and following the hiring of Dr. Moon, who was tasked with evaluating the gifted program during the 2011-2012 school year.  (Click to open 6/5/13 post.) 

In January 2012, Dr. Moon presented a report of her findings to the BOE. Her report went further than simply evaluating the gifted program.  (Click to open Dr. Moon's Report.)  As we previously summarized in our 6/5/13 post, Moon concluded that there was insufficient differentiation across the classrooms in D181, and that there was inadequate identification of students for admission into the gifted, advanced or accelerated math and language arts programs.  She advised that unless there was evidence to show that a student would not be successful in such programs, the opportunity for students to enroll in them should be created. Anything short of this was, in her words, “educational malpractice.” She also recommended that the district create a Philosophy of Learning for all students.  She did not advise that there should not be any gifted programming, but that the door needed to be opened for more students into the advanced programs D181 offered.  Of significance is a statement Dr. Moon made on page 27 of her report regarding math acceleration. Contrary to the administration's continued insistence that they have implemented Dr. Moon's recommendation of math acceleration for "all students," what she actually said was that "the diverse group of stakeholders tackling the district's philosophy and definition be charged with investigating the feasibility of accelerating the district wide-mathematics program by one grade level."  

Following Dr. Moon's report, the district developed a Philosophy of Learning, transition plans, and ultimately what was first called the "Advanced Learning Plan," but was later renamed to be the "Learning for All Plan."  What was intended to be an evaluation and improvement of the gifted programs in D181, morphed into a decision to dismantle the gifted program, implement an inclusive model whereby each homeroom teacher would differentiate instruction to each student's individual level, accelerate all students by one full year above grade level in math, transition to all students taking "ACE" social studies at the middle school level, and allow students to opt into higher level math and language arts classes than those they had placed into a the middle school level.  The following posts reviewed data and observations regarding the curriculum changes in 2012-2013, which the administration called the "transition year":

• ACE - The Dismantlement of the Gifted Program. (Click to open post.)
• Middle School Math -- Math Tracks and this Year's Rapid Acceleration Model (Click to open post.)
• Middle School Math - What did the Performance Data Show? (Click to open post.)
• Middle School Math - Implications and Concerns for the Future (Click to open post.)
• Elementary Math - with a focus on Third Grade - The Transition Year Structure (Click to open post.)
• Performance Data for the Third Grade Math "Compacting" Experiment (Click to open post.)
• Elementary Math (with focus on 3rd grade) - What Will Happen Next Year? (Click to open post.)

Each of these posts raised parent and teacher concerns and asked many questions about what would happen as the ALP/Learning for All Plan continued to roll forward, grade by grade.  Interestingly, this year -- Year 1 of the ALP/Learning for All Plan -- despite repeated requests from a couple of board members to Dr. Schuster, asking her to please present student performance data for the 2013-2014, no such presentation has been given, nor has the BOE publicly discussed parent concerns that have been raised regarding math acceleration.  The administration has now identified as many as 25% of this year's 4th grader's who need after school tutoring in order be able to tackle the 5th grade math instruction they must learn. When asked at the February 10 board meeting when data on elementary and middle school performance would be presented, Dr. Schuster referenced the upcoming meeting at which Dr. Moon will be presenting a follow up report.  More than half way through this school year, the parents and community continue to wait to see data that last year was released on a relatively regular basis.

It appears that Dr. Schuster and the entire Department of Learning are putting all of their eggs into Moon's basket.  What will she say?  Will she agree with what has been implemented in D181 since she called for better identification of students for tiered programs and more effective differentiation in the classroom?  Will SHE have been provided the performance data for the first half of the 2013-2014 school year and will she have analyzed it as part of her follow up report?   Dr. Moon will visit the district the same day she presents to the board.  How many classrooms will she visit?  How long will she spend in each classroom?  Will she speak to any teachers?  Will she speak to any students?  Will she speak to any parents before she presents to the BOE?

Our posts over the last 10 months have raised many questions and concerns about the curriculum and program changes/eliminations that began after Dr. Moon's report.  The D181 administration has not answered or addressed them. The majority of the BOE has not requested data and analysis from Dr. Schuster and the Department of Learning to determine the effectiveness of the massive changes that have taken place since Dr. Moon’s last visit.

Gravity, stars, and the Earth’s rotation are sure bets. Moon’s upcoming visit and what we predict will be a grand meteor shower of spin, should be cause for pause for all of us.

Every Deck Has Aces and Jokers: A Year-End Message From the Bloggers

(Taken from Wikipedia deck of cards images)

As the end of 2013 nears, we thought we would make one last post before the school district holiday break begins. We are looking forward to spending time with our families and will take a break from writing on this blog until the school year begins again in January. In the meantime, we thought we would restate why this blog exists and our mission in continuing our commitment to providing insight and information to the District 181 community.

Back in May of this year, we, as D181 parents and taxpayers, believed that only one side of the story was being told from the administration and board of education regarding the current state of the district. Communication from the district was sanitized; pieces of information waffled out on occasion in board meetings, and the rest was controlled through stringent settings that facilitated one-way directives from administrators to attendees. Such is still the case, months later. We became increasingly frustrated having participated in these formats and believed the public deserved to know the truth about how the sweeping district changes were impacting our children. Furthermore, we began to see how changes in teacher delivery and district ideology were negatively affecting our own children day after day, with seemingly no discussion or dialogue occurring at board meetings or other public settings.

Now, after 80 posts and (as of this writing) 57,600 plus hits, we would like to believe this blog has at least provided some insight as to the lack of transparency our leadership currently promotes and the BOE condones. This blog has been active since May 28, and we appreciate the comments community members have taken the time to post themselves. We would like to thank the community for your support and continued hits as they keep us motivated to continue what we believe is our civic duty to inform the public about the misguided and detrimental direction our district is currently moving toward. The events of this week regarding the math acceleration and how it will impact our children’s success at the high school is just one such example, with many more we could mention.

And so our work to inform will continue into 2014, as we roll into the second half of the school year. There is much to keep track of concerning the massive changes that are taking place within the classrooms around the district. And, unfortunately, we have little confidence these changes will have a positive effect on our children by the end of the school year. In fact, we expect the opposite will be true given the MAP and ISAT test results that show the downward slide of student performance. Here is a partial list of concerns and questions we will consider beginning in January:

More Smoke and Mirrors Set for D181 BOE Monday, 11/4 Meeting

If there were ever an opportunity to witness Dr. Schuster’s spin on a grand scale, residents of D181 will have the chance on Monday, 11/4 starting at 7pm at Madison School when Schuster’s outside special education “expert” presenters, including one with political affiliation, will provide the BOE and community with their thoughts on the philosophy of Learning for All. These three presenters, who are currently affiliated with the Regional Office of Education (ROE), will give their insight as to the benefits of inclusion while highlighting the mantra of Learning for All. We find the timing of this presentation curious as the ISAT results have just been released, and the majority of D181 schools have fallen, some drastically, in state rankings. In typical Board and administration fashion, they have structured this Committee of the Whole meeting to include these so-called special education experts in order to control the discussion and limit comments from concerned parents.  We hope parents recognize this continuing strategy and are able to see through the smoke as the spin begins.

Brave, Anonymous Teacher Raises Concerns

Today we received the comment below from a brave "Anonymous Concerned Teacher." We consider the issues raised of such serious importance that we are publishing it as a free-standing post, because we want to make sure that all of our readers see it.  Following the Anonymous Teacher's Comment is the response we published. As we point out, the teacher is correct when he/she states that "only the parents can stop the madness." It is time more parents contact the Board of Education with their concerns. Concerned parents successfully convinced the Board of Education to vote NO to "Late Start Days." Concerned parents successfully convinced the Board of Education to vote NO on the "Math Pilots." 

Concerned parents should come forward once again and convince the Board of Education to address not only the Curriculum Concerns, but also the newly identified "Donoroo" fundraising debacle first brought to our attention in a comment posted on the 10/16/13 Post on "The Experimentation on our Children Must Stop."  

As we state in our response comment," "It is time the Board Members realize that they need to ask Dr. Schuster and her administrators some tough questions and get answers, not spin.

ANONYMOUS TEACHER'S COMMENT

Dear 181 Blog,

I am a teacher in our school district. I have never been so disheartened and dismayed at the morale of teachers and the state of education in District 181. What happened? We went from a fully high functioning district with a handful of higher level administrators to a district with a huge increase in the amount of administrators, with little experience in the area of their supposed expertise. These leaders want to take all that is good and change it to their vision. The students are ultimately the ones who will lose.

The "Learning for All" (aka Advanced Learning) directive is one of those ideas that appears good on paper and fails in reality. One of the goals of this directive is to eventually get rid of the bubbles of support educators--reading specialists, special education teachers, academic strategy teachers, gifted specialists etc. Right now, administration wants these teachers to "push in." We now have our most fragile and needy students trying to receive support in a classroom where other things are going on. How do we expect them to focus? Is it fair to have them working in the corner of the room? Eventually, the district wants to put all of those students in our classrooms and let the regular education teacher meet their needs. I was told that I need to "increase my capacity." I think I do a pretty good job meeting the needs in my classroom, but I am NOT a special education, reading, or gifted teacher. I do not have the specialized education that they do. And, for years, I have witnessed students growing under and with these "special" teachers and classes. I am outraged that a few administrators think that teachers should be able to handle EVERYTHING that the district is throwing at them and that we should buy in or "find another job." By everything I mean the following: implementing the new Common Core standards (which should be first and foremost), differentiate (for gifted, standard, and struggling students) all subjects and activities every day, form flexible grouping work for all subjects and classes, meet the social/emotional needs of students, view data on each student to set individual goals for each student (even if you have 90-180 students at the middle school), prepare students for testing, choose multi-leveled texts for students for every area of the curriculum (even if you have 90-180 at the middle school level), incorporate technology into our lesson plans (even if it's not available in all buildings), and increase rigor and develop relationships that are so important with our students. I was taught that humans have developmental stages and that you can't force an individual through these stages unless he/she is ready. So, are our students who aren't ready developmentally somehow behind? I think that would be like expecting all of our students to be ready to complete in the Olympics. We understand that some students can achieve this and we foster that, but we don't expect everyone to achieve this. That would be an unrealistic goal and humiliating to some students.

Please, bloggers, look into the CHMS Donoroo debacle. What started out as a wonderful charitable event (the first three years) ended up a slush fund for the CHMS music department and was condoned by the principal. This fund was mismanaged and misused. I hope parents will demand an explanation into what happened and learn the truth about what has happened over the past three years.

I would personally like to thank all the informed, supportive parents who have realized that "the Emperor has no clothes!" Teachers know that it is only the parents that can stop the madness in District 181. The teachers fear retribution, poor performance evaluations, and a possible loss of employment for speaking up.

Sincerely,

An anonymous concerned teacher

Dr. Schuster's Blog

Superintendent Schuster has begun writing her own blog, titled "Dr. Schuster's Blog."  It is published on the D181 website. We learned today that it is probably worth reading because it appears to contain information that has never before been disclosed to the community. We invite all of you to read her blog posts and the comments posted by both community members and Dr. Schuster. Click to open Dr. Schuster's Blog.

It seems that the inquisitive comments submitted by a community member have led to an admission from Dr. Schuster about the true nature of the Learning for All Plan.  Our next post will address our opinions on what Dr. Schuster's admission really means, but we felt that the content of Dr. Schuster's Blog is of sufficient importance that it needed to be brought to  your attention immediately.  Below we have copied the comments that have appeared on Dr. Schuster's Blog. (Click the links below to read the posts that preceded each series of comments.) When reading them, we suggest you focus on the comment posted on October 7 (highlighted in red, with certain phrases bolded by us) and then contemplate what it all means for the future of D181.   Our opinions will be published soon in the next post.

Excerpts from "Dr. Schuster's Blog" (full posts available on the D181 Website):

Welcome to My Blog

Thursday, September 05, 2013

(Click to open 9/5/2013 full Post and comments)

Comments

Jeffrey Mayer  
9/7/2013 10:32:11 AM
  Could you please elaborate on the "social justice" philosophy underlying the current curriculum reform. Are there key academic sources that you relied upon? And, what data do you rely upon to support the adoption in a high performing district. I would be very interested in learning more about this important topic. I think it should be posted, as it will help support community adoption of this recent change.


2012-2013 Year in Review: Middle School Math -- Implications and Concerns for the Future

Now that 3 quarters of data on the 2012-2013 Middle School rapid acceleration model has been presented, enough is known to raise questions and concerns about whether this plan was successful or in the best interests of all of the students who participated.  

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.