Elementary School Computers-- new enclosure link

(Same as last post, but I am trying again on the enclosure link)

I have been away for a few weeks, but the last few meetings did not have any great controversy.  If anyone would like to comment on the September 7 meeting please send it in.  When I left, the majority was refusing to re-equip the elementary schools computer labs with new computers. (In the original vote Mrs. Sunday broke ranks with the usual majority and voted in favor of the plan.  However in a later meeting she recanted and said she would now vote against it.).  To understand the effect this refusal will have on our children’s education, we need to examine the two different ways computers are used in education. 

One involves instruction in the use of the computer itself.  This can be anything from keyboarding to programming depending on the level being taught.  It is done in a computer classroom, usually called a “computer lab.”  In the beginning of the computer era, these labs often had fewer computers than students, requiring two or three students to share one computer.  Speaking from my own experience, that never worked well.  Computers cannot really be shared; only the student hitting the keys is actually learning.

The second use of computers involves employing them to aid in the instruction of the normal classroom curriculum.  In my science courses I used them to gather laboratory data in a more accurate and efficient way than more traditional methods.  In Language Arts, the continuous revision, editing, and improvement involved in the “Process Approach” to writing is ideally suited to composing on a computer.  Use as a research and presentation tool should be obvious.  Computers also provide individualized access to remedial and enrichment tutorials.  I am sure that since my retirement more creative uses have become available.  This use of computers is best done within the normal classroom.  Trying to schedule classroom instruction around the demands of the computer lab is almost impossible.

Presently, each elementary school’s computer lab is adequately equipped with MacMini computers.  However, they are four years old and out of warranty.  Any machines that might need major repairs will be taken out of service.  Admittedly, there is a good chance the labs will have enough computers to get through this year.  It is in the classrooms that we are lacking.

Kutztown Elementary School has a supply of these computers within the normal classrooms, but they too are out of warranty.  Albany Elementary School has several of the pastel colored iMacs that are 10 to 12 years old.  The classrooms at Greenwich Elementary School have even fewer of these, and many of those are used for “gifted” education. (There are several newer computers in the buildings, but aside from one in each of the Kindergarten classrooms, these were purchased with a grant that limits their use to serving students with special needs.)

As a result of the Majority’s action, our elementary students will not have access to the software package that would have come with the newer computers.  The classrooms will not get the computers now in the lab where the less vigorous use would prolong their life.  The enhancements to our children’s education that computers make available will be left to antiquated, slow, and unreliable machines.  Although I am sure they will try, it will be almost impossible for our teachers to incorporate into their curricula a program that would utilize them consistently.

I find the most disturbing thing about this situation is that the proposal was not rejected because the Majority believed we could not afford it.  The cost of this proposal was already contained in the zero tax increase budget.  Their objection, as Mrs. Bealer remarked, was, “Philosophical, not financial.”  I find this rationale very troubling.

The remarks of our teachers and administrators attesting to the value of computers as an aid to our children’s learning were completely ignored.  The six people in the majority seem to think that they know best how to educate all our children.  The fact that their “knowledge” is limited to their own experience as students or that of their children does not seem to trouble them.  The small scope of these “experiences” invalidate any conclusion they can reach.  Based on thirty-two years of teaching over four thousand students I believe I can state with some authority that every child learns differently.  In this era of “No Child Left Behind”  -- every teacher’s goal but a very new mandate in public education -- no teaching tool or method should be rejected for “philosophical” reasons.  Computers may not benefit every student equally, but there will be those, perhaps many, for whom it provides an opportunity to be found nowhere else.

I am not sure what the Majority means by a philosophy of education.  I have always believed it referred to the purpose or goals of the education being provided – valid concerns of a school board.   However, as they have used that term here, it would seem that their philosophical objection is actually to the manner in which instruction is delivered, not its outcome.  We ignore the advice of our teachers and administrators, who by training and experience are professional educators, at our peril. The Majority seems to believe our teachers want computers in their classrooms so that they woul not have to work as hard.  It was remarked, at least three different times, that elementary education should be based on the interaction between teachers and students.  Somehow, the Majority believes, two or three computers in a teacher’s classroom would reduce the obligation of our teachers to engage in that interaction, that children would be left alone in front of a computer.  The ignorance of the Majority as to what actually happens in a classroom is again apparent. They are probably unaware that developing an effective use for computers is extremely work intensive.  Further, learning centers are already used in our classrooms.  These allow the interaction that the Majority correctly believes to be important, to be with small groups of students at a time, rather than the entire class.  A computer based learning center would be another such center, but one that would be interactive and potentially personalized.  Teacher – student interactions would be enhanced, not reduced.

Another “philosophical” objection was made by Mrs. Sunday regarding the danger of introducing the complexity of a computer to children who are too young to deal with it.  She quoted accurately some of the findings of research into what is called learned helplessness.  I have read many of these same words, and in fact, I may have written some of them in my dissertation.  Unfortunately, Mrs. Sunday makes real the expression about the need to “Drink deep from the well of knowledge” and the danger of a little learning.  It is not the complexity of a task which induces a sense of helplessness, but rather a lack of control over its outcome.  One of the great values of a computer as a learning tool is that its interactive nature allows the user to have a sense of control over the process. 

In order to see the value of computers in our classrooms, one must assume that our teachers have the experience and ability to select appropriate tasks for our children, and trust them and our administrators to see that computers are used appropriately.  The essence of the difficulty the Majority seems to have with our professional staff is that they lack that trust.  The controversy over computers may be symptomatic of a much greater problem, but that will be a topic for a later post.  I will conclude this post with an e-mail the Board received from a parent, Melissa Leiby.

In the interest of fairness, I hope the enclosure link above will provide you with a recording of the Board’s proceedings, in which you can hear, in Mrs. Faust’s unedited words, the rationale for her opposition.  I cannot promise this will work.  I am very new to blogging, and, unlike our kids, "digital" is not my native language.

FROM MELISSA LEIBY

Good Morning to you all.

I would like to ask the board to reconsider the vote on the Apple lease for computers to be used in the middle and elementary schools.  At Monday night's committee meeting an informative presentation was given on the way technology is currently being utilized in our classrooms.  I have no doubt after hearing this presentation and talking with my own children that the use of computers in NOT interfering with learning the basics, or interacting with the teacher at the elementary level.  Instead the use of technology makes learning more engaging and addresses different learning styles.

If equipment that is currently being used is in need or repair or replacement to continue providing the level of education we are providing to our students, and would not result in an added expenditure to an already approved budget, why are those of you who voted against it, doing so?  I realize there is probably information that we in the public are not aware of regarding this matter that has an influence on your decision making.  I feel it would be good of you to explain this at Monday night's school board meeting since this decision is important to the continued quality of education provided at our district.

I would also ask that you remember that this issue is separate from that of the one to one laptop program which many ( including myself) question the value and benefits of.  Please keep in mind that the issue of the lease for use in the elementary and middle school involves using computers on school grounds, during the school day, under supervision.  I'd like to believe that these computers are NOT being misused for the downloading of music or chatting on social networks which is a concern of some who question the one to one program.  Again, to me, this is a separate issue.

Computers and technology are a part of society and education.  We need to make sure we continue to provide our students with the equipment and tools needed to move forward, not backward.  Please reconsider your decision.

Respectfully,

Melissa Leiby

Micromanagers

In my past postings I have referred to a board “majority,” and I call this Blog, “The Minority Report of the KASB.”  Those who have been to a meeting could probably figure out to whom I am referring, but for those who have not attended a meeting, I will present a “cast of characters.”

After the last election the Board consisted of incumbents:

Alan Darion

Carl Ziegler

Jo Stevens

Dennis Ritter

Jasper Ho

Pat Bealer, and newly elected

Amy Faust

Craig Schroeder

Sally Sunday.

In the past, Carl Ziegler, Jo Stevens, Pastor Ritter, and I disagreed as much as we may have agreed.  However, after extensive public debate, the four of us agreed on some key issues, namely all day kindergarten, the elementary school reconfiguration, and the need to rebuild/renovate the Senior High. With the support of one or two other members of the previous Board, these issues were carried over the opposition of Mr. Ho, and Mrs. Bealer.  Following the election, Mrs. Sunday, Mrs. Faust, and Mr. Schroeder joined with Mr. Ho and Mrs. Bealer to form a majority that stopped the rebuilding/renovation of the High School.  (Future posts will address this issue.) 

It soon became apparent that this group of five was determined to vote as a block.  Issues were often tabled so that, I assume, they would have time to reach a decision as a group – perhaps in consultation with their political supporters.  This was most obvious when we filled the vacancy on the Board after Pastor Ritter resigned.  The Board majority initially limited public interviews to one other applicant besides their apparent choice. Public displeasure and parliamentary difficulties forced them to allow all the applicants to be interviewed, but clearly the outcome was never in doubt.  Leon Smith was appointed to the Board.  The majority of five was now six.  Mr. Ziegler, Mrs. Stevens and I were cast in the role of a minority even though we had never acted as a single block.  In fact, Mr. Ziegler joined in supporting the budget.  However, we seem to be a solid minority when it comes to understanding the role the Board of School Directors should play in the operations of the District.

I will lay claim to an expertise in teaching Physical Science to freshmen, but I would never presume to tell first grade teachers how to teach.  Yet the majority of the Board, with little or no teaching experience or expertise, seems to have no trouble doing exactly that.  This attitude is at the core of the elementary computer controversy, which I expect to be the topic of my next posting.  In this post, I would like to remark on a seemingly small matter, the salary set for our support staff, which reveals a great deal about the arrogance of the Board majority.

Our support staff consists of our maintenance and custodial staff, our cafeteria workers, and our secretaries and clerks. Their performance reviews determine the salary increase they will receive and are set in a salary schedule.  The majority block voted against the salary schedule recommended by the administration.  Following that vote, they insisted on reviewing the individual performance evaluations of our entire support staff.  Although there was some overall decrease in the salary schedule eventually passed, it became apparent that the true objection of the majority was not the size of the increases, but the evaluation of a particular employee.  It was only after this person’s evaluation, and subsequent pay raise was changed, that the salary schedule was allowed to pass.  I have intentionally avoided determining this individual’s identity.  His or her name is not the issue; there are matters of much greater concern.

First, the Board majority clearly does not trust the judgment of our supervisors, or believe their own evaluations are superior to those in day-to-day contact and responsibility for these workers.  This sort of action represents micromanaging of the worst sort.  We often hear that the schools should be run more like a business.  I cannot imagine that in the business world the board of directors of a company, such as Air Products for example, would review and change the performance evaluation of their line workers.

Second, this action throws into doubt the notion of merit pay.  It seems that political connections are more important than actual job performance.  Almost everyone is in favor of the principle of merit pay, but only if it is based on performance instead of politics, a special danger for public employees.  Teachers, like police officers, often must make decisions that penalize some individuals.  They should not have to worry about the political consequences of those decisions.  The current Board majority illustrates why those public employees need the special protection that tenure and civil service rules afford.

           Although I believe the cost consciousness of the Board majority has harmed our children’s education, it can be argued that they believed they had no choice.  I am much more concerned that in the belief that they know best how to educate all our children, and how to run the day-to-day operations of the district, they will do real damage to our system. Telling our teachers how to teach their students, and our administrators how to supervise their schools, is like telling your surgeon where the incision should be made, or your lawyer what statute should be applied.  We can only hope that the majority block’s continued interference in the day-to-day operations of our schools does no irreparable harm.

This year's budget

I hope to have a report after every meeting of the School Board, but there are fewer meetings in the summer, and action on the key issue of the last two meetings, that of leasing computers for the middle and elementary schools, is still pending.  Instead, I will take this opportunity to talk about the budget the majority enacted last June.

To give you some perspective, the Board could have increased taxes by about 2.9% without going to a referendum.  Taxes could have gone even higher if exceptions were granted for increases in pension or special education expenses.  The administration prepared a budget that would have allowed all current programs to continue, but require a tax increase of 2%.  This was unacceptable to the majority of the Board.  Not only did they demand no tax increase, they refused to use our “fund balance” – think of it as unused money from previous taxes, much of the surplus from this year’s budget, or any of the money saved by abandoning the building project.  (I’ll have more on that later.)  The budget passed over my and Mrs. Stevens dissent did not replace the four teachers who retired.  Three of these are at the High School where enrollment will be essentially unchanged next year.  At some point in the debate a Board member asked, “Why not no tax increase?”  Here is an answer to that question.

One of the positions not being replaced is a full time Business teacher.  As a result:

The full year courses that will not be offered next year are:

A second section of accounting I

A section of advanced accounting (2nd level)

A section of accelerated accounting (3rd level)

The semester courses that will not be offered next year are:

3 sections of Desktop Publishing

3 sections of Web Page Design 

            Another position not being replaced is a full time Language Arts teacher.  To fill this void, teacher assignments are being shuffled – moving an English as a Second Language teacher into Language Arts. This transfer involves moving three teachers to positions where, while they may be certified, they will not be teaching in areas where they have had experience and been able to develop their expertise.

            Of greater concern is that we are also expanding the Language Arts program so that next year it will include:

4 sections of Read 180

3 electives -- yearbook, newspaper and creative writing

These courses effectively make up the load of the full time teacher we are not replacing.  As a result, class size will increase beyond the ability of teachers to effectively teach writing in the manner they have shown to be most effective.  There will no longer be time to conference with students about their writing.  Without conferencing, it will impossible to continue the program as it now exits.  In effect, we must choose between an effective writing program, or an improved reading program. Without the cut we could have had both.

We are reducing a full time position by 20% by no longer offering classroom instruction in driver education.  Several insurance companies have determined that this instruction makes kids safer drivers, thus putting the entire community, who will share the road with these young people, at greater risk. 

Combined with the loss of business electives these reductions will vastly increase the population in our study halls.  However, at the same time, we are not continuing to employ an aide as our study hall monitor.  Teachers will have to assume that duty, replacing a person whose hourly rate is somewhere around $10 per hour with teachers who are paid considerably more.  Admittedly, we will not be “out of pocket” for teachers’ salary, but for much of the time in a study hall, those teachers will not be available for conferencing, tutoring, or classroom preparation -- the job they are actually being paid to do. 

We are not replacing a middle school science teacher, but instead are transferring a Special Education teacher into that position.  This cut will increase the number of students in Special Education classes by about 2 students.  While not an overwhelming number, these are the children of greatest need, and will put us perilously close to the limit on the teaching load we are permitted by the state.

Last but far from least we are arbitrarily cutting $5000 from the library budget.  I have trouble coming up with a cut this small that would have a larger adverse impact on our kids.  At some point students will need a resource that is not available as a result of this reduction.

It is one thing to say that we can no longer afford to give our children the same quality of education as students were provided it the past.  Although I vehemently disagree, it might be a tenable position in this economy.  However, to maintain that this budget will not have an adverse effect on our children’s education is delusional at best and fraudulent at worst.

My First Post

My name is Alan Darion.  For those who do not know me, I taught at the Kutztown Area Junior and Senior High Schools for 32 years before retiring and getting elected to the Kutztown Area School Board (KASB).  I am now in the first year of my second term.  Toward the end of my career I decided to run for school board because I saw a steady decline in the education provided at the High School.  It was still extremely good; the dedication of the staff would allow no less.  I believed, however, that the drive to go beyond "very good" to true excellence was slowly eroding.  During my first term, slow but steady progress was being made to restoring the school to its former glory.  However, the results of the last election have brought that progress to a screeching halt. 

A majority of seats on the Board are now occupied by individuals who seem to represent the views of the Kutztown Taxpayer Watchdogs.  Such a group can serve the entirely legitimate function of helping to prevent wasteful spending. However, there are also those in the Watchdog group that seem to believe that almost any money spent on public education is inherently wasteful.  Unfortunately, in my opinion, this view is shared by the people who now control the Board.

By majority vote, this Board has stopped the High School building and renovation project, eliminated three high school teaching positions, and one special education position, ended the classroom driver education program, and arbitrarily cut $5000 from the library budget, to mention just a few of their actions.  In later postings I will go into more detail on the harm these cuts will have on our kid’s education, as well as the effect that other short-minded actions might have.  Of more immediate concern is that these actions are being blamed on the entire School Board, when, in fact, it is the will of only a few members, albeit a majority, of the Board. 

I, along with some other members of the Board, have tried to express our opposition at Board meetings, and at times the newspapers have reported portions of these remarks.  However, in the face of majority action, that included using taxpayer money to place a self-serving ad justifying their actions in the Patriot, I believe I, and perhaps other members of the Board minority, need to be more public with our dissent.  So I have started this blog – The Minority Report of the Kutztown Area School Board (KASB).

This blog is not intended to be a forum for public debate; that is best left to public Board meetings.  However, I hope it will allow for an exchange of ideas among those of us concerned about the effects the actions of the current Board are having on the education of our children.  In your posts, please make sure that you identify yourself in some verifiable way.  I look forward to reading and sharing your comments.