What did we do to our kids?

Last year, the actual effect of eliminating 12.75 teaching positions on the education of our children could not be predicted.   I would say that assuming it would be benign was unreasonable,  but, given the drop in enrollment, it was difficult to anticipate the effect in anything but generalities.  Now, almost two months into the year, we can actually see the effect those cuts have had on our educational program. 

At a previous Board meeting we heard from a parent regarding the impact eliminating teaching positions has had on the Middle School program.  I hope to follow up with more specific information about the Middle School, and the effect on our elementary program as well, in the near future.  However, at the October 17^th Board meeting I put into the record the impact eliminating these positions had on the program provided to our Senior High students.  A copy of this report is given below.  It illustrates the problem of using the “numbers game” Jim Shrawder likes to play in making educational decisions.

            Dividing the number of our students by the number of our teachers gives us another number.  Mr. Shrawder seems to think that as long this number remains constant, there should be little effect on the education of our children.  Based on this assumption, it would seem reasonable to reduce the number of teachers as the number of students in our schools declines.  As this academic year unfolds it becomes increasingly clear that this assumption is false.

Mr. Shrawder’s numbers are correct about one aspect of the High School’s program.  The core courses, made up essentially of the required courses taught in large-group traditional classrooms, remain intact.  There is some overcrowding, and some teachers are overloaded, but it would be hard to blame this on the reduction in staff alone.  Balancing classroom size and teaching loads has always been a problem.  If delivering this core curriculum were our only mission, then the reduction in staff Mr. Shrawder advocated would have been the correct decision.  The disastrous effect of the reduction is a bit more  subtle.   

For all the years I was a part of the High School, the pride that was taken in its educational program came not from our success at delivering a “one-size-fits-all” core curriculum.  The sense of accomplishment both teachers and students felt, and the success of the overall program, came from our willingness and ability to deal with each student as an individual.  Long before No Child Left Behind became a national goal, while most public schools were being criticized for taking a mass production, “cookie-cutter” approach to education, the Kutztown Area schools stood out as exceptions. 

In many ways, some form of what Special Education calls an IEP (Individual Education Plan) was provided for every child that needed one.   When the academic needs of a student could not be met through the standard instructional program, a special one was often created.  I am personally aware, for example, of a single exceptional student who was given an AP Physics course during the gaps in his and his teacher’s schedule.  I know of several students who, showing talent in industrial design, were encouraged to go well beyond their course requirements by that teacher.  Students struggling with a subject could always get the help they needed whenever the teacher involved was available.  Even further, in a proactive approach to remediation, students having difficulty were identified in grade level meetings and then assigned to an academic support program, which provided one-on-one guidance and tutoring.  

There is still academic support, but in numbers that have reduced much of the individual attention these kids require.  The reduction in staff has also taken from teachers the time to continue to have the level of individual interaction many students desperately need.  Many teachers are available before and after school, but many students, such as those using the bus, are not. 

A less obvious loss is in  the flexibility we used to have in designing a program that would meet the needs and ambitions of individual students.  We used to offer far more elective courses than we do now.  The few we still have available are filled quickly, and many students are locked out.  Some, like the ones offered in Social Studies are simply gone.  In addition, there is little flexibility in student scheduling.

For a small school we always offered our students a large selection of opportunities, and, on occasion, students had to choose between them.  For example, some Seniors needed to choose between a fourth year of a foreign language and an advanced science course.  However, some of the choices they now must make are intolerable.  Some students must choose between taking honors level courses and band or chorus.  Some Freshmen cannot fit a foreign language into their schedule.  Does anyone seriously think they will retain much of what they have learned after a year has gone by?

Mr. Lazo has suggested that we need to wait for final results to see if damage has been done to our children by the cut in staff.  However, how do you measure the harm done through a loss in opportunity.  The student who was not given an opportunity to see if he or she wanted a career in accounting does not even know what was lost.  Students will never know that a career in welding awaited them because no one is now around to help them find out.  The greatest loss, however, cannot be measured.  It is the realization by our kids, that regardless of what we adults say, the community, has said to them, through its School Board’s action, that their education does not matter.  We have told them that we can no longer afford the cost of the individual attention they might need.

 THE IMPACT OF THE REDUCTION IN STAFF ON THE HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM

My report to the school board on October 17, 2011

LANGUAGE ARTS

We no longer can offer a meaningful writing program.  The one that had been in place, Writing, A Process Approach, is no longer possible to employ.   The process, which is essentially one of continuous revision, demands that our Language Arts teachers have time in their schedule to conference with individual students about their writing.  That time is no longer available.  The reduction in the Language Arts staff over the past two years allows no time beyond large-group classroom instruction.  Whatever preparation time teachers have is used for precisely that, preparation for the several different subjects they now teach.

SCIENCE

Not surprisingly, since this was the subject area in which a position was eliminated, our Chemistry program has taken the brunt of the reduction in staff.  The program developed by Bill Riedel, and continued almost seamlessly by Luke Bricker has consistently had 90 to 100 percent of its Advanced Placement students score fives on the AP exam, and the few who did not usually got fours.  The anecdotal reports of returning graduates who were not in the AP classes speak to the preparation for college they received in this subject.  I doubt if this success can continue. Our only highly qualified Chemistry teacher has twice as many students this year as last.  The attention to detail that used to be devoted to reviewing and perfecting lab reports is now impossible.  The large number of this year’s Honors Chemistry students, which in the past would have been served in two sections rather than one, has too many for the size of the room, and far too many for any individual attention. The teacher’s preparation time is just that – preparation for labs.  Any make-up work for absentees, any tutoring or remediation, must be done before or after the school day.  Even though the teacher has made himself available, many students are not.

MUSIC

The elimination of a Music position has had an effect K-12.  However, concentrating only on the High School, we can see that as with the other subjects, large group instruction is continuing.  General Music classes are being taught, band and chorus continue, although at a time of day that prevents Vo-Tech students from participating.  The biggest effect is again the attention that can be given to individual students.  Our High School Music Teachers must now instruct at the Middle School as well.  They time they used to spend developing a student’s special interest or talent, is no longer available.

SOCIAL STUDIES

We still have enough staff to teach the required classes.  However, while we used to offer two electives in this subject area, there is no longer time in our teachers’ schedules to allow for any but “seatless” electives.  The large group instruction continues, but the needs of students with a special interest in psychology, for example, or current events, or government or history, cannot be met by the current staffing levels.

MATH

The principal effect on the Math program has been on the flexibility of its scheduling. Recall that the Math curriculum is not tied to grade level, but instead is designed to suit the needs of the individual.  Students are still able to attend a math class, but for too many it is not the particular class best suited to their background, ability, or ambition.  They must take whatever is available when a Math class falls in their schedule.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE

Like the Math program, a superficial look would make it seem that the reduction in staff had little effect.  However, the smaller staff produced a schedule that is too inflexible in fitting it to individuals.  Several freshmen, for example, were not able to take a foreign language because their schedules did not allow it.  (Mrs. Beidleman is the only one who believes this has been an ongoing practice.  No one else I spoke to can it recall it occurring in previous years. )  The situation is even more difficult when it comes to advanced courses.

THE MINOR SUBJECTS 

We eliminated a Business teacher last year, one in Family and Consumer Science and one in Tech Ed (Home Economics and Shop for us old folks) this year.  The basic courses are still taught, but the elective offerings have been vastly reduced.  The options for students who do not intend to go on to college have been reduced.  The demand for these courses far exceeds the supply, and many students are shut out.  Hit especially hard are the Special Needs students for whom there are no other suitable elective courses.  Not only do they lose an inclusion opportunity, but with no other place to go, these students end up in what are now overcrowded academic support classrooms. 

SUMMARY

What has become obvious is that at our current staffing level we can no longer serve the individual needs of our students to the extent we had in the past.  What is less obvious is the loss of flexibility in scheduling.  In addition to the problems in Math and Foreign Language described above, students cannot take four Honors courses and Band or Chorus.  As a small school our students sometimes had to choose between the many opportunities we offered them.  Not only have the number of those opportunities been reduced, but some of the choices our staffing level forces students to make have, I believe, become intolerable.

Alan Darion, PhD

What do we get for our money?

            At our October 3^rd Board Meeting, Jim Shrawder rose to speak once again about our High School’s poor PSSA performance, and continued to link this performance to the high cost per student in our district.  I concede the accuracy of both his points, but I have a hard time following his cause-and-effect logic.

First, I agree that there is a problem at the Senior High.  In fact, I decided to run for a spot on the School Board six years ago because I could see the problem developing.  I fail to see the logic, however, in suggesting that low PSSA scores justify spending less on educating our children.  Common sense would seem to dictate that you would want to devote more resources to a troubled area, not less.  Of course, those resources need to be used wisely.  We should be having a discussion over how best to use them, not about whether they should be provided at all. 

            Perhaps it is an acceptable business practice to take resources away from a troubled facility, declare it bankrupt, and shut it down.  It may even be very profitable.  However, I would hope no one is seriously suggesting we employ this practice with our schools.  I guess we could shut down the high school and pay the surrounding districts to take in our students, but I would much prefer that we try to restore the excellence we once had.

            Second, we do have a high per pupil cost.  Remember that we are not discussing whether or not we can afford this expense – a discussion I would very much like to have.  Instead, it seems that Mr. Shrawder has looked at one piece of data, the eleventh grade PSSA scores, and concluded that we are wasting money on failing schools.  He does raise a fair question, however, what are we getting for our money?  Here is a partial list.

• Grades 1 through 8 have astonishing PSSA scores.  Discounting them would mean that the only purpose of the education received in early grades is preparation for later ones.  As a retired ninth grade teacher I would challenge that it is the only value. 
• The High School’s Advanced Placement program, which, for a small school, offers a large variety of such courses, has had remarkable success.  All our students do well, but I am most aware of the success of our Chemistry and Calculus programs, where we consistently have 90 – 100%  of our students scoring at the highest possible level. 
• We consistently send students to the national level of the History Day competition, to say nothing of the success we have had at the local and state level. 
• Our Science Olympiad team has a long record of success.
• Let us not forget the success of our music program.  Not only do we have stunning performances by all the participants, we very often place our most talented students in the regional and state chorus and orchestra.
• Most importantly, on a test that, unlike the PSSA, has significance for the students themselves, our kids were second in Berks County on the SAT (College Board) exam.  (Reported in the Reading Eagle on October 12^th.)
• At the other end of the academic spectrum, we have a reputation throughout the area for our success educating students with special needs. 
• Our provision for the academic support of struggling students, and the opportunity presented by the Pyramid tutoring period are unique in this area. 

Admittedly, for the past few years, we may not have utilized academic support and Pyramid to their fullest potential.  We should be looking at ways to rejuvenate these programs.  In fact, a remediation plan was proposed by our Language Arts teachers a few years ago, but the cuts made in the High School staff have made this renewal impossible.

            Does anyone besides Mr. Shrawder seriously believe that we can eliminate almost thirteen teaching positions and still continue the successes listed above?  One of the major factors in that success was the time and attention our teachers had been able to devote to individual students.  Given the reduction in staff, there is too little time and too many students for even our most dedicated teachers to continue providing the same level of individual attention.  We have brought our student-teacher ratio, and our cost per student, closer to the state average.  I hope no one will be surprised if much of our students‘ performance follows our 11^th grade PSSA scores, and becomes merely average as well.