Michael,

'Liberal' is a common descriptive term in politics connoting 'left-of-center'. It is not a pejorative.

Why didn't you address my question in the last post?

"I'm curious as to your analysis of 'For issue #1, AYPs: The SC and SA will address next month when the AYP results are given. I call on these two groups to do the right thing, do what's possible, and do what's prudent given the current state of affairs.'

This implies you think the SC and SA have not done the right thing in the past, done what's possible, or been prudent given the current state of affairs.

Do you agree with Sandy that long-standing lack of leadership is a core problem here?"

Seems simple enough.

How many parents of children exposed to years of TERC continue to support it as resoundingly as you do? Are they not sufficiently ‘wicked’?

Mike

Mike,

Your last post seems to reply to mine- Helen- who is "wicked" liberal. Forgive the slang, I was using the NE "wicked" meaning "really, really" that is to say, "I am really, really liberal."

That being straightened out, I am retiring from this discussion for the time being.

Helen

MikeQuinlan wrote:

QUOTE:
'Liberal' is a common descriptive term in politics connoting 'left-of-center'. It is not a pejorative.

Pejorative depends on how it's used, of course.

But the only problem with "left-of-center" is the definition of "center". For example, we currently have two candidates for US President that are going to be trying very, very hard from now until November to define themselves as moderates or centrists. And there is no doubt in my mind that the Boston Globe is going to be defining one of them as a centrist or moderate and the other as a flaming zealot way off to one side. They're funny like that.

I think one of them is liberal and the other socialist. I do suppose it depends on what is the 'center'.

Helen,

I'm sorry, I was confused. I do understand the use of 'wicked'; I grew up in Boston. I did not look closely and thought the post was from Michael Reed.

Again I apologize.

Mike

I guess I'll stick with 'independant'... ie sometimes I agree with one 'group' in areas and sometimes I agree with 'the other'... whatever those groups are. Bottom line, focus on the topics and not pigeonholing people. Things are very fluid. I know I am open to constantly evaluating facts when making decisions. I don't vote based on how someone else votes... the 'party line' or whatever. I vote based on my opinion on a topic.

MikeQuinlan wrote:

QUOTE:
I think one of them is liberal and the other socialist. I do suppose it depends on what is the 'center'.

Pejorative socialist, or just plain socialist?

In this case, a 'true-believer' - one who acts ferverently to promote socialism.

Usually, the 'reasonable man*' principle applies. If someone says the sky is 'blue' a 'reasonable man' is unlikely to look at the same sky at the same time and observe the sky is 'lime green'.

* Note: this 'reasonable man' used in the example does not have visual impairments or enhancements, physical or chemical. The example does not constitute a preferment of any color, shade or hue.

This got me to thinking...if the "Sky Blue" guy is a whack job with an AK47, of course a reasonable man is going to agree with him.

However, if the sky is really lime green, the reasonable man would say it is lime green no matter how many whack jobs think that it is sky blue.

I guess it all comes down to perception.

Well, the 'reasonable man' is a legal concept so has little bearing on the real world as experiencd by real people.

There may be social pressure to claim the sky is lime green (or 'All is well!'. You could proclaim 'blue' before being splattered by a hail of bullets. But at least you'd have the satisfaction of knowing you'd been true. (Not that does much for paying your family's future bills...)

Oh my, I have been away for several days and I am quite dismayed at how far off track this discussion has gone!

First, I will add a little more to the off track.

1. I am not a school insider. When I attended the pto presidents mtg's, I was eyed warily for the following reasons:

a. I defended Chuck's perspectives at times.

b. I dared to vote R

c. I would question the status quo

d. I liked to think for myself...very dangerous!

2. I am not a liberal. I do like to weigh and study all issues. I do recycle. I think alternative sources of energy must be explored to decrease our reliance on Arab countries and to help our earth. I volunteer in the schools and I advocate for school issues that I believe warrant advocacy. I also work, vote, pay taxes, follow the news and most importantly, parent my children. I believe McCain is the only choice in this election so weeks ago, I made my campaign contribution and placed his bumper sticker on my car. McCain may not be beloved by the conservatives but I think he's our only hope and a heroic man.

Back to Thomson, are we talking about MCAS or the color of the sky? Sadly, the Thomson issues have become fodder for the political machines and that is exactly how Thomson came to be in such dire straights.

Please refer back to sc mtg minutes ( to tie into the communication thread...). I spoke about the enormous grade1 class sizes in relation to title 1 in late sept/early oct. Thankfully, Chuck and Bill K were supportive of adding another teacher, otherwise I would have been sent back to my seat after my 2 seconds were up at the mic. In December, I spoke about the MCAS/AYP scores, misappropriation of title 1 funds, and asked how come the title 1 kids were being used as a crutch to excuse mCAS scores. Don't we always hear educators claim that every child can learn? I got very little response and was sent back to my seat...again. I got a real boot in the backside for my title 1 comments as the recently retired principal called me into his office and essentially told me to clam up about title 1. I am all about asking honest questions and expecting honest answers. I don't care about making people uncomfortable if the welfare of children is at stake. The Dec. mtg minutes even quote my title 1 misappropriation comments.

However, I have to say, it was mighty lonesome at those meetings! I was often the sole Thomson advocate and because I was an army of 1, it was easy to marginalize me and label me a crazy lady.

Sadly, Thomson will be caught in a political storm for several years. If one reads NCLB, you'll see that the turnaround time for a school is 4-6 years. Add to this that the leadership issues will continue. Gregg Gilligan is ONLY a 1 year interim and Marini has only 1 year left on his term. That means the new faces gamble starts again in 2010. I can not put my faith in a SC that spent more time discussing athletic fees and a preschool building than MCAS failure at an elem school. Apparently, those issues were far more worthy of discussion than MCAS failure or NCLB and only reinforces my belief that the Thomson school is the bastard stepchild of the NAPS system. Not 1 SC member set foot in the Thomson school during the 07-08 school year.

I have some real insight and perspective into the road to failure and how to expedite the Thomson turnaround but no one from the SC/SA has given my historical perspective any credit, probably due in some part to my unwillingness to play the pc game. No one has even deemed me worthy to speak to. How very sad that the SC has become part of the "school insiders" instead of representing the parents and students as they were elected to do. Whidden, Allen, Limpert and Nobile have not even acknowledged my emails or concerns. Best to ignore the crazy one. However, the problems continue to exist and worsen. I can not speak at SC meetings per order of the Chairwomans new rules and she herself has stated publicly during meetings that parents should refer to the emails listed on the NAPS site. Hmmm, ignore me at meetings and ignore my emails. What an effective way to stall progress and keep me quiet. I think this plays beautifully into the current thread discussing communication. I have a BIG problem with the inability to comment on subjets as they are being discussed at SC meetings.

To answer a few earlier questions in posts:

1. IEP's follow a child if the child changes school per NCLB.

2. Receiving schools have no input. None. As an FYI, the principals at Franklin, Sargent and the past principal at Kittedge all knew they had NO RIGHT to touch the title 1 funds but they greedily stuck their forks in the pie. That greed has led their schools to the current position of receiving students. The title 1 issue has been corrected, I was told, by Marini. I will give him credit for addressing this but I also believe it was only addressed because I was making a stink. Title 1 funds are a federal grant and come with very strict rules and regs. The SC should not even claim ignorance about title 1. Ignorance is not a justifiable excuse. If you take the money, you need to be responsible for understanding the rules of appropriation.

In closing, the Thomson school children deserve better than they have rec'd. How very sad that despite all the efforts on the part of some parents that nothing has or will change. I expect a few minor changes and then resumption of the staus quo. My attitude stinks and I know it. That's why my younger child will be moved per NCLB. I've got no desire to beat my head a against a brick wall any longer but I do feel deep regret that 425 children will once again be left behind.

Two questions:

1) Can students from other schools in town use SCHOOL CHOICE to opt IN to Thomson? With all the wonderful opportunities of extra tutoring and attention, and summer schooling available, maybe there are families who want to take advantage of Thomson's improvement process?

2) Do others believe the problems of one school are isolated, and do not affect the ed opportunities for the whole community?

Helen

Hi Helen,

I don't see why others couldn't opt in to Thomson but I seriously doubt anyone will choose to move to a failed school.

I believe, from my exposure during my pto pres time, that the Thomson is an island and our problems are very unique. The other schools don't seem to have the same issues we have.

Dawn,

My question really is: Does NCLB allow or require that kind of “reverse” school choice for those in the affected schools, those receiving Thomson students?

Comment: I would not characterize Thomson as a failed school, though I acknowledge the failure of the MCAS AYP in the prior year. My 6th grader is a very proficient reader and mathematician. My third grader has made significant academic strides. Both have experienced caring teachers and administrators. I also have a wee little plaque in my kitchen that says, “Thomson volunteers are the best.” I think this is 100% true.

As you are well aware, but I will repeat for this public forum, the worst part of our time at Thomson was the beginning of the 06-07 school year, when 4th and 5th grades had 35+ students in classes, while 3rd had 30+ students, and we had a significant turn-over in staffing. It takes time to re-construct the school culture. This was not unique to Thomson, but common to many classrooms and schools all over the district. It is a contributing factor to any measure of school performance.

I am not dismissing the real concerns that must be addressed for Thomson and our other schools (transitory admin, lack of curriculum, poor communication, discouragement of parental participation, lack of school libraries) but I see these affecting the whole district, especially with all schools feeding into the middle and HS.

As I understand you intend to move your younger child if the opportunity presents itself, I wonder if you think that will improve these other areas. I wonder if you will experience the SC as more accepting of your comments and concerns. I wonder if district-wide curriculum will be developed and implemented. I wonder if you will find teachers who have more time built into their schedules for collaboration or administrators who can better relate to revolving superintendents. I just don’t see this as isolated. I could be wrong. It will be interesting to hear your experience, if things play out that way.

Here’s another question: I know some communities have had school choice between towns. I heard Boxford residents can go to Masco or Georgetown HS. Students from Lawrence have had school choice to enroll in Amesbury. Are these programs still going? Are they part of NCLB? How are they funded?

Helen

Helen, you make some very intersting and valid points.

My responses below:
Helen: As I understand you intend to move your younger child if the opportunity presents itself, I wonder if you think that will improve these other areas.

Dawn: Nope. Won't improve other areas but will change the culture my child is submerged in. I tried to change the other areas to no avail. It time for someone else to step up to the plate.



Helen:I wonder if you will experience the SC as more accepting of your comments and concerns. I wonder if district-wide curriculum will be developed and implemented. I wonder if you will find teachers who have more time built into their schedules for collaboration or administrators who can better relate to revolving superintendents. I just don’t see this as isolated. I could be wrong. It will be interesting to hear your experience, if things play out that way.

Dawn: I think the curriculum and teachers at the other schools are already better established as the other schools have not had the transient princiapl problems that Thomson has experienced. I am happy that your children have done well. My dtr has had 2 brand new teachers for grades k and 1. Nice ladies but not veterans. She is also in a mix of very needy kids as is my son who has had 4 awful years at Thomson. Based on my experience, I am jumping off the Titanic.