Earlier today, we posted an overview of the concerns compiled by Amelia Mills regarding CASD's A-TSI plan, including the comparison with a plan from another district that exemplified the lack of specificity in our plan. In this follow up, we wanted to share the experiences of multiple parents who attended the single one-hour community meeting Rita Perez held for the purpose of obtaining community input. It is our contention, based on the lack of notice given for this meeting, the lack of outreach for participation in this meeting, and the fact that this was the only meeting held with community members for the A-Tsi plan, that the administration had no true desire to include the community's feedback. This was just one more example of providing an illusion of community engagement as a way to check the box on this topic.
Kim Winkler, one of the parents who attended the meeting after being invited just hours ahead of time, wrote down her notes about the meeting on the same night:
Teachers and administrators discussed how we can meet our projected goals next year. We were broken off into groups (elementary, middle, high school) and I had Kim Donahue, Assistant to the Superintendent, as our group's “leader.” Only Tommy [Kim's husband], myself, and two other parents were there with Heather Messenger and Allison Shimon, both assistant principals for district middle schools.
The other two parents spoke about the expectation levels being completely different for each of their children and as the years have passed that expectations and the push for them to excel has diminished. Donahue kept saying it’s the teachers who need to deliver each lesson to engage all students and need to accommodate lesson plans to meet all different levels of learners in their class.
Angrily, when I had the opportunity, I questioned how teachers could be expected to do that. When I was teaching in my classroom, which was labeled as an autistic classroom, I had students who were in wheelchairs with feeding tubes, unable to see or hear, and other students high on the spectrum. It is impossible for a single teacher to have one lesson to reach all students' needs. Not to mention the fact that yes, a lesson plan is good in theory, but there are so many outside factors that play a role in that lesson not being able to be delivered. Behaviors, students on a 2nd grade reading level in 7th grade, and kids who are excelling and need to be challenged with extra educational material. Additionally, students with IEP’s don’t have the support they need either.
Immediately, Kim Donahue became defensive and said students who need extra help in math or English are pulled to have instructional time with special education teachers, and I have inclusion all wrong. She said ALL IEPs are being followed and data supports homogeneous classrooms. She conceded that she wasn't familiar with my situation, but she attested that my concerns were not district-wide and only seemed relevant to my situation. She suggested that I don’t understand what is truly happening. One of the other parents spoke up and agreed with me.
Before discussion could continue, Rita rang a timer and started to speak. “Thank you all for attending; we greatly appreciate everyone’s input and time. If we could have one person speak up per table to communicate what was spoken about."
Alison Shimon spoke for our middle school table and said we only had time to discuss the objective goals for math and ELA and there were many concerns. Some parents shared concern with expectation levels decreasing, and one parent, who is an alumni of South herself, has several questions that are very relevant and not being answered. She stated that parents need to be informed about what is going on and that is not happening. She admitted that the goals in the plan are possibly too difficult to achieve. She also shared that she hoped that more detailed time and input would take place prior to submission.
Rita thanked us for our time, and said she presumed that we wanted to get out and continue enjoying the beautiful weather for the night. She requested all documents be returned and it was frowned on that I wrote notes on my handout.
My conclusion is that it was very unproductive. Kim Donahue gave the impression she was not interested in hearing anything we said. She simply wanted to defend the district's actions.
Jane Ventrella also shared her thoughts with us regarding her experience:
When I think of my recent experiences with the school district at the administration level, the word that comes to mind is “discord”. What I mean is this: what is stated as truth in various methods of district communication is at odds with the reality of what I experience as a parent.
As an example, I recently attended a meeting with administrators and other parents, the topic being the school improvement plan. There was a set agenda of goals and objectives. When I review the outcome of that meeting (posted on the CASD district website), I see none of the specific input that was shared during that meeting. Why have the meeting if you aren’t really going to incorporate the feedback that was shared? That’s not community engagement.
And that’s really at the heart of it all: we are given lip service. We read and hear many communications indicating “don’t worry, we have a plan, all is well”. But the reality is very different. Whether it is the timing of the communication or the content, constantly being told “you are wrong, all is well” when there are hard facts to support our concerns, nothing is done to alleviate those concerns. In fact, it validates the suspicion that our children are not in good hands and that leadership needs to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment