PWC School Board Report – Highlights from the Meeting on March 5, 2008

Several events occurred at this meeting (See here for the video.).

• The folks from Nokesville continued their campaign against a new, larger elementary.
• Superintendent Walts gave a presentation on Math Investigation.
• The School Board approved a resolution defending their position on the county’s budget.

Citizen Comments

The fine citizens of Nokesville continued their well organized campaign to convince the School Board to renovate Nokesville Elementary School instead (NES) of building a new school. About eight people spoke against a new school. This time most of the speakers focused on whether a new school has been financially justified.

The citizens from Nokesville do not believe the PWC school division has made the case for a new school. They claimed:

• The design firm that evaluated the state of the current NES facility could bid on the construction of a new school. This creates a conflict of interest
• That none of the information provided in response to their Freedom of Interest Act (FOIA) request justified the construction of a new building. No cold, hard numbers.
• That the method used to assess the need for a new NES facility did not meet either the school division’s standards or accord with best practices.
• That they had submitted a FOIA request for transportation studies with respect to the construction of a new NES facility. Since half the new students would have to be bussed from outside the Nokesville area, they apparently expect the transportation costs to be high. However, the school administration wants $19,000 before it will turn anything over (Author’s comment: I guess that would pay the study.)
• Studies show that smaller schools educate their students better and result in less crime (Author’s note: The speaker cited a particular study, but I am not certain which one. Anyway, here is a list.)
• That even a brand new school spent only eight percent less per year on maintenance than is being spent on the NES facility.
• That the renovation of Sidwell Friends Middle School (1100 students) indicates that county taxpayers may getting their moneys worth with a new school (see here).
• The desire for a new facility indicates too much money is being spent on wants instead of needs.

One commenter protested the elimination of the Summer School Enrichment Program for Special Education student (She has a son with autism). The elimination of the program was not announced, and she found out only by accident. (During Board time, Johns said he would look into this.)

Four speakers spoke against the Math Investigation (MI) program. Their complaints included:

• The absence of challenging homework. One parent said his second grader came home with a 30 second project to count stickers. She is not learning appropriate algorithms such as addition and subtraction. He said the school teachers need to stop teaching at the level of the least capable students.
• A recital of some of the comments from the petition against MI (see here).
• The belief that MI should supplement traditional math not replace it. MI does not teach standard algorithms, and MI is not approved to teach 5th grade Standards of Learning (SOLs).
• Debates over the statistics that “justify” the program. This included a statement to the effect that when Superintendent Walts implemented MI in his former New York school district math scores went down relative to nearby school districts.

In the interest of providing some balance, here is a website dedicated to the Prince William School Division’s math program (here).

Superintendent Walts on Math Investigation (MI) (See the video here)

The superintendent provided a clarification on the MI program. If you are interested in what Walts had to say, I suggest watching the video. It is short (Author’s note: Since the video of the entire school board meeting is rather long, the school division has provided an outtake of Walt’s presentation).

Here are the highlights of Walts’ presentation.

• Walts spent the last couple of weeks reviewing the curriculum, visiting schools, and sitting in on teacher training.
• He said MI is one of the tools, not the primary teaching method.
• He is sharing his expectations with the teachers (Author’s note: Apparently, there is some concern that teachers are confused about what they are allowed to do.)
• As part of the curriculum, teachers use pacing guides. These guides help teachers determine the topics where they need to spend the most time.
• Teachers are required to follow the curriculum, but they can use additional materials and appropriate alternative strategies.
• Children should learn multiple strategies and demonstrate understanding. Just being able to get the right answer is not sufficient. Higher level grades also require both the capability to get the right answer and to be able to explain why the answer is correct.
• Children should acquire number sense prior to learning algorithms. This aids understanding.
• Parent and students should have access to study materials.
• Grade level focus groups will be formed to improve the program this Spring.

ESOL Curriculum Discussion

The school administration provided a presentation on the English as a Second Language. Coincidentally, ESOL student enrollment seems to be slipping (see here, here and here).

Here is a link to the briefing (If you don’t like the security message go here and look for the topic under the Electronic Agenda (March 5th). You will still get the message, but surely you can trust the school’s website. ).

The presentation provided an overview of the professional training program (administrators, new ESOL teachers, and general education teachers), the curriculum and the responsibilities of four ESOL specialists assigned to the central office. Not much mention was made of cost. However, the School Board did make certain everyone knew the four specialists are paid for by a Federal grant. Covington emphasized that we must make certain the children learn English, that we really have no choice in the matter.

Employment Policies

The board received its first hearing on policy updates related to employment practices. This apparently is a required five year update. The updates include updates to the general policy and policies related to discrimination, sexual harassment (including the harassment of employees by students), grievance procedures and recruitment. The purpose of the update is to keep the policies in line with Federal and State laws. To review the changes, click here for the Electronic Agenda (March 5th)) and look for the related topics.

Board Time

Board time got interesting for two reasons. School Board members are feeling some heat from the parents upset about the MI program. Lattin said the information of the petition is not correct. He said if it was, he would sign it. Otaigbe wanted the School Board to schedule a work session on the MI program, and that is in the works.

In addition, the School Board voted to support an email addressed to the Board of County Supervisors (BOCS). Lattin drafted the email, and the School Board approved it after softening the tone (see here). What may not apparent in the email is that the School Board and the BOCS are deadlocked over the budget. Lattin, a member of the School Board’s budget subcommittee said that there is no point in meeting further with their BOCS counterparts. He did not elaborate, but he made it clear he did not think the members of the BOCS subcommittee are listening.

Johns reference an article in the Potomac News (here). The article makes available salary information on school employees. He made it clear that he thought this an invasion of privacy and that the school division did not willing release this information. The law required the school division to release the information, the Potomac News seized the opportunity. Please note that the fact the school division opposed the release of this information is not made clear in the Potomac News article.