Whether or not to ban cell phones was a significant discussion at the July Regular School Board meeting.
It very much felt like the decision had already been made prior to the Board meeting. Trustees Carrington and Stene seemed to be wanting to discuss the issue more in-depth and maybe explore alternatives, or answer some of the objections; however, the other Trustees seemed adamant that a full ban on cell phones was the only way to move forward.
This is why I have concerns with the committee meetings. Chair Blain attends almost every committee meeting, as does Superintendent Begger. They decide on the direction of the District, go to committee and convince a small group of people there, who then go on to convince the larger Board. Intelligent, diverse discussion does not seem to be encouraged. More disturbingly, it did not feel like there was a consensus at the end of the discussion, from a bystander's viewpoint.
Trustee Carrington brought up some very valid concerns from a law enforcement perspective. He advised that a person can text 911 in an emergency and the dispatcher can determine their location and text them back. For the most part, in a hostage situation, it's going to be someone familiar to the school or staff member. If the teacher is the only one with the phone, it will get taken. Panic buttons won't work because those are in the administrators' offices. No one will know what is going on in that room. If someone has a cell phone, they can text and provide valuable info that could save lives. He feels that cell phones should be allowed, but not be used, unless in an emergency situation.
Middle school teacher Tammie Grewell had quite a bit to say about her fellow teachers not following the rules in regards to cell phones. She appeared disgruntled that the rules were not enforced last year. The previous year high school students could have them between classes and at lunch, but not during class. She does not believe the rules not being followed is the fault of the administration. She believes this is the fault of unethical teachers.
Another interesting announcement to come out of the July Board meeting is that Standards Based Grading is going away for 3rd through 5th grade. This is long overdue and never should have been implemented. This letter was written to the Joliet School Board by myself and another concerned parent concerning Standards Based Grading when the school first attempted to implement at the middle school level 3 years ago.
March 8, 2021
To Joliet School Board:
Standards-based assessments, when implemented correctly, have been proven to increase student learning, motivation, and self-efficacy. Unfortunately, the hasty, unfocused implementation of standards-based reporting in the Joliet middle school has created an undue burden on teachers, as well as confused and frustrated students and parents. This is a problem that needs to be addressed immediately and can no longer be pushed aside by red herrings and blind optimism.
According to the Joliet Schools Standards Based Reporting Handbook-2020.2021, the goals of the standards aligned report card are to 1) clarify and reinforce consistent, high expectations for all students and schools, 2) help teachers, students and families focus on the standards throughout the school year, 3) provide specific accurate and consistent feedback on progress regarding standards so students, families and teachers can work together to set meaningful goals for improvement. Ignoring the fact that none of these goals are neither specific nor measurable, not even a semblance of them has been achieved.
Since the implementation of the program, many middle school students have lost the motivation to excel. Most say that there is no incentive to work hard because everyone just gets the same grade. If you have not yet done so, we highly encourage Board Members to reach out to students and ask them to explain their understanding of the new reporting system. Students will provide a tremendous amount of value to this conversation, if given the space.
Also, there is a real problem in the lack of specificity, standardization and objectivity in the proficiency scales and their implementation by the individual teachers. It is our experience that the proficiency levels lack objective measures, which lead to completely subjective assessments. In speaking with Joliet teachers, we could not get a clear definition of what each thinks standards-based grading is, let alone a consistent explanation of the method and criteria for assessing procedures. One teacher stated that the difference between a student receiving a 2 and 3 was that a student who receives a 3 has to get “most” of the priority standards correct. The difference between receiving a 3 and 4 is the child thinking outside the box. Under this scenario, a child getting “most” of the standards correct, 6 out of 10 for example, gets the same grade as a child who gets all correct but fails to “think outside the box”. The definition of which is entirely subjective, based on the teacher’s opinion. Another teacher stated that the only way for a student to receive a 4 was if the student demonstrated self-initiated understanding of the standard being taught. If the teacher even provided a suggestion that served as an impetus for the student’s extra work, he or she would not be eligible to receive a 4. Here again, we encourage the Board to reach out to teachers for this discussion as well.
As of the February Board meeting, nearly a month into the quarter, there were no 3rd quarter Math or English standards listed for 6th or 7th grade on the school website. After checking the website yesterday, the 3rd quarter standards have since been updated. This indicates that teachers may be overburdened with administrative duties. It also presents a concern that students do not have a roadmap to successfully take ownership of their education, thereby violating the basic tenets of standards-based reporting.
Further, assessing students on behavior has been introduced at Joliet Schools alongside standards-based reporting. These “grades” are given based on the teacher’s subjective opinion of a student’s behavior. It is not an individual teacher’s place to formally judge a student based on what they perceive as good or bad behavior, outside of the general rules set in the handbook. In our opinion, this biased system plays favorites, hurts students, and provides a significant opportunity for a discrimination lawsuit.
Additionally, a valid concern of many parents is that middle school is meant to be preparatory for high school. Students need to experience letter grades at a point where the stakes are not as high, before they enter a time where grades really do matter for transcripts, scholarships and college admission applications. We would like to know if there is a plan in place for how students will be effectively transitioned to achieve success in a traditional grading system at the high school level.
In closing, there have been rumors of continuing the full transition to standards-based reporting as the current 7th grade class moves into high school, yet Superintendent Evertz has stated that the district would not pursue standards-based reporting at the high school level without state legislative action. At a minimum, parents and students would be put at ease by a public commitment from Superintendent Evertz that there is not currently a plan to pursue standards-based reporting at the high school level.
Thank you for taking the time to take our concerns into consideration.
The end result was that it was not implemented in the middle school. It's a shame there was so much time and resources wasted on implementing a flawed system. It does show that then Elementary Principal and now Superintendent Begger is not open to ideas that contradict the direction he has planned. Hopefully this is not a foreshadowing of things to come for the District.
Below are my notes from July Coffee with Clark and the July Regular School Board meeting. As always my own comments are italicized and highlighted.
Comments