| Demographics Committe Reference #1; Was this followed? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 13 2006, 03:49 PM (580 Views) | |
| Administrator | Mar 13 2006, 03:49 PM Post #1 |
|
Administrator
|
This is the first reference on the Demographics Commitee Reasearch page. Read this. I really believe if this had been done, we would not be here. For that matter, why not do this now and end all of this. Community Relations: Working With the Public on Big Decisions, Leighninger, 2003 Many school leaders realize that the "decide-and-defend" approach to school district policymaking is a thing of the past. They know that making major decisions without involving parents and other community members can create controversy and threaten funding support. They are using more participatory strategies to avoid open conflicts, obtain useful input on major decisions and build support for implementing those decisions. To accomplish this effectively, some superintendents are borrowing principles and strategies from successful public engagement efforts in other fields, such as race relations and crime prevention. One of the most important tactics they have learned is using small groups instead of large public hearings to help people share their experiences, analyze the policy options and decide how the schools, the parents and other community organizations can all play a role in improving education for young people. Broad Representation The administrators who have pioneered this new approach have learned several lessons. * Encourage truly broad-based, large-scale participation. You don't want your dialogue with the community to be dominated by a small number of opinionated people. Successful citizen involvement efforts make an impact by involving large numbers,--up to 100 in a neighborhood, up to 1,000 in a city. To encourage participation from people who reflect the makeup of the community, start by building a coalition of organizations that represent many different parts. You need the leaders of those organizations to recruit people from their networks to participate. It is particularly beneficial to enlist grassroots organizations such as neighborhood associations, businesses, religious organizations and civic clubs. In rural Harford County, Md., school leaders worked with community organizations to recruit 150 citizens. The project focused on the achievement gap between students of color and white students. The school district subsequently won a $1.1 million federal grant to implement the recommendations, including additional staffing at four schools to help evaluate and modify instruction, train teachers and advocate for low-achieving students. * Provide structure for the small-group discussions. Limiting the groups to 8-12 people allows everyone to contribute. To ensure the discussion feels safe and builds trust, give each group an impartial and well-trained facilitator and ask the participants to set some ground rules. Make it clear that the groups will meet several times--with a first session that focuses on their experiences and concerns, a subsequent session on the critical decision facing the district and a final session that helps the group decide how each one of them can contribute to school success. Provide the small groups with basic information about the schools and the situation, plus a fair and candid restatement of the main arguments about what should be done. These materials should establish a framework for the sessions. The school district in Decatur, Ga., faced a potentially explosive decision about how to redraw the boundary lines for the community's elementary schools. More than 300 people participated in small groups addressing the question. The groups used a guide that laid out the main redistricting options. The guide had been written by a committee of parents and other citizens, led by a local nonprofit called Common Focus. Because the project allowed people to examine the options in an even-handed, analytical way, the school board was able to adopt a redistricting plan with less acrimony than school leaders had expected. An Action Stage * Ask participants to take action, not just make recommendations. From the outset, school leaders should clarify they are not simply asking for recommendations. Citizens should be encouraged to think about what they can do on a number of levels: as individuals, as members of new or existing organizations and as a community. A large-group meeting at the conclusion of the small-group discussions can move the ideas to an action stage. Clearly some policy changes can only be enacted by school leaders, but individual citizens can do a host of things on almost any issue. Projects can be undertaken by a combination of citizens, school district employees and other community organizations. For example, at the end of a project involving 700 participants in Inglewood, Calif., gains were noticeable in PTA meeting participation, donations to schools and volunteer participation at schools. Many parents started volunteering their time for cleaning school facilities and taking care of school gardens. Across the district, after-school programs and community activities, such as English as a second language and computer classes for parents, also were begun. School districts have used this approach to generate a range of outcomes, including construction of new schools in Florida and Illinois, creation of a regional school district in New Hampshire, averting a teachers' strike in Arkansas, devising initiatives for bridging the achievement gap in Calvert and Montgomery counties, Md., passing school bond issues in Kuna, Idaho, and South Kitsap, Wash., and launching tutoring programs and other grassroots projects. In an increasingly busy and sophisticated world, where citizens have more to contribute but less time to spend, school leaders are rethinking the ways they work with the public. To involve parents and other citizens on an ongoing basis, they are incorporating public engagement principles into school and district governance, using them to analyze school reform ideas and employing them at the teacher-parent-classroom level. They are bringing policy decisions into the community, using small groups to create safe, informed discussions and asking citizens to take an active role in problem solving. Matt Leighninger is senior associate of the Study Circles Resource Center, 2 Beulah Ave., Hamilton, ON, Canada L8P 4G9. E-mail: mattl@ studycircles.org COPYRIGHT 2003 American Association of School Administrators COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...60/ai_110458843 http://www.livonia.k12.mi.us/demographic/faq.html |
 |
|
| Administrator | Mar 13 2006, 04:09 PM Post #2 |
|
Administrator
|
I honestly don't know what the point was to list this as a reference by the Demographics Committee. |
|
|
|
| NFarquharson | Mar 13 2006, 04:24 PM Post #3 |
Principal
|
I agree Jimid and I was also thinking about taking another look at this very article. This is exactly what went wrong in this whole thing. Dr. Liepa may have intended to get broad representation, but by hand picking people and keeping their work very quiet and out of the spotlight except by vague reference, he missed a golden opportunity. I just wish that he and the members of the BOE could admit that mistakes were made in the way this all happened. I have even heard many who support the LI say this. If Dr. Liepa and the BOE could OPENLY admit they made mistakes and genuinely seek to come to fix it by sitting down and talking to parents on both sides of the issue (the kitchen table talk,) I am certain we can resolve this. It takes real guts sometimes to admit you made a mistake. I have made some and am willing to admit to them. Others should do the same. This community is ready to accept some school closings and we are ready to accept change. We are ultimately just divided on the issue of grade configuration. Everything else flows from there. If it is true as some keep saying that there is no one right grade configuration, than why not sit down and hash that out with a group that really represents the community. Yes it may delay things another year, but we have heard that the savings will be minimal the first year anyhow. We may come up with a plan that saves even more. |
|
|
|
| f11 | Mar 13 2006, 04:28 PM Post #4 |
LPS, transportation for all
|
Well, if i'm not mistaken, the "references" were made public weeks AFTER the LI was first presented to the masses. The public disappoinment is probably what prompted them to place it first on the list when they finally did release a list. It at least makes it look as if they tried, even though we know they didnt. |
|
|
|
| c3hull | Mar 14 2006, 02:02 AM Post #5 |
Principal
|
The so called references were a joke! I can't believe the Demolition Committee could actually call 6 newspaper editorials "References"! I read ALL of them, nothing states anything abot 5-6 schools. I wonder why. Does anyone have any ideas? Maybe because 5-6 schools are extremely rare? Please share your ideas. |
|
|
|
| Livonia Voter | Mar 14 2006, 07:41 PM Post #6 |
Principal
|
Remember that very few people will actually go out and READ the refernces. So, printing a big long list makes it look like you really did your research. In other words, they think we're stupid. |
|
|
|
| jodygirlh | Mar 14 2006, 10:35 PM Post #7 |
|
Principal
|
|
|
|
|
| 49chevy | Mar 15 2006, 09:04 AM Post #8 |
Answers questioned
|
|
|
|
|
| Elisa | Mar 15 2006, 09:59 AM Post #9 |
Principal
|
Personally, I felt that my intelligence was insulted by this list of references. Even a quick glance at the sources cited reveals that many of them are niether credible nor acceptable to be listed as research. Furthermore, I believe that they (Alles and Oquist) understood the list was lacking validity. If they didn't, then we have a competency issue. As an educated person I would be remiss to put my name on such a list and refer to it as the foundation for such sweeping change across the district. Most of the list is actually indefensible. Some of what they cited supported larger grade spans and smaller schools. But Ms. Alles improperly characterized them and implied that they weren't applicable in our population. She was wrong and the author of that research affirmed that she was wrong. In any event, many parents are left to feel as though our valid concerns with their "research" were dismissed. The whole thing leaves me feeling that my intelligence and my role as a stakeholder in this process was devalued and undermined. |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 15 2006, 11:22 AM Post #10 |
|
Administrator
|
I decided to write researcher Craig Howley again, and this is the correspondense.... At 10:24 PM 3/12/2006 -0500, you wrote: Hi Mr. Howley. I am a parent in the Livonia, Michigan school district. We have been having quite a time in our district dealing with our school board and the changes that they are implamenting. We understand that financing is difficult these days, and schools need to close. We the parents, however, are having a tough time with the structure of the proposed changes. We are going from a k-6, 7-8,9-12 to a k-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 configuration. I have a website ( Livonianeighbors.com). I am just a concerned parent Mr. Howley, I just simply can't find any research whatsoever to support the idea of this many transitions in this configuration. I don't even know what I am asking from you. If you could respond in any way. I know it is much to ask, but I am dumbfounded after reading the research as to how they could come up with this configuration. 3.14.6 j.-- There is very little research to support any particular gradespan configuration. And there's not enough research on gradespan configuration overall. I've done a little work on this issue, like Alspaugh, and a few others. Although research on particular configuration is too skimpy to summarize, the little research that exists seems to suggest--to an objective observer, mind you--two things (1) wider gradespans are better for achievement than narrow ones and (2) each transition from one building to another comes at an achievement cost. Any possible differential effects by social class are unknown. Some researchers suggest that the achievement cost is temporary, recoverable in a year or so on average--but the evidence is weak. If the 'recovery' hypothesis is accurate, and if there were many transitions, recovery would hypothetically be less likely. A system that implements a K-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-12 system is arguably asking for trouble based on what's known. Educators who argue that each age level has unique developmental needs that warrant this sort of segregation are whistling in the wind--misapplying the insights of developmental psychology in my view (that's an opinion, not research). Arguably, kids should be socialized to interact within a fairly wide range of ages. A related problem with schools with narrow gradespans is their size--not their total enrollment, but the number of kids per grade, which is the best metric of size (otherwise a K-2 school with 600 kids can be wrongly called 'small'). In fact, a K-8 school of equivalent size would be enrolling 9 * 300 or 2,700 kids--which would strike many educators as malpractice, and would offend many parents outright. I don't know what the situation might be in your district, but narrowing the gradespan goes hand-in-hand with making schools larger--and it doesn't seem that communities need any more of that, nor do kids. The literature on school size is more robust (by a comfortable margin) than that on gradespan configuration. Again, most of the gradespan studies are not limited to one locale or another, but are based on statewide data sets that include schools in all locales. And much, much more remains to be studied, as I've indicated. Craig Howley |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 15 2006, 11:49 AM Post #11 |
|
Administrator
|
And this from a previous poster... I contacted John Alspaugh, his name is most often cited and associated with the research on grade span configuration. Mrs. Alles mentioned his name (as well as others) at the board meeting on the 28th when she dismissed the research as either "rural or urban" and therefore not applicable to LPS. I wrote to Professor Alspaugh with a general request for help in clarifying the research. I explained the situation with LPS. There was a lot of info to cover, so I probably could have narrowed it down better. Hence his first comment... "I don't know how to respond to your request. Keep in mind that most school districts have their grade level configuration because of the buildings that the districts have accumulated over a long span of years. The decisions concerning grade configurations are usually based upon money not on what is in the best interest of the students. From the data that I have analyzed I do not think that it is a rural-urban issue. Keep in mind that there is the science of education and the politics of education. Those of us who do research in education have come to accept the idea that many educational decisions are based on politics not research." John Alspaugh Professor Emeritus |
|
|
|
| Administrator | Mar 15 2006, 11:51 AM Post #12 |
|
Administrator
|
Also this post.... A response from Craig Howley. He, along with Alspaugh, is one of the leading names in the area of grade span configuration. He was cited by the Committee and Mrs. Alles also used his name when she talked about the body of work dealing with grade span confiuration. When he discussess prominent professional groups, he is speaking to the way in which administraors use the idea of "meeting the developmental needs of a particular narrow age grouping" to segregate them into their own schools. We heard some of this from our own committee, in terms of the "unique needs" of 6th graders. Again, he backs up Professor Alspaugh with discrediting Mrs. Alles notion that the studies on narrow grade span effects are limited to either urban or rural populations and therefore not apllicable to LPS (a suburban pop.). "I get this alot. It's a disturbing story. You've read, you've argued, you've been dismissed (that's what you claim, and I hear this claim too often to be dismissive myself). Parents--I'm one and am a grandparent twice over--have legitimate concerns, which need to be heeded, simply because they are parents. You know that some of us think the tendency to fracture kids into grade-level groupings is ill advised. Here's what I can honestly say about the research literature that concerns you: The school- and district-size studies have almost always dealt with state-level data, so rural, urban, and suburban schools have been included; dismissing them as rural and urban is not proper. The literature on gradespan effects, as noted in the literature itself, is rather skimpy. If reconfiguring schools, however, it's about all there is in the way of defensible empirical study. Prominent professional groups make many vague claims about the developmental needs of children of all ages related to grade configurations, but actual empirical study linking those claims to student achievement doesn't exist. It's essential professional opinion, widespread, but not "scientifically" affirmed. The K-6 study (CT), I think--you can verify this impression--used a large state-wide sample and not just a rural sample." --c. (Craig Howley) Please feel free to contact Craig Howley. He will be more than willing to respond. http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~howleyc/howleyc.htm |
|
|
|
| « Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Archive · Next Topic » |
11:44 AM Jul 13