Cambridge Civic Journal Forum

January 19, 2012

Cambridge Public Schools Academic Challenge Plan

Filed under: School Committee,schools — Tags: , — Robert Winters @ 2:00 pm

Jan 17, 2012 – The Cambridge Public Schools Academic Challenge Plan for the new upper schools is now available. You can view it at http://rwinters.com/school/AcademicChallenge2012Jan16.pdf. You may also wish to read the Appendices at http://rwinters.com/school/AcademicChallengeAppendices.pdf.

Personally, I’m primarily interested in the plans for mathematics in the upper schools and the high school, and it’s hard to discern from this plan what exactly will happen. There appears to be a rigidity of thought regarding sticking with "differentiated instruction" without any mention of what might happen if the difference in skills within a classroom turns out to be too great. There can be a breaking point where all the "professional development" in the world cannot yield appropriate instruction for all students. This report indicates only that "the Math Academic Honors option will offer students the choice of selecting honors on a unit-by-unit basis rather than enrolling students in a separate honors course." A quick read seems to suggest that the plan is to merely direct advanced mathematics learners to supplement their education with online options – something that advanced mathematics learners may well be doing regardless of the plans of the Cambridge Public Schools.

The plan will be presented at the January 17 School Committee meeting (starting 6:00pm).

Additional Public Comment will be received at the Tuesday, January 24 School Committee meeting (starting 6:00pm).

The plan will be voted on in early February.

I am very interested to hear what others may have to say about this plan. – Robert Winters

My Follow-Up Comments & Questions (based on the Jan 17 presentation):

1) I would like to hear more details about the "Subject Acceleration Protocol". It sounds almost like an IEP (individualized education program) for advanced learners. What are the possible choices that could be proposed for such students who are several years above grade level?

2) What will happen if the plans for systemwide "differentiated instruction in heterogeneous classrooms" fails to deliver on its promises and the result is primarily chaos and mediocrity? The plan leans heavily on teachers to carry out this plan – and the teachers were barely consulted in the development of the plan. It’s easy to claim that "professional development" can prepare all teachers to carry this out, but the reality may prove otherwise. Is there a backup plan?

3) The Scholars Challenge outlined in the proposal is terribly vague. Much of it sounds like things I thought any school system would already be doing routinely.

4) The Math Honors Option seems somewhat contrived – an acknowledgement that the Cambridge Public Schools must do something with accelerated students while remaining strapped to the mast of its ideology. One School Committee member noted that it’s a very real possibility that there will be two kinds of students – one group who chooses the honors option for every unit where this is permitted and another group who never choose the honors option. The system abhors sorting students by ability, but the students will likely do it on their own (and have no problem doing so).

5) Might there be a conflict between the Math Honors Option and the Subject Acceleration Protocol? I can easily imagine students first choosing the (embedded) honors option and then deciding to seek a more appropriate solution via the Subject Acceleration Protocol. Will acceleration be denied by school staff in order to make the embedded honors option work?

6) How exactly will the Math Honors Option be engineered? Will the Honors students gather in a separate room for these selected units? One School Committee member seemed horrified at the thought – even though this may be the only practical and sensible way to engineer this option. What will happen if there’s a great disparity in the number of students choosing the Honors option? Is there sufficient flexibility in the design to manage this?

7) What will be the protocol for dealing with noncooperative/disruptive students in heterogeneous classrooms? You can talk about beliefs and "habits of scholarship" and "creative environments conducive to learning", but you cannot wish away problematic behavior.

8) What exactly is meant by culturally competent teaching? How does this differ from what teachers do now?

9) Is there a transition plan for students who will be in the 7th or 8th Grade this coming fall? [The new upper schools will consist of Grades 6, 7, and 8.]

10) How does the new plan mesh with the high school curriculum and protocols?

11) Most people will agree that choice of electives and "leveling" of classes becomes appropriate at some point. What is this point? The underlying belief in this Academic Challenge Plan is that such choices are not appropriate at Grades 6, 7, and 8 (and earlier). Is Grade 9 and the beginning of high school the point where student choice becomes permissible?

November 2, 2011

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election – School Committee Candidates

Filed under: 2011 Election,elections,School Committee — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 10:49 am

Election Day is Tuesday, November 8, 2011.

2011 Cambridge Municipal Election – School Committee Candidates

Marc McGovern (15 Pleasant St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2003.

Nancy Tauber (137 Chestnut St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2007.

Fred Fantini (4 Canal Park, 02141) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 1981.

Mervan Osborne (149 Auburn St., 02139) is a 1st time candidate.

John Holland (26 Normandy Terr., 02138) is a 1st time candidate.

Joyce Gerber (10 Fairfield St., 02140) is a 1st time candidate.

Alice Turkel (12 Upton St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 1995.

Patty Nolan (184 Huron Ave., 02138) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2005.

Richard Harding (187 Windsor St., 02139) was first elected to the Cambridge School Committee in 2001.

Bill Forster (244 Lexington Ave., 02138) is a 1st time candidate.

Charles Stead (598 Putnam Ave., 02139) is a 4th time candidate.

Photos and profiles of all the Cambridge candidates may be found at the Cambridge Candidate Pages
http://vote.rwinters.com    or    http://vote.cambridgecivic.com

August 3, 2011

Attention Candidates!

Filed under: 2011 Election,City Council,School Committee — Tags: , , — Robert Winters @ 8:44 am

Attention Candidates! – Now that the roster of candidates for this November’s municipal election is all set (Candidate Pages), the next step is to gather photos and information from all the candidates. A more formal request will go out soon, but submissions are welcome now. This includes:

a) Photos for the gallery and your individual candidate page.

b) Contact information, websites, Twitter and Facebook pages, where to send donations, etc.

c) Background information so that voters may be introduced to you or get to know you better.

d) Suggestions for topics on which all candidates will be asked to submit statements.

Look over the existing pages for 2011 and previous years (see links at bottom of the Candidate Pages) and send whatever you wish to Robert@rwinters.com or by mail to 366 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02139. All of the information provided is very helpful to voters, journalists, and organizers of candidate forums and similar events. Don’t delay! – Robert Winters

Note: Any candidate who may be having second thoughts has until Wed, Aug 17, 5:00pm to submit a withdrawal of nomination to be removed from the ballot. Otherwise…. it’s Campaign Season!

All residents are welcome to submit suggestions for topics on which all candidates will be asked to submit statements.
You may submit them via e-mail or enter them here as comments.

March 15, 2011

Cambridge Public Schools – Decision Week

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 5:30 pm

Sat, Mar 12

9:00-11:30am   School Committee Public Comment on Innovation Agenda  (Sullivan Chamber)

Mon, Mar 14

5:30-8:00pm   School Committee Public Comment on Innovation Agenda  (Sullivan Chamber)

Tues, Mar 15

6:00pm   School Committee meeting  (Sullivan Chamber)

– VOTE on Superintendent’s Recommendations for "Innovation Agenda"

Mar 8, 2011 – ‘Upper school’ proposal goes on with minor changes (Marc Levy)

Here are the main changes:

1) The revised Agenda now proposes an upper school campus in the Cambridgeport/Riverside neighborhood rather than two campuses in East Cambridge.

2) The revised Innovation Agenda district configuration provides JK-­8 immersion opportunities for students in the Amigos two-­way immersion school and for students in the Ola program.

3) The King School JK-5 will remain at the Putnam Avenue building.

4) The Amigos School JK-8 will relocate to the Upton Street building.

5) King upper school students will attend the Putnam Avenue campus (rather than the Rindge Avenue campus).

6) Morse upper school students will attend the Putnam Avenue campus (rather than the Spring Street campus).

7) Kennedy-Longfellow upper school students will attend the Putnam Avenue campus (rather than the Spring Street campus).

8) The Ola Program JK-8 will remain at the Cambridge Street building.

Revised Upper School Campuses & Feeder Schools

Upper School Campus Location Elementary School Communities Assigned (Revised) Initial Proposal
Cambridge Street

Cambridgeport
Fletcher Maynard Academy
King Open

 Cambrideport School
Fletcher-Maynard Academy
King Open
Putnam Avenue
(previously at Spring Street)		 Kennedy-Longfellow
King
Morse		 Amigos School
Kennedy-Longfellow
Morse School
Rindge Avenue Baldwin
Peabody		 Baldwin School
King School
Peabody School
Vassal Lane Graham and Parks
Haggerty
Tobin		 Graham & Parks
Haggerty
Tobin

March 8 revisions (PDF)

November 9, 2009

Observations on the 2009 Cambridge Election – Part 1

Filed under: 2009 Election — Tags: , , , — Robert Winters @ 11:52 pm

Nov 9 – There may be a handful of additional ballots to be included this Friday after 5:00pm in the Final Official Count for the Cambridge Municipal Election, but this will almost certainly not affect the outcome of the election. While we all stand breathlessly waiting for the results to be finalized, perhaps this is a time to make a few observations on this year’s election:

1) We were blessed this year with some very good new candidates, most notably Tom Stohlman, Minka vanBeuzekom, Leland Cheung, and Neal Leavitt for City Council and Alan Steinert for School Committee, to name a few. Let’s hope they all assume greater roles in civic affairs in Cambridge and perhaps consider being candidates again in the future.

2) While many were quick to dismiss Marjorie Decker’s chances as a write-in candidate, nearly all the incumbents and several of the challengers knew better as indicated by their concerns expressed at several Election Commission meetings prior to the election. Indeed, an often expressed sentiment was that she might actually have an advantage by being distinguished by the notoriety of the write-in campaign and by the ability to appeal to voters to give their #1 vote this time due to this special situation. She also had a great campaign manager in Jeni Wheeler and plenty of cash.

3) Newly elected Leland Cheung was not, in fact, carried into office by waves of MIT and Harvard students. Though he did well among the relatively few students who voted, Leland’s votes were spread uniformly across the city.

4) Though some activists in East Cambridge did their best to portray Tim Toomey in the worst possible light, he still managed to get 52.5% of all #1 votes in Ward 1. East Cambridge challenger Charlie Marquardt, in contrast, received 3.6% of the #1 votes in Ward 1.

5) Though it took longer than usual to review all the additional auxiliary ballots caused by the write-in campaign, the general consensus is that the process was thorough and accurate and relatively quick (once they got the hang of it).

6) The School Committee election was unusual in that 8 of the 9 candidates did quite well in #1 vote totals with 7 of them within a few hundred votes of each other. None of them reached the election quota in the 1st Count. In the deciding 5th Count, only 19 votes separated Patty Nolan and Joe Grassi. However, unlike the 2001 election when there was a near 3-way tie for the last 2 seats and a lengthy recount, the ballot scanners did not accept ballots with overvotes (or write-ins or blanks) and consequently almost all potentially challengeable ballots have already been reviewed during the two days after Election Day. It is therefore extremely unlikely that a recount would change the results, especially since there were no over-quota candidates and therefore no variability caused by which surplus ballots would be distributed.

Stay tuned. Once the Final Official results are in, much more analysis will follow.

Nov 5 – Unofficial Final Election Results (Thursday): Elected to the City Council – Henrietta Davis, Denise Simmons, Tim Toomey, Craig Kelley, David Maher, Ken Reeves, Sam Seidel, Marjorie Decker, and Leland Cheung (in order of election).

Elected to the School Committee – Richard Harding, Nancy Tauber, Marc McGovern, Fred Fantini, Alice Turkel, and Patty Nolan (in order of election).

Excel spreadsheets of Unofficial Final Election Counts (including auxiliary ballots)

Printable PDF of Unofficial Final Election Counts

July 18, 2009

Superintendent’s Contract between Cambridge School Committee and Jeffrey M. Young

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:22 pm

You will find the contract between the Cambridge School Committee and School Superintendent Jeffrey M. Young here:
http://www.rwinters.com/school/JeffYoungContract2009-12.htm

The School Committee has been cancelled

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 12:06 pm

April 14: NOTICE – The Cambridge School Committee has been CANCELLED

OK, perhaps not. However, right now I’m wondering whether or not it should be. I have occasionally attended School Committee meetings over the years and have been known to opine that their primary focus is more about creating and maintaining School Department jobs than educating young people. So, when it was announced that they were having a Roundtable meeting on trends in mathematics education, I was thrilled. Just once, perhaps, the Cambridge School Committee would have a meeting that focused on educational specifics.

Alas, no. With virtually no notice, the meeting was cancelled – not postponed, just cancelled. Just a little notice buried deep in the School Department website. Granted, this meeting was not going to draw the crowds of the previous week when the race of the School Superintendent candidates was used to get people all riled up. This was just about mathematics – not race or class or gender or compact fluorescent light bulbs or Salvadoran elections – just something that young people might actually need to know something about if they ever want to get a job in Cambridge some day (other than a job in politics or the School Department).

I showed up for the meeting and was informed by one of the more helpful members of the School Committee that the meeting had been cancelled “because we have to pass a budget.” It’s not that I’m completely uninformed about what goes on around town – I even try in my own way to let people know what’s going on. I don’t mind wasting some time, but I really don’t like it when others waste my time. Inserting a cancellation notice in an obscure location just doesn’t cut it.

So, to the Cambridge School Committee, you can now go back to talking about all of your nonacademic issues. Let me know when I should next walk to CRLS for something other than a letdown. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll grace us again with a meeting that focuses on educational specifics. I won’t hold my breath. – Robert Winters

Jeffrey Young selected as next Superintendent of Schools

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — Robert Winters @ 11:58 am

April 7 – The Cambridge School Committee tonight voted 5-2 to select Dr. Jeffrey Young as its next Superintendent of Schools. The next step is to negotiate a contract. Voting for Jeffrey Young were Joe Grassi, Marc McGovern, Patty Nolan, Luc Schuster, and Nancy Tauber. Voting for Carolyn Turk were Fred Fantini and Denise Simmons.

This was one of the most intense meetings I’ve witnessed in a long time. Most of the people in the audience were very partisan supporters of either Jeffrey Young or Carolyn Turk, and there is no question that this partisanship was highly correlated with race. Indeed, once the vote was taken many supporters of Carolyn Turk marched out of the room shouting “status quo” even though the School Committee had, in fact, just voted to make a change from Interim Superintendent Turk to Superintendent Young.

Without a doubt the most devastated of all the School Committee members was Mayor Simmons. To this observer, it seemed she was doing everything she could just to keep herself together. Even though all members had pledged to work together regardless who was chosen, when Fred Fantini (who had also voted for Turk) made such a motion, Mayor Simmons voted “present”.

From my vantage point (and the luxury of not having to take sides on this matter) I will state that this was a very adult decision from this School Committee. This is not a comment on who they chose, but rather about the courage they showed in making their decisions based on what they really believed, regardless of political consequences. There will be some political and personal fallout as a result of this vote, but I can honestly say that my respect for all seven of them went up a notch or two based on their courage and convictions – regardless of who received their vote. – Robert Winters

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress