Question: Can the district consider utilizing private talent and private funding to provide for special programs that are not in the budget?
Answer: Garden City, like many school districts, is always seeking to obtain funding from ‘non-traditional’ sources as a way of providing supplementing existing services to our students. A number of private foundations and other organizations, including corporate entities, may, from time to time, make funding available to operate a variety of programs that benefit school children. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these programs often set criteria which center around student and district financial need, as judged by income, number of students receiving free lunch, or similar measures. As such, Garden City finds itself not eligible for participation in such programs since our demographics may not match that of program sponsors. The district is must also take great pains to ensure that any support offered to students, staff or programs from corporate sources do not convey the appearance that the district is endorsing certain products or organizations.
The Garden City Public Schools welcomes for consideration any ideas for outside funding that are brought to us. In addition, we are happy to consider any services that individuals or groups may wish to donate to the district, where these services would have a positive impact on our students.
Question: Besides improvement/expansion of co-teaching models, is there an analysis going on to assist learning disabled children to take advantage of honors/AP type classes?
-longer time period
-analysis of strengths
-improvement of “differentiated learning"
Answer: Over the past few years, the school district has put into place practices that encourage student access to challenging courses at the high school level. As a result, we have seen increases in enrollment in many of our honors and Advanced Placement classes. Registration in honors or Advanced Placement classes is not reserved for non-special education students, indeed, a good number of classified students have taken advantage of the opportunities offered at the high school to take courses beyond those required for the Regents Diploma. In any classroom, teachers are expected to recognize differences in learning styles among their students and to use varied materials and instructional formats with their classes. At the same time, all students are encouraged to seek extra help when difficulties arise. Test accommodations mandated by the Committee on Special Education (CSE), including extra time on tests, are put in place by our Special Education Department—these arrangements are identified in clear terms on IEPs and reviewed at the start of every school year.
We have also continued with staff development designed to help teachers identify strategies that help ensure that learners develop real understanding of key ideas in each discipline; such approaches facilitate success in courses with extensive and sophisticated content by helping students distinguish between the concepts and skills essential to achievement and those with which one can just have familiarity. You may see the results of this initiative when teachers talk about the “big ideas” of a course or the “backwards design” process, a teaching technique that identifies the essential products students must be able to produce to demonstrate mastery of course content before they begin planning individual lessons.
Teachers and supervisors are also getting more and more involved with data analysis. In addition to keeping track of how many students with varied learning profiles are taking advanced courses, review of assessment data enables us to pinpoint areas of strength and weakness in student performance so teachers can adjust the emphasis given to various topics and give more time and attention to parts of the curriculum that have proved to be more difficult to master.
As a final note, the school district is continuing its investigation of the International Baccalaureate (IB) Program. Our discussions with several IB schools revealed that they encourage broad access to IB courses and that students with disabilities can succeed in these classes. IB, therefore, may prove to be another way of expanding the participation of classified students in rigorous programs.
Question: In the High School Science program, the current progression is Earth Science/Bio/Chem/Physics. If a junior wants to take an advanced science course in something other than Physics, they must take it concurrently with Physics. Why is this the case? It is not a NYS mandated progression, only a GC district one. Why would we discourage a child who wants to take Advanced Chem or Bio instead of Physics when the prior two do not depend on the third for academic success?
Physics is the foundation for all of the natural sciences because it addresses the fundamental mechanics of how the world works. In high school physics, students are introduced to Newtonian mechanics, energy, electromagnetism, atomic theory, wave theory, and quantum mechanics. All of these topics provide essential background for advanced study in chemistry, and many are also important to advanced study in biology (mechanics, energy). In addition, the high school physics curriculum introduces important concepts of measurement and calculation including significant figures, scientific notation, uncertainty and equation solving. Any student taking advanced biology or chemistry without the concepts and practice in these methods provided by physics will be at a substantial disadvantage. A quick look at any university course catalog will show that introductory physics is usually listed as a prerequisite for advanced courses in chemistry. Similarly, introductory chemistry is now often listed as a prerequisite for advanced biology courses.
High school curricula in the natural sciences should build on concepts and methods that are shared across disciplines. Our sequence reflects this understanding and is supported by experts in the field.
Question: At the end of a semester most professors ask the students to anonymously answer a questionnaire about their performance (ex. What did you learn? Are classes interesting? What would you recommend the professor change?) How come the teachers at the end of the school year don’t do something similar? Isn’t there always room for improvement?
Answer: While the practice of obtaining formal evaluation feedback from students is common on the university level, it is not typically done on the K-12 level. Instituting such a practice would require collective bargaining, as it would significantly alter the criteria by which faculty members are evaluated. (We are told that the weight assigned to instructor evaluations at the college level varies significantly from one institution to another, with some evaluations as part of overall decisions about tenure, and others just merely provided to instructors in an “advisory” manner.) In K-12, the issue is complicated by the different levels of knowledge, sophistication and motivation that characterize students in the various grades and the need to develop a system that could be applied to all faculty members at all levels consistently and fairly. However, that is not to say that teachers and administrators do not obtain feedback from students and parents through informal avenues, such as conferences, meetings and phone conversations, particularly in districts like Garden City where parent involvement levels are high.
The performance evaluation procedure for teachers in Garden City is highly organized and structured, as outlined in the district’s Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) Plan. The administrative staff is trained to complete such evaluations, and teachers are observed regularly and evaluated through a research-based Framework for Teaching model, designed by nationally recognized educator Charlotte Danielson. This model includes a rubric-based evaluation system whereby classroom teachers and other professionals are evaluated in four broad categories: Planning and Preparation, the Classroom Environment, Instruction, and Professional Responsibilities. This evaluation system sets high standards for our professional staff.
We certainly agree that improvement is always possible; indeed, our district is committed to the principle of continuous improvement. The new APPR plan referenced above is a reflection of that commitment and represents a considerable enhancement of previous protocols. In addition, we offer faculty members a robust menu of professional development opportunities that are aligned with district improvement goals.
|
|