Board of Education candidates
check village green for info. Also more debates coming up and previous debates were filmed. I think candidate meet and greets happening Sunday's at Hilton Library.
Maybe national elections are taking up all the passion.
I'm in the small minority of people that watch the BOE meetings. I won't be voting for Stephanie Lawson-Muhammad who I don't agree with on such things as voting to keep the IB program after a steady stream of well-respected teachers spoke at the meetings about how it was not working in our district, and voting to end the Accelerated English class, which was perhaps the only class other than math in which kids in grades K-8 could receive additional challenge. My experience at the elementary and middle school level was almost no teachers differentiated for a kid who read far above grade level. I don't believe the solution to the achievement gap is to suppress top students.
chalmers said:
I'm in the small minority of people that watch the BOE meetings. I won't be voting for Stephanie Lawson-Muhammad who I don't agree with on such things as voting to keep the IB program after a steady stream of well-respected teachers spoke at the meetings about how it was not working in our district, and voting to end the Accelerated English class, which was perhaps the only class other than math in which kids in grades K-8 could receive additional challenge. My experience at the elementary and middle school level was almost no teachers differentiated for a kid who read far above grade level. I don't believe the solution to the achievement gap is to suppress top students.
I did some searching today trying to understand where the candidates stand on leveling, enrichment opportunities (such as the English you mention above) etc. but haven't been able to find anything that specifically addresses this - just overarching statements that leave me guessing. Any suggestions where to look (besides Village Green) I'd appreciate it. I'm going to watch the debates as well.
CaltoNJ: I'm not as good with links as other MOL'ers, but two Village Green stories that covered these votes were the May 19, 2015 article "South Orange Maplewood Board of Ed Votes To Discontinue IB" and the June 21, 2016 article "Middle School English Language Arts `Transformed' With Votes to Abolish Acceleration, Create 'Differentiated' Classrooms." The VG story is inaccurate in saying that the 8th graders went to the high school for the Accelerated English. The class was taught at both middle schools. The June vote was really recent, if you want to watch that BOE meeting on demand on the SOMSD website. A number of parents spoke in favor of keeping the Accelerated English class.
i just took a look at Mazzoocchi's webpage and appreciated some of the statements made there. Will continue to research. Thanks for the info.
There was a discussion of one of the debates in another thread. I tried to get crowdsourcing on summarizing the candidates' responses on the video, but it didn't get very far:
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/board-of-ed-candidates-forum-i?page=next&limit=0#discussion-replies-3306663
I expected to be aligned to Mazzocchi's focus on the arts and creativity... but starting with his unyeilding, not-legal, and non-creative no-PARCC stance, I found that I was disagreeing with his stated perspectives more than I agreed with them.
(I personally think we should encourage Trenton to discard the PARCC for high school students, who are already assessed in enough ways that schools and districts could track academic progress, and be accountable for educating all students (e.g., PSATs). However, at the elementary and middle schools, there are not many other ways accomplish that, and testing last year seemed like just a normal part of the school day. It was managed well by my kids' teachers/schools with low stress messages, and minimal time on test prep.
I don't want to go back to the pre-accountability schooling I grew up with in the 1970's where (1) the more challenging students, and those who couldn't keep up with the class were just left to sink; (2) racial achievement gaps were not monitored and not a priority; and (3) school districts could not clearly determine where (e.g., in what grades) the weakest links in their curriculum lay, if the school or district even had one defined).
I also know I won't be voting for Ms. Wright based on watching the BOE meetings for the past couple of years. She has a similar uncompromising approach to many topics, and appeared to vote opposite to all the other BOE members for reasons that did not make sense to me.
So, that leaves me likely voting for the other three candidates (Adamson, Davis, and Lawson-Muhammad) who seemed to take a more nuanced approach.
Thanks to each of you for your thoughts and reminders of where various candidates stand on specific issues. I haven't done much of my homework yet, but know of at least 3 candidates (Wright, Lawson-Muhammad and Mazzocchi) who I'm not inclined to support, for the various reasons discussed above. The door hasn't closed yet, but I'm not loving what I've heard so far.
Not sure about the other two yet, but may well end up only voting for one or two favored candidates this time around, once I do my research.
I haven't been around here long enough to know: Is it unusual for the board president to endorse candidates? (Other than when she or he is up for re-election and running with a slate.)
I
susan1014 said:
Thanks to each of you for your thoughts and reminders of where various candidates stand on specific issues. I haven't done much of my homework yet, but know of at least 3 candidates (Wright, Lawson-Muhammad and Mazzocchi) who I'm not inclined to support, for the various reasons discussed above. The door hasn't closed yet, but I'm not loving what I've heard so far.
Not sure about the other two yet, but may well end up only voting for one or two favored candidates this time around, once I do my research.
I agree with you about Wright and Lawson-Muhammad for various reasons including the ones stated above I cannot vote for them but I am torn about Mazzocchi. I appreciate his turn things upside down , think outside of the box perspective and his real world educational experience leads me to believe he can be practical too , but I was turned off by his Stance on standardized tests. I found it unrealistic. Now given that the board is a 9 person board , I just may vote for him never the less.
Hi all,
I simply had to chime in on this conversation, especially in regards to standardized testing. My goal is not to change your mind in order to garner your vote; rather to explain my position that, in the end, I believe is practical and in the best interest of our children.
I’m not against standardized testing in all of its forms -- but I am against PARCC and other "high stakes" tests like it. Just because I say this does not at all mean I am "anti-accountability" and certainly "not creative". Tests can have a very important diagnostic function in respect to some things we want kids to learn in school, and standardized tests -- maybe once or twice (tops) in a student's K-12 life can serve as an "audit" for our internal curricula that we develop as a school district. However, testing has become the predominant culture in schools -- graduation is on the line -- jobs are on the line -- government takeover of schools in on the line -- it's accountability run amok. More important, our curriculum is being distorted and narrowed in order to accommodate for the tests. Testing has become a multibillion-dollar industry that is absorbing massive time, resources and funds that could be used for other things. It's a simple fact.
Standardized tests have reached a tipping point -- they have caused us to narrow our definition of "success" -- and we have more losers than winners. It doesn't have to be this way. As other countries are showing, looking for more creative approaches to education is our common charge.
Tony Mazzocchi
trombone73 said:
I’m not against standardized testing in all of its forms -- but I am against PARCC and other "high stakes" tests like it.
I don't think I will change your mind either, but my perspective is, PARCC has NOT really been a 'high stakes' test in SOMSD. 'High stakes' indicates that opportunities would be lost due to lower test scores.
PARCC doesn't seem to be 'high stakes' for students in SOMSD: We have open enrollment to courses. PARCC scores are irrelevant to student course choices. There doesn't seem to be a cutscore required for student grade promotion. Are there any areas remaining in-district that use PARCC scores in such a way that it limits student opportunities?
PARCC doesn't seem very 'high stakes' for teachers in NJ either:
See the NJ DOE teacher evaluation calculator here:
http://www.nj.gov/education/AchieveNJ/teacher/scoring.shtml
For example, during the past two years, PARCC has accounted for only 10% of teacher evaluations. The other 90% were administrator observations of teacher practice (@ 70% of the evaluation) and teacher-selected student growth objectives (SGOs @ 20%). The teacher evaluations are out of 4 points.
For example if a teacher:
- was rated "3" (effective) by their administrator,
- scored "3" on their SGO,
- even if all this teacher's students performed at the lowest percentiles, and the teacher received a "1" on their PARCC determined mSGPs
- The teacher would get an overall score of 2.8 -- which still converts to a final rating of "Effective".
Now that the PARCC scores account for 30% of a teacher's evaluation (with observations at 55% and SGOs at 15%), the PARCC does have some impact on the calculated values. I think 30% is too high and we should go back to 10%, or maybe move up to 15%. However, in looking at the math, even this move to 30% is not really draconian.
For example if a teacher:
- was rated "3" (effective) by their administrator,
- scored "3" on their SGO,
- even if this teacher's middle-performing student's growth was only at the 30th percentile, the teacher would receive a "2" on their PARCC-determined mSGPs,
- The teacher would get an overall score of 2.8 -- which converts to a final rating that is still "Effective".
trombone73 said:
However, testing has become the predominant culture in schools -- graduation is on the line -- jobs are on the line -- government takeover of schools in on the line -- it's accountability run amok. More important, our curriculum is being distorted and narrowed in order to accommodate for the tests.
The NJ DOE graduation requirements could use an examination. As I said before, PARCC for High School seems unnecessary since the students are already taking other standaridized assessments (like PSATs). So, I agree with you for the grades 9-12 usage.
However for the earlier grades, "government takeover" isn't really what SOMSD has to be concerned with as a district. But I am concerned about the various issues I've seen in our schools which likely contribute to racial achievement gaps. Being identified as a "Focus School" in NJ includes issues with achievement gaps:
From:
http://www.state.nj.us/education/rac/schools/
Focus Schools
Focus Schools comprise about 10% of schools with the overall lowest subgroup performance, a graduation rate below 75%, and the widest gaps in achievement between different subgroups of students. Focus Schools receive targeted and tailored solutions to meet the school's unique needs.
To me this seems an appropriate criteria for when to let schools know there is evidence of achievement gaps needing attention.
Curriculum narrowing for the tests- this is a district-based decision. The PARCC doesn't require narrowing curriculum. Common Core does aim to standardize what is taught at each grade level -- but it doesn't seem that different from what the NJ State Standards were previously.
Maybe the district just needs to become more aware that the PARCC is not that high stakes? The curriculum can be addressed from the standpoint of district priorities, rather than from a place of PARCC reactivity.
I have observed Wright at several meeting over the past few years. I found her to be disrespectful at times and unwilling to work with other BOE members. She has the right to disagree with other BOE members but not undermine the ability of the BOE to function properly.
Thanks all for the inputs. I am still confused! 
I am looking for a candidate that wants the following. Is there anyone that shares these values and has a plan to make this happen?
1. High levels of excellence in our schools defined by teacher quality, availability of AP classes, extra curricular activities which give our kids differentiation through their academic careers starting late middle school to apply to high quality colleges- e.g., chess, sports, debates, model UN, music, robotics etc.
2. Accelerated Programs to challenge kids performing at higher levels - especially in middle and high school
3. Enabling and upgrading skills for underperforming kids to move them to higher performing levels
4. College placement in high-school at the top universities - Ivies, Regional Ivies, top 20/50 schools.
Alt.straight said:
Thanks all for the inputs. I am still confused!
I am looking for a candidate that wants the following. Is there anyone that shares these values and has a plan to make this happen?
1. High levels of excellence in our schools defined by teacher quality, availability of AP classes, extra curricular activities which give our kids differentiation through their academic careers starting late middle school to apply to high quality colleges- e.g., chess, sports, debates, model UN, music, robotics etc.
2. Accelerated Programs to challenge kids performing at higher levels - especially in middle and high school
3. Enabling and upgrading skills for underperforming kids to move them to higher performing levels
4. College placement in high-school at the top universities - Ivies, Regional Ivies, top 20/50 schools.
Every candidate shares these values, and the district already has the features you listed. The issue is how to maximize their effectiveness given increasingly tighter budget restraints due to the inherently flawed school funding structure, competing demands and limited resources.
I thought that list was an attempt to spoof typical BOE campaign promises or implied outcomes. Although some sounded more Millburn than SOMSD.
It is not a spoof. I know that I made general statements. What I am looking for are plans by each candidate that spell out how they want to achieve these goals. If you look at all the comments above (and they are not all candidates comments) this is what is listed: IB program (kill), Accelerated English (kill), PARCC (kill), High stakes testing (bad), NJ DOE requirements (revisit).
Aiming for a higher graduation rate in our school district is necessary. Aiming for top x% of our graduating class to go to top 20/50 colleges in the country is not a bad thing.
What are the plans of each candidate so that our kids have the same opportunities as other kids ( in Millburn and other towns) do because they are all competing in the same world? Our kids are not super heroes that they can compete without the focus and resources that other school districts give their kids. This may sound like I am focused on high school but it is just easier to explain with college admissions and graduating rates being available and relevant to rate our school district. I don't have kids in high school.
My impression is that Millburn is more focused on the 'top college' destination that you seem to be seeking.
And my impression of SOMSD is that it is more focused on the journey, and preparation for varied destinations (which, while including 'top colleges', does not hold that up as the ultimate goal for all students to strive for). Thus a "more ways to get students into top colleges" is unlikely to be focus of these BOE candidates' platforms.
You may want to watch some videos of BOE debates and/or meetings to see if the priorities of the district align with your own.
I'll be voting for johanna wright. her abrasive style is not a problem to me. i like that she has real world teaching experience and knows what works and what doesnt within an actual school setting. i think a lot of the problem with her supposed style is that she was a lone voice on a board entrenched with professional managers.
I think standardized testing as a tool to evaluate teachers is foolish at any percentage. I also think mandatory PARCC testing for students to graduate is a waste of resources.
For me it wasn't Ms. Wright's style, it was her lack of rationale for dissenting.
For example, the BOE proposed that the township/village should provide notification to the BOE anytime they offered a housing developer a PILOT. This would just make the township/village recognize that when they offer a PILOT, the repercussion was that it would shrink the Education budget, while potentially adding to Education costs as new students move in. Having to be more aware of this impact on the district's budget seemed a logical step in making the township/village realize they should be prudent with their power to give away the district's money.
All BOE members voted in favor, except Ms. Wright who didn't give any reason for dissenting. It seemed opposite anyone's interests (teachers, students, etc) NOT to be watchful when the district's money was potentially being given away by the township/village. Her vote didn't matter to the outcome, but the sentiment of seemingly preferring to be a dissenter for the attention of it, rather than to care about our seriously strapped budget, pissed me off.
Thanks Sprout. That is helpful. Journey or destination, how do we bring high class resources to our kids so that they are better prepared in the real world? It was not my intention to create a bashing forum. This can be a thread for people (or candidates/surrogates) to come in explain their platforms. Anyone out there who has a candidate they love and want to talk about it?
Not sure I understand "high class resources ....so they are better prepared for the real world? Can you elaborate?
Interestingly , I have heard directly from some College admissions staff from top rated schools that Columbia HS students are very highly regarded as well rounded students that are well prepared for College demands and bring with them real world experience that serves them well.
If you are seeking candidate positions, the attached includes candidate staments related to special education that also touch on the Access & Equity Policy and PARCC.
mod said:
Not sure I understand "high class resources ....so they are better prepared for the real world? Can you elaborate?
Interestingly , I have heard directly from some College admissions staff from top rated schools that Columbia HS students are very highly regarded as well rounded students that are well prepared for College demands and bring with them real world experience that serves them well.
To echo that, there's a new associate at my law firm who graduated from Columbia in the fairly recent past, and went on to graduate summa cum laude for both her B.A. and her law degree. She told me that when she went to college she felt like she was way ahead of most of the other students because of Columbia -- not only because of the academics but also because of her overall educational experience there. Made me feel optimistic for my kids who are approaching high school age.
I'm just posting to clarify for those less familiar with our district: You are referring to "Columbia High School"...and not Columbia University/Law School.
Sprout: Good to know that our students are highly regarded during college admissions. Is there a list of colleges that we placed our students last year?
Thanks MDonoghue. I read the materials in the link.
When I read the BOE candidates' platforms, it is hard for me to see the specifics. It all seems like generic words with no specifics or goals to which they hold themselves accountable.
An ancillary question is how much can the BOE really impact?
Regarding a list of colleges, one usually is compiled in the early summer, so perhaps Columbia can provide a copy.
Frankly, I find the list interesting but not particularly instructive - one sees the top Ivy and Ivy-level schools, local community colleges, and a broad swath of institutions "in between" in terms of reputation and size. The message is that students have different experiences - one can get to Harvard or Stanford from CHS, the top publics, but one can also go to community college (as an end-point or a bridge to a 4-year) or not pursue higher education at all.
I suppose you can say that given the competitiveness of Ivy admission - about 5% for some - the fact that some CHS students are making the cut is very encouraging. How much of that is self-motivation as opposed to the quality of the school is hard to measure.
Why are there no discussions for the board of education candidates this time around? What are their platforms and how they will impact decisions?
I remember the very strong opinions people had a couple of years ago. What happened? Do we all agree now?