News and Information from the KCRT,
the Kenilworth Committee for Responsible Taxation
Home D38 News D38 Facts D38 Docs D38 Public Meetings KCRT Feedback
Get on the list for the latest Kenilworth news! Click here!
|
News and Information from the KCRT, the Kenilworth Committee for Responsible Taxation Home D38 News D38 Facts D38 Docs D38 Public Meetings KCRT Feedback Get on the list for the latest Kenilworth news! Click here! |
| District 38 News |
The superintendent is offering a 2.5% raise, and says that more than that would be "reckless."
But here in Kenilworth earlier this year, our school board voted 7-0 to give its teachers a 7% raise, and made that for each of the next three years! After doing so, they put a tax hike referendum vote before the voters, which won amid the usual threats to cut programs.
(Source: "Dist. 211: Salary Demand Too Much", Daily Herald, October 17, 2007)
Kevin Killion commented on the delivery of the KCRT report, "Computers in K-8: The Evidence is In" to the homes of the Board members. He then presented a list of seven crucial questions that need to be answered, and gave a printed copy to the Board members.
Linda Forsberg asked about the source of the proposal, wondering how it ever came to be. Former Board president Philip de Rozier seemed to suggest that meetings of a "technology committee" led up to the proposal.
We're skeptical about such ad hoc committees: In our previous experience, these groups are not set up to conduct open-ended investigators of evidence from a wide range of sources, but rather are spoon-fed anecdotal essays from the usual education insider sources.Irregardless of what has gone before, two developments change the equation:
- Since the passage of the enormous 26.4% tax increase, there will now be close citizen oversight of such developments and the history of meetings that led to them, and
- Computerization in D38 is now moving beyond clearly beneficial efforts (projectors, teacher laptops) to a far more dubious wishlist (student laptops, and heavy emphasis on multimedia and other non-content objectives.)
As the major decision of the evening, the Board voted (7-0) to approve a proposed FY08 budget, despite reservations by Board members Joseph Seminetta and Chris Williams about some of the line items, especially a surprisingly large entry for a new server. This budget will go before a public hearing for comments by the voters of District 38.
Michael Tempest noted the discrepancy between New Trier's current state of computerization (which has not introduced one-to-one laptops) and the D38 proposal.
There was some discussion of taking "leadership" on extensive computerization, but we note that "leadership" is very much open for debate: if over-extensive computerization is a bad idea in schools, then the leader is the person who stops it.Mike Tempest noted that the proposal lacks clear objectives, and he said, "The goal of what we're going to do with this is paramount."
Another board member suggested that a student might fall behind if he shows up at New Trier and can't do a PowerPoint presentation.
We think a student is far more likely to fall behind by showing up at New Trier with a weak knowledge base on the history of western civilization.Board president Jeff Treiber noted that they've heard very positive anecdotal stories about the success D38 has had with having projectors in all classrooms, and by giving laptops to all teachers.
We enthusiastically agree about the success and efficacy of measured, reasonable computerization like that!Treiber cautioned that to go beyond that for the proposed steps, much more is needed, saying, "But when we talk about laptops to kids, there is another level of measuring and analysis that is needed ... [we] need measurements and criteria [to determine] is it working or not working."
Susan Rohrman expressed some of the most explicit concerns about lack of supporting evidence and measurable goals:
Chris Williams noted that he and fellow new member of the Board Mike Tempest had not had the opportunity to hear the "wisdom of previous discussions" on the computerization topic, and suggested that the two of them needed "to be brought up-to-date."
If we can help, we would be happy to participate, by bringing to the table information about the effects of excessive computerization that the administration may have omitted!Williams asked whether D38 should be looking at spending more money on more hardware, and instead whether it would be better to spend on more software.
That's a great observation, and we note that there exist at least two other options as well:Michael Tempest affirmed that "We need to teach the kids [about] computer [skills]."
- If there is no evidence that such increased spending has any benefit, then no additional spending is the indicated solution.
- Or, consider directing proposed spending towards needed improvement of conventional curriculum standards and materials.
For the most part, we agree!He then added, "But whether there is a benefit in the curriculum? I'm not convinced."
Karen Hartman agreed: "There is the 'toolkit' [of basic computer skills] of what kids need to do ... There is the other part -- that I struggle with too -- [of whether this] enhances what they're going to learn..."
There was some discussion of what is the "right" percentage of the budget to devote to computerization. Of particular interest in the discussion was the extreme recent spending by Sunset Ridge D29, much higher than other nearby districts.
D29 has hardly been a model of prudent spending, being a district with only 515 students that granted its superintendent an astounding compensation of $344,921!Mike Tempest correctly noted that asking about the correct percentage of the budget was the wrong question, saying, "Dollars shouldn't be driving the decision, goals [should] drive the decision."
Finally, the new Sears principal briefly discussed the migration from the previous school administration software ("MacSchool"?) to a new system, PowerSchool.
The board then went into closed session to discuss issues related to collective barbaining, as well as other matters.
Are scholarly wonders a sure thing when schools go way beyond normal
spending on computers? Nope, and now the D38 Board knows it, too!
The KCRT prepared a 60-page collection of insightful findings and discussion about heavy computerization in schools, drawn from such sources as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and the BBC, and articles by experts in the field.
A copy of the KCRT's report, "Computers in K-8: The Evidence is In," was hand-delivered to the home of each D38 Board member.
A shocking theme emerged from the collection: Not only does over-computerization fail to provide academic benefits in cases reported, but several observers reported drops in academic success, probably due to the reduction in substantive classwork.
You can read the full report here:
"Computers in K-8: The Evidence is In"
The District 38 school board this evening held a "closed session", that is, a secret meeting, to evaluate itself.
Details of what went on, what they discussed, or what conclusions were drawn, were, well, secret.
Since we have no idea was they discussed, we also have no idea what they did not discuss.
For example, did they assess their performance in...
The IASB functions as sort of a trade association of school boards. Most of its efforts are devoted to coordinating efforts in Springfield to expanding authority for school boards (even if that means limiting the authority of parents and citizens), cheering for endless tax hikes, "training" local boards in what they think is a "correct" way of operating, and steering them towards the "proper" vendors for services, administrator searches, and so on.
Before citizen observers were asked to leave, the paid consultant from the IASB was overheard congratulating board members on the recent tax hike vote.
The school board responded to the wish list with a surprisingly cautious response, which at times veered into the openly skeptical.
Eventually, Kalinich presented the guts of the proposal. At its heart is a plan to give a "tablet" computer to every student in either 7th grade, or both 7th and 8th grades.
Kalinich showed the costs on just a single projected slide:
$17,500 [Added] support for existing [programs] $55,000 Lab One refresh (30 computers) $210,000 Student tablet initiative $110,000 Professional development and tech support |
That totals $392,500 of added spending!!!
Even though a projector and screen were being used, these are the only cost figures that were displayed. But Kalinich passed out a number of additional spreadsheets and docs on paper (which only the board members could see).
On behalf of 60043.info and the KCRT, we have already filed a FOIA request for these items.
The most dramatic moment of the meeting occurred when Board president Jeff Treiber asked (I'm paraphrasing, but fairly closely), "We hear a lot about 1-to-1 computers at Avoca -- but do we have any actual evidence of improved learning -- at Avoca in particular?" The room was dead silent for an embarrassing 5 seconds or so, until a person on the tech committee meekly offered that it was difficult to collect such measures. In other words, the answer to Treiber's question was NO, there was no evidence of improved learning at Avoca!
A good chunk of the discussion centered on the use of rollaround carts full of laptops, versus handing out computers for each student to keep. The key factor here was time -- the time it took to pass out and retrieve laptops, the availability of hours of Lab time, and time for support and wrap-ups. But with all of this talking about devoting time to the care and feeding of the computers, NO ONE asked about the corresponding time SUBTRACTED from classroom studies!
Board president Jeff Treiber continues to sharpen his image for taking a businesslike look at operations. At one point, he commented on how the board had been waiting for some time for a sense of how computerization was useful, but that (a close paraphrase), "So far, we've heard mostly anecdotes."
Matt Brackett, the district's technology point man, presented a history of D38's use of laptops. He noted that --
He thus unintentionally provided solid evidence for treading cautiously on future spending!!! ALL of these problems could have been avoided if D38 had waited until other schools reported the problems they were having!
This is PRECISELY THE DANGER of being on the "bleeding edge" of any development.
The agenda for the meeting had an item, "Discussion of and Possible Action to Approve Technology Renewal Recommendations for the 2007-2008 School Year", but the Board didn't bite. Instead:
Attagirl, Susan!
In fact, the "SEE" pitch for the referendum included this Q&A:
Q. Are all the proposed technology advances at Sears School driving the need for the Operating Referendum?A. No. The School Board reviews proposed spending for technology as part of the overall budget process each year. ... there are currently no technology plans in place that will be funded by the Operating Referendum.
Treiber summarized by saying "We all have enough doubts and comments". the matter was deferred for a future in-depth board meeting, probably a special meeting, that would be devoted to this $400,000 proposal.
Before the tax referendums, remember all the talk about important repairs, leaky roofs, etc.? Well, now that D38 has all the money of its wildest dreams, guess which of its vital projects it is tackling first? Why, it's remodeling of the school office and the front entrance, of course!
The estimated cost of this project, the board's first priority, is some $288,000, averaging out to $340 from every home in Kenilworth D38! You'll be glad to know, though, that the school board did discuss whether the carpets would match.
Fortunately, we have been able to secure artist's conceptions of this project:
