Common Core State Standards: A Public Forum - May 19 at St. Anselm College

"Is the Common Core good for New Hampshire families and children." Join us for an informative exchange between supporters and opponents of Common Core.  National and local experts and activists and the chair of the New Hampshire State Board of Education will participate in a forum explaining Common Core and why they either support or oppose the Common Core standards.  We will also welcome audience questions at the end of the discussion. Panelists include: Supporters of Common Core Tom Raffio: President and CEO of Northeast Delta Dental and Chairman of the New Hampshire State Board of Education Dr. David Pook: teacher at Derryfield School and Granite State College, education consultant and contributing writer of the Common Core English Language Arts standards Bill Duncan: Retired software entrepreneur, granddad, education advocate and founder of Advancing New Hampshire Public Education Opponents of Common Core Jamie Gass: Director of the Center for School Reform at Pioneer Institute  Emmett McGroarty: Executive Director of Education at American Principles Project Ann Marie Banfield: Education Researcher and Education Liaison for Cornerstone Action Date: May 19th Time: 7pm to 9pm Location: St. Anselm Institute of Politics Seating is limited. Please RSVP

Foster's: Oyster River High tuition deal on ballot in four towns

Foster's today published an article about the proposed 10-year agreement that would enable more Barrington students to attend ORHS:

"Voters in four towns will consider a 10-year tuition agreement Tuesday that would gradually let up to 200 Barrington students attend Oyster River High School.

" A majority of voters in Barrington and within the three-town Oyster River Cooperative School District must approve the agreement on Tuesday, March 11, for it to take effect. If approved, the agreement would begin for the 2015-16 school year."

Read more at: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140307/GJNEWS_01/140309462/-1/FOSNEWS

No After School Activities Today

From the ORCSD listserv:


Good Afternoon ORCSD Families - 

All after school activities are cancelled today, Wednesday, February 19, 2014, due to anticipated weather conditions. 

Please drive safe. 

Sincerely, 

Carolyn Eastman

Foster's Editorial re: ORCSD

Foster's today published an editorial called "Durham: Kudos All Around" that also had some words of praise for the ORCSD--for example, "Durham voters have also displayed a collective level head in electing town officials and those they place on the School Board. Today, there is an overall air of cooperation and a desire to be productive." 

You can read the full piece here: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140211/GJOPINION_01/140219928/-1/FOSOPINION

Update: ORCSD Deliberative Session Postponed

From Durham's listserv:

ORCSD DELIBERATIVE SESSION POSTPONED TO FRIDAY, 2/7/14, AT 7:00 PM

Due to the inclement weather, the deliberative session for the Oyster River Cooperative School District scheduled for tonight, 2/5/2014 at 7:00PM, has been delayed until FRIDAY, 2/7/2014 at 7:00PM.

Although a rain date for the deliberative session had been planned for Thursday evening, neither the school moderator nor the school district attorney are available Thursday night. They are available Friday and therefore the deliberative session will be held on 2/7/2014.

Deliberative Session Postponed to Friday, 2/7

I just received a message from the ORCSD that tonight's Deliberative Session has been postponed due to the weather.  It will be held on Friday evening instead.

Foster's News Story About Shirley Thompson

Foster's today published an article about Shirley Thompson, including a couple of great photos: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140204/GJNEWS_01/140209759

Shirley Thompson's Obituary in Fosters

As many of you know, longtime ORCSD volunteer and School Board member Shirley Thompson passed away at her home in Durham on Friday. 

According to an obituary published in Fosters:

Visiting hours will be held at the Kent & Pelczar Funeral Home, 77 Exeter Street, Newmarket, on Thursday, Feb. 6th from 2-4 & 6-8 p.m.

A Memorial Service will be held on Friday, Feb. 7th at 2 p.m. at St. George's Episcopal Church, Durham.

Should friends desire memorials may be made to Friends of Oyster River Track (FORT), 16 Stevens Way, Durham, NH 03824.

You can read the full obituary here: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/fosters/obituary.aspx?n=shirley-a-thompson&pid=169428015&fhid=3759

ORCSD Budget & Elections: Important Dates

A reminder to mark your calendars with the following important dates:

1) ORCSD Budget Public Hearing, January 14, 7:00 p.m. at ORHS Auditorium

2) Town Meetings for ORCSD Budget Overview:
          January 20: Madbury Selectmen Meeting, 7:00 p.m. at Madbury Town Hall
          January 21: Lee Selectmen Meeting, 6:00 p.m. at Lee Safety Complex
          January 27: Durham Town Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. at Durham Town Hall

3) Filing Period for ORCSD Elected Positions: January 22 through 4:00 p.m. January 31 (no filing fee required)

4) Annual Meeting Session 1 (Deliberative Session): February 5, 7:00 p.m. at ORHS Auditorium (snow date February 6)

5) Candidates' Night: February 17, 7:00 p.m. at ORHS Room C-124 (snow date February 18)

6) Annual Meeting Session 2 (Voting Day), March 11:
          Durham: ORHS, 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.
          Lee: Lee Safety Complex, 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m.
          Madbury: Madbury Town Hall, 11:00 a.m.-7:30 p.m.

Laura and Michael Williams: Enrollment Decisions Require More Consideration

Durham residents Laura and Michael Williams have asked us to post this letter, which they have sent to the School Board:

November 4, 2013

Re: Elementary Enrollment Configuration

Dear Chairwoman Barth, Dr. Morse, and ORCSD School Board members:

This letter addresses a number of issues about both the decision-making process and the data used to decide how to address elementary enrollment numbers within the district. We are glad to discuss the contents of this letter in greater detail with any of you.

 

As background, we are Durham residents and parents of a kindergartner and two future students. Michael is also a registered professional engineer and director of manufacturing engineering for a medical  device company. His professional responsibilities include capacity planning and managing a $5 million annual capacity-related capital budget. Capacity analysis and capacity planning are day-to-day tasks.

 

First, the process of making the elementary configuration decision is not explained. We were initially impressed at the thouroughness and thoughtfullness of board member Ann Lane's motion at the August 21, 2013 board meeting, directing a detailed report to the board on one or more options to address elementary enrollment. However, since then there has been little to be optimistic about. At the October 16, 2013 meeting, the board had a little discussion on making a decision sooner. Regretfully, there has been no discussion on how to make a decision. The board is facing big decisions that affect the future of the district this year, with elementary school configuration and high school tuitioning. Taking a more structured approach to making these decisions would be helpful for the community, and likely for the board and administration as well. At minimum, an objective list of the criteria the board will consider in making these decisions should be a requirement. Without this, the decision is nothing more than seat-of-the-pants call by each member. That is certainly not what any of us want. A more rigorous approach would be to employ Howard-type Decision Analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_analysis) or Kepner-Tregoe comparative analysis.

 

While we agree the board was not ready to make a decision at the October 16 meeting, there has been no new formal public discourse on the various proposals at the October 23 meeting, and it is not on the calendar for November 6. Please tell us what additional information you are looking for to make an informed decision!

 

At the October 16 meeting, there was some discussion of the issues related to elementary enrollment configuration amongst board members. At that point, there were only two members, Mr. Rotner and Mr. Howland, who shared candidly their views and concerns. Chairwoman Barth's personal comment was limited to her experience in Kittery. No other members shared any personal insight or gave any indication of what their concerns about the proposals are, or what information would help them make a decision. We trust the board has given this a lot of thought, but those thoughts are not being shared publicly.

 

While this is discussion, it is not an open community process since the board is soliciting only general comments, not detailed or specific feedback on areas of concern.

 

Next, there are multiple issues impacting and affected by enrollment that should be considered separately. We should be untangling these issues so we can understand how significant they are. Certainly they do not all really carry the same weight:

ñ  Student population with regards to capacity at Moharimet

ñ  Discrepancy between Moharimet and Mast Way enrollments

ñ  Chaos of lunch at Moharimet

ñ  Cost of the modular classrooms

ñ  All day Kindergarten

 

Third, treatment of research regarding grade-span configurations has been dismissive at best. Dr. Morse has made a statement more than once that research is inconclusive on the effect of grade-span changes. If that is true, the extant research should not be simply dismissed with that statement, but a research review provided to the board and public to support that conclusion. The administration and board should not ignore research like this:

ñ  Studies have found that K-8 configurations produce students that outperform configurations with separate elementary and middle schools.

◦     This article from the American Association of School Administrators  (https://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=10410) includes the comment that “every transition from one narrowly configured school to another seems to disrupt the social structure in which learning takes place, lowering achievement and participation for many students.”

◦     This 2002 paper from Wayne State University, distributed by the US Department of Education looked at one or more school transitions, and started the Discussion with “As grade span configuration increases so does achievement. The more levels that a school services, the better the students perform. The more transitions a student makes, the worse the student performs.” (http://amesces.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/effect-of-grade-span-configuration-and-school-to-school-transition-on-achievement-wren-2003.pdf)

Further, when other districts have considered changing  their elementary grade-span configurations, they have conducted research reviews.

ñ  Portsmouth, NH conducted its own review only last year including several references to research. (http://www.cityofportsmouth.com/school/eefc.htm). This includes documents finding either no educational benefit or educational detriment when grade-span is reduced. It is notable that the Portsmouth Elementary Educational Facility Committee unanimously voted in April 2012 in favor of K-5 configuration.

ñ  Vernon Township, New Jersey also looked at this issue in 2012: (http://www.vtsd.com/uploaded/boe/PowerPoint_Presentation_for_Bd_of_Ed_(May_21,_2012).ppt) and included a research review that contains this statement: “There is a measurable negative impact on student academic achievement following each school-to-school transition for students in the Vernon Township School District.” This data review also included concerns about short grade-spans citing research relating to:

◦     Reduced sense of belonging related to excessively large class sizes and short grade-spans.

◦     Student achivement improving when they are well-known by their teachers.

◦     Reduced accountability for student performance.

◦     Self-esteem

◦     Lower standardized test scores following each transition, taking several years to recover.

◦     Lack of communication between grade levels.

This is by no means a comprehensive research review nor a comprehensive case study review. These cases are only illustrative that we in the ORCSD have not done adequate homework if we intend to change our elementary grade-level configuration.

 

If the Administration truly feels there is no real conclusive evidence on grade-span, Dr. Morse should present a critical review of relevant research, rather than simply dismissing it out-of-hand. We assume that the goal is not to experiment with Oyster River elementary students, but to make an informed decision.

 

Fourth, Enrollment assumptions are changing rapidly. Apparently, the same day the school board many concerns about the K-2 proposal, the Long Range Planning Committee reviewed and updated enrollment projections. We have not seen the data, but understand it amounts to a significant increase – indeed the K-2/3-4 proposal would only reduce Moharimet enrollment to 396 by fall 2015, compared with 409 if no change is made. The administration should rework detailed proposals based on the new enrollment forecasts and show the school board and public detailed analysis that goes through the duration of the LRPC forecast. Additionally, at least two additional scenarios should be analyzed and considered:

ñ  A “default” or “no change” scenario must be considered. The school board and public should be informed of the impact of a delayed decision.

ñ  K-8 option. This is admittedly an unconventional option for the district, but if we truly want to do what is best for our students academically, the school board should consider this option: Convert Moharimet, Mast Way, and ORMS to K-8. This would require redistricting between the schools, but would result in smaller grade-level sizes at each school, making future redistricting and grandfathering easier to accommodate with smaller shifts. Research appears to indicate that students in this configuration achieve the most academically. Failing to consider the option that research suggests produces the best outcomes is irresponsible.

Reasonable “grandfathering” accommodations should be included for all scenarios.

 

Fifth, when describing the options available, it is misleading to discuss either full-day-kindergarten or K-5 as realistic options anytime soon the way the options have been presented so far. Even in the K-2/3-4(5) scenario, average grade level size would need to be below 106 in order to accommodate 3-5 at Moharimet. Enrollment does not drop that low even by 2020-2021 school year based on the May 2011 LRPC forecast. Similarly, Mast Way with a functional capacity of 329 (whole-day) students does not accommodate K-2 until class sizes shrink dramatically and there are no more upward enrollment surprises.

 

Sixth, please give the public the opportunity to comment on the school board's final working proposal. In other words, please make a motion that the school board would carry over its discussion of the board's preferred option from one meeting to the next to give the community the opportunity to offer final input. So far, the board has not taken any formal action, nor tabled any formal proposal. It is very difficult for the community or even the administration to provide input on specific aspects of a proposal if there is no motion for a specific option. The way most board agendas read, public comment is solicited before any other business and then after the conclusion of business, not while the board is actually considering any proposal. Since the board has not offered a detailed proposal for public review, the public can't provide any input on specifics.

 

Seventh, Dr. Morse has referred more than once to fear of change in the district. This is probably not true and is certainly not constructive. One comment in the October 16 board meeting was specifically directed at teachers. ORCSD teachers have adopted innovative teaching strategies, technology, and curriculum, and successfully deployed them across different grade levels and both elementary schools. The community is one that is highly educated and innovative and historically supportive of well-informed changes in the district. Please do not confuse critical thinking for fear of change.

 

Now, we would like to also address the specifics of the proposals in a number of areas of concern:

ñ  Research – As stated above, the administration has not presented a thorough review of relevant research. Indeed, while some academic papers come to the same conclusion as the administration, we should not ingore evidence that adding unnecessary school transitions hurts academic performance.

ñ  Benchmarking other schools/states – Dr. Morse has identified some schools that have switched to a split elementary model. We also need to consider those that have not:

◦     Portsmouth recommended K-5 unanimously.

◦     Cache County School District in Utah, from which Dr. Morse drew many of his bullet points on pros and cons of shorter grade-spans has 14 elementary schools, 10 of which use K-5 spans. The 4 schools that are short-grade-span are paired, and in each pair the schools are only 1.1 miles apart. This district has considered the same evidence Dr. Morse presented and decided to make K-5 its primary grade-span.

◦     One of the school districts cited in two of the Portsmouth data review articles is Prospect Heights, Illinois. One article (http://www.cityofportsmouth.com/school/centraloffice/eefc/4e.pdf) is extremely critical of short-grade-span configurations. This district has short grade-spans, but the entire district is only 5 square miles and the schools are very close together.

◦     Statewide in California in 2011-2012, 173 schools served K-3 or shorter span, while 5,255 served K-4 or longer span. The trend is not for shorter grade spans.  (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefenrollgradetype.asp)

ñ  Cost – the cost impact of a change to K-2/3-4 is unclear. We know that additional busses would be purchased at cost to the district. It is not clear if any positions would be eliminated in this configuration that would not be eliminated otherwise. This should be part of the detailed simulation based on LRPC data.

ñ  Transportation time – While it is important that the longest bus ride not be increased beyond 40 minutes, what is the impact to the average bus ride, or the total number of student-hours spent on buses each day? Since the K-2/3-4 proposal would mean that every elementary student in the district would spend 2 or 3 years at the elementary school farthest from home, it seems likely that virtually every student will spend more time on the bus in this scenario. It should be a goal to reduce, not increase bus time. Redistricting shifts students from one route to another, but neighborhoods proposed for redistricting are approximately equidistant from Moharimet and Mast Way, so the impact is minimal.

ñ  Impact on families – while redistricting undoubtedly causes upheaval for families in the redistricted neighborhoods, changing to K-2/3-4 impacts every elementary student in the district. It should never be the objective to single out certain students to be affected, but it is also inappropriate to change the entire district when redistricting a few dozen families can accomplish the same goals. If necessary to achieve school balance and allow grandfathering, a larger area could be included in redistricting without negatively impacting the entire district.

ñ  Impact on school culture – We heard most speakers on October 16 identify strong and beneficial cultures at both elementary schools. We should expect that both schools will be damaged by a K-2/3-4 configuration. All families will spend less time with kids at each school, and families with kids at both schools will be split in commitment to fundraising support and time. Active PTOs that support teachers and students will be weakened.

ñ  Untangling the issues – overcrowding, cost of modulars, size balance between schools, safety, and cafeteria chaos have been identified as reasons for changing to K-2/3-4. But these issues must not all carry the same weight and we should consider them separately:

◦     Overcrowding is mitigated with either proposal, or the “do nothing” option. Since grandfathering, even as proposed by Dr. Morse, does not enable Moharimet to remove modulars for several years, this does not favor one option over another.

◦     Cost of modulars is notable, but at under $14,000 per year, it is half as expensive to lease the modulars for even 5 more years that it would be to buy two additional $80,000 busses to move to K-2/3-4. Since the modulars have been at Moharimet for so long, could they be purchased instead of leased, or the lease renegotiated based on age? Based on cost alone, keeping the modulars and not buying unnecessary new buses is more cost effective.

◦     Size balance between schools – The administration has not explained clearly how having one school larger than the other created education iniquity once both schools are within capacity. Moharimet has dealt very well with enrollment by balancing both classroom and special-needs teachers in a way that benefits, not harms students. It is not clear that there is any significant benefit to balancing the size of Moharimet and Mast Way.

◦     Safety – is without question important. If the district truly believes there is a safety problem at Moharimet, we should be taking action now to install additional fire protection or security. Given that this has not been done in the many years of modular usage at Moharimet, it does not seem that conditions at Moharimet are truly unsafe enough to warrant changing the entire structure of the elementary schools.

◦     Cafeteria chaos at Moharimet is a function of school design, not enrollment. Indeed, moving more full-day students to Moharimet will make the situation worse, not better. The proposal to build a separate gymnasium and cafeteria at Moharimet is even more important if the schools are reconfigured.

None of these issues present problems that should be solved by making ORCSD a K-2/3-4 district.

In conclusion, the data presented by Dr. Morse, and the additional considerations and analysis noted here strongly favor a “redistrict” or “do nothing” approach over grade-span reconfiguration.  Redistricting is the best opportunity to rapidly reduce Moharimet enrollment without incurring unnecessary capital cost, adding unnecessary school transitions, or damaging PTOs. A district policy to redistrict on a regular schedule (such as every 4 or 5 years) including a policy for grandfathering will further ease future enrollment challenges. We strongly oppose the K-2/3-4 configuration for many reasons and encourage the school board to refine elementary school boundaries.

 

Sincerely,

Laura and Michael Williams

New ORCSD Website Up

Cross-posting from our Facebook page:

New school district site design is up and running. Search is there as promised, but unfortunately documents prior to this year are now missing as are notices and agendas for future meetings. http://www.orcsd.org/

Foster's: Barrington, Newmarket still weigh whether to send students to ORHS

The following article was published today in Foster's, and is reprinted here with their permission:

Barrington, Newmarket still weigh whether to send students to ORHS

By Kimberley Haas khaas@fosters.com

BARRINGTON — With the deadline for decisions growing closer, school officials in Barrington and Newmarket are still deciding whether to enter into a formal agreement to send all of their students in ninth through 12th grade to Oyster River High School in Durham.

At the Barrington School Board meeting Tuesday night, board members were tight-lipped about their feelings, offering no direction or response to Superintendent Gail Kushner when she asked for discussion.
Read the full article at: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131030/GJNEWS_01/131039933/0/SEARCH

Jayson Seaman: Decision on Balancing Enrollments Should Be Based on Educational Rationale

Community member Jayson Seaman has sent the following letter to the Board, and given us his permission to post it here:

October 27, 2013

Dear ORCSD school board members:

As you face the difficult decision about balancing elementary enrollments, there are a few items I hope you will consider that I don’t believe have been reflected much in the discussion, in person or online. I’ll apologize in advance – this letter became more of an essay. Sorry!

I am pulled in both directions about the models. I have personal feelings about what will be my family’s experience under either model, but for me, the board’s thinking should be driven not merely by a desire to reconcile the many preferences of community members, but also by answering the following questions: What do we mean by ‘education?’ What should we expect from it as a community? I’ll start by offering a broad perspective on the first question, then with this established, address the other through the lenses of quality of life, quality of schooling, and equity. I think reasons for adopting a model should be based on these considerations.

As I understand it, public education contains two aspects that are in always tension with each other: (a) As something that contributes to individual success, and (b) as an institution we all hold in common, a necessary condition for a rich public life. “To become educated” is both a private good, in that it offers enriched opportunities for material success along with new ways of seeing oneself and the world, and it is a public good, in that ‘educated’ people are typically expected to contribute their unique talents and knowledge in some fashion to the general welfare – through our social, political and economic institutions. Any good philosophy of education should have, at its core, some way of reconciling these two aspects so they reinforce one another instead of conflicting. In other words, education, at its best, contributes both to things we hold in common and to maximizing individual potential – or better yet, it configures the things we hold in common so individuals can maximize their potential while fostering a commitment to the commons so others can do the same.

There is a delicate balance here. Too much of a focus on the commons and you risk getting what a friend called “a content-free propagation of values.” This can squelch creativity, deny the importance of academic content, or worse, result in indoctrination. All of these hamper individual flourishing. Too much of a focus on the individual and you risk treating education like a consumer commodity: something that accrues to individuals in order to secure maximum private advantage. This can create serious imbalances of opportunity and outcomes (what has been well documented, for example, in the work of Jonathan Kozol), bend the institution around the interests of people in power, and destroy any commitment whatsoever to the commons. Voucher plans are an example of the latter.

One can detect both of these positions in the current debate about elementary rebalancing. If I’m being honest, I bought a house in ORCSD primarily for the individual benefits of an Oyster River education; sure, I want my kids to experience a socially and emotionally supportive community, but above all else I think an Oyster River education will give them advantages they wouldn’t get elsewhere, whether this is academic training or a better chance to discover and know how to assert themselves wherever they go next. One way to think of this is that an Oyster River education offers better ‘cultural capital’ than other local alternatives. Knowledge of this is how many residents, I believe, justify our relatively high property taxes, even if this is a kind of public secret; we exchange our economic capital for our children’s cultural capital because of the lifelong advantages this provides them. (If you doubt my point, notice how quickly the Facebook discussion turned to real estate trends.)

One can detect concern for ‘the commons’ aspect when people draw attention to the unpleasant perception that Moharimet is superior to Mast Way, and to the damage this does to the notion of Oyster River as a cohesive community, not to mention to the psyches of the children and families who are subject to it. Sensitivity to the idea that education is something we hold in common – not just a ‘good’ that accrues to individuals – seems to be one of the main rationales for the K-2/3-4 model. This model, the logic goes, will render any comparison moot. All children will go through both Mast Way and Moharimet with everyone their age in the district. Furthermore, it would be foolish to say one is superior to the other since not only would you be comparing apples to oranges, you’d be arguing against your own children’s interests.

My point here is to illustrate how these two fundamental aspects of public education are always in tension with one another and how this tension is visible in the current discussion. In my view, resolving this tension in the best way possible lies at the heart of the board’s decision. I don’t envy you, but I do urge you to avoid seeing this decision as a way to balance the many parochial interests that unavoidably accompany the view that education is mainly something that accrues to individuals. So, what other factors might you weigh?

One that strongly influences my own opinion is quality of life, particularly the relationship between school and family. I’ve just argued against giving undue weight to parochial interests, but here is mine: my kids are two years apart, and under the K-2/3-4 model, and without full-day kindergarten, it will be middle school before they are in the same building together. For us, this means a loss of shared experience that spills over into family life, like dinnertime conversations. Therefore, for this reason, I’d like to see the current structure remain. To me, family is a more organic and meaningful unit than ‘grade’ which is bureaucratic and arbitrary. More transitions = fewer ways for families to maintain coherence over a school career. If the school can contribute to coherence and shared experiences within families, it should. (By the way, this is the only reluctance I have about transitions – I think we don’t give kids enough credit for their adaptability.) You can also put long bus rides under this heading too.

Second is quality of schooling.  What I mean here is, how does each model facilitate things such as focused professional development, vertical and horizontal integration of curriculum, teaming, looping, optimum facility use, community involvement, arts integration, teacher reflection and evaluation, and so on? The current arrangement evidently makes many of these things challenging, and this might fuel the perception of differences in quality between schools. And, while children’s relationships with teachers is important, as per their letter, I would like to see the academic program given higher profile in consideration of the models. For example, how does mentoring of first graders by fourth graders support subject matter learning, not just emotional growth, and how often are these opportunities maximized? This is the kind of question I think should be asked of either model.

Last is the matter of equity.  I’ll approach this in terms of the district’s motto: Working together to engage every learner. Like all good slogans, this one is broad enough to sustain multiple interpretations. For instance, it could mean: (1) schools working with parents to engage their children as unique individuals, (2) school personnel working together to engage all children as individuals in the activity of learning, and (3) all of us – community members and school personnel – working together to make sure all children have the best opportunities to realize their potential as learners. All of these undoubtedly get wrapped up in the motto’s practical realization, yet they all differ in subtle but important ways.

Let’s assume for a second that (a) education is conceived mainly as the maximization of private advantage (as in ‘I bought a house in this neighborhood so my kids had better get a good education,’) and (b) the motto is interpreted to mean schools working with parents to engage their children as unique individuals. That this combination might prevail in an educated and affluent district like ours strikes me as reasonable and plausible. But I see a downside to this particular combination, especially when not checked by other meanings. Let me explain. One of the ways teachers come to understand what children need is through parental involvement – in parent-teacher meetings, on committees, through volunteering, and so on. These venues provide parents an important means of orienting teachers to the distinctive characteristics of their child. Moreover, parents who are skilled at using official-sounding language to communicate with teachers (for example, using developmental terminology or the vernacular of psychological testing) are especially effective at getting schools to recognize their children as having unique needs that should be satisfied and interests that should be cultivated.

This kind of involvement is to be expected from any caring parent; we should want everyone to do it. The problem is, not all parents can participate in their child’s education to the same extent, and not all parents are practiced at communicating effectively with bureaucratic organizations like schools. This confers advantages on some kids in two ways: By starting them off on the ‘right foot’ through early home activity (like literacy, discipline through reasoning, and quiz games – “what’s this?”), and through extensive involvement and highly effective advocacy by their parents throughout their school career. To paraphrase Orwell’s famous aphorism – this creates a situation where all learners are individuals, but some are more individual than others. The social consequences of this arrangement are well documented in the educational literature – you can predict even before a school career starts who is most likely to go to college and who isn’t. Data would reveal how effective Oyster River is at altering this pattern.

Moving to #2 above, school personnel working together to engage all children as individuals in the activity of learning, this really just refers to the need for high-quality and innovative learning opportunities at all levels, regardless of children’s learning background or school configuration. “Differentiation” fits under this heading. Most of my points on this topic were made in the quality of schooling paragraph above, but one more is worth making: what we know from effective models of urban schooling is that a strong academic program with high expectations, for many kids, is the ticket out of recurrent cycles of poverty.

The interpretation I hope we can all get behind is this one: all of us working together to make sure all children have the best opportunities to realize their potential as learners. In other words, we view education as something we all hold in common and create structures for all children to thrive as learners, no matter which elementary school they’re in or how the schools are configured. Certainly the district has adequate resources to make this the prevailing interpretation of the motto; communities elsewhere are doing it at lower cost, so I suspect we can too. Ultimately, this is what I think should drive the decision about elementary rebalancing – what are the implications of either model on all kids’ chances to succeed, especially those who don’t possess the built-in advantages and ongoing kinds of support my kids have? And what are the consequences of either model on our conception of education as something we all have a stake in? For instance, if the K-4 model is retained, how will we all participate in ending this invidious comparison between the elementary schools?

These would be educational reasons for pursuing one model or another. I realize there are bureaucratic reasons too, like minimizing the need to shift district boundaries every few years. The way I see it though, things like getting rid of modulars, equalizing class sizes, ensuring facility adequacy, and offering similar social events and extracurricular resources are not reasons in and of themselves to rebalance enrollments, but instead necessary conditions for the realization of educational and community aims that we all value, and should want to realize for all kids, not just our own.

This is where I come down: You, the board, will have my support either way, but the rationale for one model or the other needs to be educational above all else. I encourage you to think of this in terms of quality of life, quality of schooling, and equity. There might not be sufficient national data on, say, which model will produce better outcomes, but this is where the professional judgment of your administrators should enter in. Moreover, here is a chance to get behind something as a community – not the feel-good version, but the kind where we all make sacrifices in order to realize ideals we hold in common, and under which we all benefit. Me, I have a personal preference, but I also have no doubt that my kids will thrive under either model – I am the kind of person who is most likely to ensure it.

Respectfully,

Jayson Seaman

Durham

Erin Sharp: "I am not too stubborn to reconsider my position"

Community member Erin Sharp has sent the following letter to the Board and posted it to the Oyster River Community Facebook page:

October 24, 2013

Dear Dr. Morse and Members of the ORCSD School Board,

As I am sure all of you have been doing, I have been listening to the community dialogue regarding equalizing enrollment in the District. I have written two previous letters to the Board advocating for redrawing bus routes in order to limit the number of school transitions that our children experience. However, I am now writing a third letter to the Board expressing my change of opinion.

My family is relatively new to New Hampshire and the ORCSD, and I have learned a great deal about our community over the last few weeks. Based on my educational background, I do still feel that the best educational environment is one that limits transitions. I still believe that the ideal model for education is a K-8 and 9-12 configuration. However, I now see the potential for positive results for children, teachers, and community members from bringing all of our elementary school students together (option 2).

Why have I changed my mind? First, I feel like redrawing bus lines is only an appropriate choice if families who have already started the elementary school experience are grandfathered in to their current schools. After reflecting on this option, it is clear that we cannot endorse an option as a District that would remove children from the school that has already become their home. Second, there is the concern that we may be in this exact same position as a District in a few years. I have looked at the data on enrollment expectations in the District and it does seem that “do nothing” is an option; but do we trust those data given the unexpected numbers at the start of this school year? It certainly won’t be healthy for our community to be here again.

Finally, I have changed my mind and feel comfortable endorsing Option 2 because it seems that restructuring our elementary schools so that students spend time at both Mast Way and Moharimet offers a real opportunity to improve our community. If having two separate elementary schools has caused division in our community, why not use this time as an opportunity to address this division? My only hesitation is that I want reassurance that the District will be strategic and thoughtful if reorganization takes place. Can we be confident that the administrators, teachers, and staff will commit to approaching this as an opportunity to enhance the experience of our elementary school students? Are we up for this challenge?

Sincerely,

Erin Hiley Sharp

Foster's: Angry discussion on enrollment at Lee, Madbury grade schools

The following article was published today in Foster's, and is reprinted here with their permission:

Angry discussion on enrollment at Lee, Madbury grade schools
DURHAM — Tensions were high during the Oyster River Cooperative School Board meeting as the board and public discussed equalizing enrollment at Moharimet Elementary School and Mast Way Elementary School Wednesday night.

It all started when Board Chair Marcia Barth announced that school district employees would not be allowed to speak at the meeting during public forum due to an established policy.
Read the full article at: http://fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20131017%2FGJNEWS_01%2F131019322%2F-1%2FFOSNEWS0104&template=GreatBayRegion

 

Erin Hiley Sharp: "Keeping an Open Mind"

Community member Erin Sharp asked that we post the following letter, which is also on our Facebook page and which she has sent to the Board:

October 17, 2013

Dear Dr. Morse and Members of the ORCSD School Board,

Thank you for last night’s opportunity for the community to again consider proposals for equalizing enrollment numbers between our two elementary schools. The Board probably feels like it has to make a choice between two bad options, but honestly, I believe the Board is really being asked to make a choice between two good options. Our District’s children and families will manage and adjust successfully whether some children attend a different elementary school than they anticipated because transportation lines are redrawn or whether our children transition through both elementary schools during their education.

In my public comments last night, I stated that I am keeping an open mind about the options presented. I have friends who believe that the K2 – 3, 4 (and sometimes 5) model is the best option for our children. I have listened with interest to their perspectives. I appreciated hearing Dr. Morse’s thoughts about the benefits of Option 2. That being said, after digesting all of this information and reflecting on my knowledge of development, I write today asking the board to choose Option 1.
Board members asked the question about the educational merit of Option 2 (changing school grade configurations) for our children, and I wanted to share my thoughts on this question.

Although my area of expertise is Adolescent Development, the developmental literature on school configuration and school transitions has fairly robust findings, across developmental stages, that additional school transitions are associated with a drop in psycho-social and educational outcomes for children. Not horrible outcomes. Not for all children. I have provided primary citations of some of the key research in this area to the Board in a past letter, but I was excited to stumble upon this review paper written by another School Board as they considered this topic:

http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/138604/1/Impact%20of%20School%20Transitions%20and%20Different%20Grade%20Configurations.pdf

Research suggesting that additional school transitions are linked to positive outcomes for children simply does not exist.

- Yes, many other communities across New England and the United States have added elementary school transitions. However, I would argue that these additional school transitions are never the result of a strategic plan to enhance educational experience. These decisions are a result of a practical need to distribute the student body across facilities based on capacity. If the Board selects Option 2, the District could certainly be strategic about how to implement this option, but I do not believe this choice can be justified by the assumption that it would improve the educational experience of the District’s students.

- Yes, there may be some positive outcomes that result from Option 2. However, I would like to argue that the Board and Administration could work together to craft strategic goals that would allow some of those positive things to happen without having the children move to a different school. For example, it sounds like professional development of teachers could be enhanced through greater collaboration between teachers across the two elementary schools. Could this kind of collaboration be facilitated at the Administrative level without physical space changes?

- I have heard many community members and parents comment that too much is being made of the impact of school transitions on children. I think they are probably right. We don’t want to make too much of this concern. Most of our children would thrive in the current model and thrive in the K2 and 3, 4 model. But, again, the research consistently indicates that school transitions, at minimum, result in a time period of instability in children’s well-being. A respected friend stated “I just don’t get people’s attachment to a building.” For children, I don’t think the complications linked to additional school transitions is about a building. It is about their sense of competence and confidence in their environment. When I am asked to move one of my classes to a different classroom space at UNH, my sense of competence and confidence in the environment is shaken. The physical space in the new classroom may even be much better. And, with one class in the new room under my belt, I quickly return to my base level of competence and confidence. However, time is required to adjust. Why add that period of adjustment to our elementary student’s educational career when we don’t have to? These years already go by quickly.
Learning to adjust to change is a skill I want my children to develop. Both of my boys have experienced lots of change in their lives and they always adjust well. However, in their elementary school years, I want them to have a period of time to just build their sense of competence and confidence as learners in their school environment, one school environment.

I had one other thought about the educational merit of Option 2. This was the one that woke me up at 5:30 this morning. How would Option 2 impact instructional time for our children? With the start of each new school year, our elementary school children spend what seems to be a fairly significant amount of time learning about their new classroom environment; establishing new rules, building new connections, learning a new set of expectations and becoming comfortable in the physical space. If our students enter a new building and a new classroom in third grade, this adjustment time would increase taking away from instructional time with meeting a new staff, learning a new system, establishing a new routine. Is this the end of the world? Definitely not. But, I do think this is a legitimate concern. When there is little empirical evidence that we can look to to understand the educational implications of adding a school transition to the elementary years, I think it is important to consider these kinds of practical implications of Option 2.

I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. I am confident that the Board will make a well-informed decision and that the children and families of the ORCSD will adjust and rise to the occasion regardless of whether Option 1 or 2 is implemented in the Fall 2014. Thank you for taking this on.

Sincerely,

Erin Hiley Sharp

Rob McEwan: "It's Elementary, Dr. Morse"

Community member Rob McEwan asked that we post the following letter, which is also on our Facebook page and which he has sent to Foster's:

Oyster River School District again finds itself on the brink of a divisive decision: What to do about the imbalance in its elementary schools? Moharimet School in Madbury is squeezing 407 students into a building designed for 349, whereas Mast Way School in Lee has just 292 students out of a maximum of 369. There is one very simple reason for this imbalance: the school boundaries and bus routes have not been adjusted in years. Inaction by the school board in the face of mounting evidence has led us to a near critical situation this year due to a larger than expected influx at Moharimet.

This spring, the administration presented equity options that adjusted bus routes, or centralized placement rules, or offered full-day Kindergarten at Mast Way at a well-attended community forum and heard a great deal of feedback. It seemed several neighborhoods would be switching schools and families were naturally very concerned. No action was taken following this forum, but toward summer, a second set of forums occurred at which for-profit, all-day Kindergarten was presented as the solution to balancing student numbers. Unfortunately, the district would not be able to provide all-day K to everyone for several years (even if they could afford it) and no balancing would occur in grades 1 to 4. Fast forward a summer with no word on the subject to a week before school starts, and the board has to deal with a sudden increase in first and second graders at Moharimet that requires an additional class and teacher. But the board are also asked to consider bussing all Kindergartners to Mast Way to free up classroom space at Moharimet – this with just one week to go before school. The years of inaction have caught up with us.

Now to the present where a new option will be presented by Superintendent Morse at Wednesday's school board meeting; the creation of a two-tier Elementary system at Oyster River. Mast Way would be a grade K to 2 school, and Moharimet would be grades 3 to 4 or 5.

Obviously, this would be a dramatic change affecting every elementary student, teacher, family, and community as early as the 2014-15 school year. But why? Why do we have two strategic solutions that implement dramatic change but arguably do not address the core issue: there are too many students at Moharimet. There are many good and great reasons to provide all-day Kindergarten. Perhaps there are also great reasons to switch to a two-tier elementary system despite the extra transition for these young children and the disruption to both school's staff and community. Why are these solutions being proposed to resolve the simple imbalance in the size of the populations within the current school boundaries? Can it really be a reluctance to disrupt a couple of neighborhoods that would be switched to Mast Way? Certainly those families have serious concerns, to which there are almost certainly amicable solutions not quite as dramatic as the redesign of the entire system.

The administration and school board can surely find ways to grandfather existing students and families at the cost of equity improving gradually over two to four years instead of immediately. They can resolve the equity problem simply and directly by redrawing the boundaries now, and then present their strategic designs for the long term with full community involvement. This is plainly the right thing to do. It is even... elementary.

Sincerely,
Robert R. McEwan, Madbury

Nov. 5--Panel Discussion: "How Children Succeed"

The organizers of this event have asked us to post the following:

Please  join us on Tuesday, November 5 for a unique opportunity.  Inspired by the book "How Children Succeed - Grit, Curiosity and the Hidden Power of Character" by Paul Tough, Oyster River Educators, Coaches and Guidance Counselors from elementary school through high school will participate together in a panel discussion about how we support and foster qualities in our children that lead to success in life.  Each panelist will cover a different aspect of this topic. Community questions and discussion to follow.

This event will be facilitated by UNH Professor Tom Newkirk and Education Consultant Mike Anderson.  It will be held in the Multi Purpose Room at the high school at 6:30pm.  All are welcome. We look forward to seeing you on November 5!

Meeting RE: Strategic Plan, Tuesday, 9/17, 5:30--7:00 p.m. at ORHS

I recently received an official announcement of a meeting of the Superintendent and Future Search Steering Committee this Tuesday, 9/17, from 5:30--7:00 p.m. in the ORHS Multi-Purpose Room.  

According to the announcement, the Superintendent and the Committee "will share introductions and goals related to finalizing the strategic plan." 

While we do not know what the format of the meeting will be – it could involve communications and work between the various subcommittees, for example – I am hopeful there will be an opportunity for public comment on the overall document as well as the sub-sections.   At the very least, it will be a good chance for people who were at the April Future Search event to check in on progress toward translating those ideas into clear and actionable goals. 

Below are the links to the strategic planning meeting materials, including drafts that should be under discussion at the meeting. They are posted in the folder called "Previous Work".

http://www.orcsd.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=106&Itemid=214