On another post Kathy Fine wrote:
I am posting this for someone who knew the Spartan classics program very well.
"Spartan
Classics was a fine program. The students were NOT in the basement.
The way the program worked was students were on the Ground Floor (there
were windows down there) their freshmen year for their core subjects as
the program was designed as a school within a school. Ironically, the
school district under Mark Roosevelt modeled their current Promise
Readiness Corp after the Spartan Classics Academy. That is to say,
under the Spartan Classics model, teachers traveled with their students
from grades 9-11. The students and teachers moved up a floor each year
with their core teachers so that 10th grade Spartan Classics students
were on the first floor and 11th grade students and teachers were on the
second floor. The students took their electives classes with the rest
of the student body. The program was specifically designed to cater to
the "mainstream" student who is often lost in our system. There was a
program at Schenley for the International Studies students and the High
Tech students, but nobody was servicing the students who were not in the
magnet program. So, a grant from the Heinz Endowment was awarded for
the Spartan Classics Academy. There was a director for the program, a
designated secretary, a dedicated social worker for the students,
another secretary that worked as a liaison with parents, and the
director had the ability to hand-pick a dedicated staff of teachers,
outside of the union seniority rules. Teachers worked as a team and
designed the students' schedules with a mentoring period worked into the
curriculum. Teachers created their own block schedule which was
ahead of its time. At one point, the program was being visited by school
reformers throughout the nation.
The misconceptions that went
with the program were purely due to the racist notions of the public who
assigned the "basement" perception to these students because they were
majority African American. The teachers in the program CHOSE to be on
the ground floor for our freshman class so that they could move on their
block schedule (which didn't coincide with Schenley's bells) without
disrupting other classes. It's remarkable how people come up with these
revisionist ideas. The sad part is, the district was unwilling to
dedicate the resources required to service their "mainstream"
population, and so by the end of the program it was a shell of what it
was originally. The district cut the director, social worker,
secretaries and disbanded the team teaching approach. That's why it is
ironic that now every comprehensive high school in the city is using the
model we had before it was disbanded by the administration by having a
team of teachers follow their students through their 9th and 10th grade
years.
For the blogger, please talk to a Spartan Classic student
before making judgements regarding the program. These students felt
cared for and really like they were part of a family. It was tragic to
witness the dismantling of the program.
I think it is crucial
to set the record straight. So many lies have been told about why
Schenley closed, I don't want this to be one of them."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
The hundreds of Spartan students and families who came out to protest the closing of Schenley attest to the value they saw in this program. The divisive tactics and insinuations made about the program did not work with those who actually attended the the Spartan program.
This could be a good model for u prep.
This certainly sounds like it was a dynamic program meeting students' and families' needs, by keeping things "small" and yet sharing space, facilities etc. It would be a good model for any school-- but would this district now, allow professional teachers to have this much input?
Yes, during that time people wanting to change their schools came to US for information. Despite what the venture philanthropists carpet baggers have sold to school boards across the country-- school was happening and students were learning-- without corporate involvement.
International Studies, High Tech and any other program that prepares students for productive futures in today's world should also be part of the education of all neighborhood African American children.
Create that kind of environment for all children (who attended Schenley in the past and for UPrep students today) and you might be on to something worth being defended and promoted.
"International Studies" just meant that students were required to take a foreign language and could take International Baccalaureate courses. The option to take a foreign language was open to all. It is not clear what a "High Tech" program is, but the "technology" classes (learning about software programs, etc) were taken by students from the various programs together in the same classrooms. Only a small subset of students were interested in robotics classes; a robotics requirement would not be an improvement.
Actually, the program was called International Studies as a sequential continuation from the Elementary International Studies Magnet Schools, each which offered a single foreign language- East Hills, Liberty, Linden,Manchester to name most- which then fed into Frick International Studies Magnet as the Midfle School for the program. Japanese was offered to those who did not follow this sequence . Schenley was then the high school sequence which offered a number of choices - IB or International Studies, or a mix- which was a natural progression.
Some people might assume that International Studies students actually take in depth courses in international relations, but it is foreign language requirement that made the studies "international," along with some special visitors or presentations.
The IB curriculum certainly does not walk in lockstep with what PPS has put forward as "curriculum." I believe that there is room for adopting one into the other, of course, and in the case of PPS, it is accidental. After all, here is a curriculum that seeks to be politically correct rather than historically accurate or academically challenging. The IB curriculum, which seeks to build worldly students who are lifelong learners and understanding of all peoples and other cultures, can actually be a bridge in that regard.
But the simple fact of PPS is this: Central administration will carp long and loud about having an IB program, but has no idea what IB is. They have no idea about what the program entails, what it seeks to accomplish. When "visitors" used to walk around and observe, the comments were actually hilarious. Clueless, inane and ignorant ramblings that wondered why teachers there weren't doing things in the rigid, scripted and outrageously poor PPS framework.
My feeling is that IB will be allowed to flourish without the rigid oversight, until it falls below the AYP bar....which thanks to political clowns....should be any time now. After all, 90+% proficiency is a pipe dream that only a charlatan like Bill Gates could put forth.
Actually, it was George W. Bush who created No Child Left Behind, with its mandate of 100% of students testing proficient at grade level in 2014.
Well, there is a new standard now in place at high school soon to be required in K to 8 (Yes, Kindergarten). The new CCSS takes PSSA to a new more difficult and complex level. No more minimum standard PSSA. Most schools are ready to move up the levels learning and skill development and will make the transition relatively easily.
Unfortunately, those who are struggling now will not be able to make the academic progress necessary to compete successfully at global levels. The "dumbing down" of American children is the priority of too many. "Opt out" they say, they do, and they encourage others to do the same.
Read the letter to editor in today's PG. It's a point of view that encourages the "opt-out" folks to get over it and get on with raising the currently low standard of education in districts where the leaders "do not know what to do".
It is so sad, sad, sad.
The get over it letters tend to say oh it is just a week ignoring the concerns of parents that the impending tests affect weeks and months of classes in a negative way. Even if preparation for the tests should not affect how classes are conducted, some parents observe a negative impact on the learning environment for a long period of time before the actual tests.
So, why do parents let teachers do that to their kids. Sure its easier to blame the test than speak to teachers or principals or superintendents, so that's what they do, blame the test. The test won't change. School folks can change what they do, but need parents to protest the impact on their child. The test has no impact on a child. If he can't do it, it's because he hasn't been taught the minimum skills necessary. If the child is stressed, its because an adult stressed him/her beyond his/her capacity. The minimal standard test didn't cause the problem. Someone in the school where you send your child caused the problem.
But, take the easy way out and "opt out" so that your kid is unprepared for the future. It's the easiest option, so take it, truthfully, and stop complaining. Don't teach your kid to lie, with the religious reason excuse. Be honest or get a tutor. The test is easy. Find someone who was a good teacher retired over the past few years. He/she will bring your child up to par since PPS can't seem to manage it.
Parents indicate that they tried speaking with administrators, teachers, etc to no avail. Often their children have no problem passing the test, the issue is how test preparation for the school as a whole is affecting scheduling and teaching at the school, for example when classes in subjects not being tested are eliminated in favor of more and more test prep in subjects being tested.
It's the same "makes no sense" excuses. Don't children read in all classes? So, teach them the skills in all classes. Why eliminate any class where children read?
So, why are skills going down instead of up if the only thing kids do are "test prep" in reading and math to the exclusion of everything else.
None of this is making sense when you examine the situation as it exists, is it?
Consider a class like Spanish in a k - 5 school. Administrators may well believe that replacing most Spanish classes with practice reading drills in English will bring better test scores. This belief may be incorrect but may still result in English drills replacing Spanish class.
to 2:15 and all..."test prep" doesn't work because learning is more than that. When schools taught the whole child, helping students to meet their full potential and students saw the future of the arts, science, technology--it all came together.
Truth: You CAN'T teach the test...surprise PPS-- it doesnt work! That's why all the districts around us in this state are kickin' our butts! IF it worked,, we would have done it long ago!
2:15 agrees absolutely, just saying, "test prep" has never worked! So why does PPS think it does? That's the puzzle?It really is counterproductive as plain as can be, so what's going on?
Do they (PPS CO) know anything about teaching and learning, true teaching and true learning?
Post a Comment