Comments on: This Week in PPS #1

By: S. Wilcox

S. Wilcox — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:24:36 +0000

Of course it is. It is on the westside.

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 19:04:18 +0000

A correction to the original post (and podcast): Rieke is a K-5 school not a K-8.

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:19:58 +0000

I have it from a well-placed source that the decision to do the late openings was by decree… not to be discussed by the scheduling committee which included teacher representation.

By: ppsvet

ppsvet — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 03:04:31 +0000

I think most teachers would rather be with their students than to be forced into ‘Professional Learning Communities’ [PLC's] and be monitored by administrators. This appears to be just one more great idea pushed by an ‘Educational Consultant’.

You’re right. I doubt that they ever took notice of how it would affect families and kids. I doubt that they really care.

By: Stephanie

Stephanie — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:56:43 +0000

If even one kid did not go to school because of the late start day then it is a failure. PPS is really good at creating new and exciting inequities and marketing them as the best thing ever. What were they thinking working parents would do with their children that cannot get themselves to school on their own? I bet if they looked at the attendance data for that day it would show you the inequity in this practice.

By: Rose

Rose — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:27:33 +0000

On the late openings:

My kids at Ockley this year said hardly anyone was there for the first late Wednesday. A late opening is a real hardship on poor families. Where are they supposed to get the nanny that drives the kids to school while mom is at work? Our schools had no childcare plans. The result was a lot of parents left kids the whole day with relatives, or worse, left them home alone all day because there was no transportation to school.

I was in a panic myself. I had meetings I couldn’t miss. I ended up leaving my kids home alone, calling to make sure they were getting ready and walking the youngest safely to class. I think the entire idea is poorly thought and insulting to working parents. And it is dangerous for the little ones who are going to get left at home because parents can’t take mornings off of work. In the end I think we will find attendance goes down, especially for poor kids.

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:32:17 +0000

Susan, interesting to hear that your school has child care (fee) for the late openings. Our school has nothing. It’s a hassle for us, and I can only imagine how tough it can be for economically disadvantaged families, single parent households, etc.

By: Susan

Susan — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:38:58 +0000

The seven two-hour late openings does seem to give students more time in classrooms than the three full days they used to miss for professional development. I’m interested to see how the late openings will affect the remainder of class time on those days with shrinking and rearranging periods and just general confusion on where to be when. Having more time for cohorts to meet and plan within a building sounds like a wonderful idea, but the new schedule does eliminate teachers from being able to attend seminars and training outside their buildings. Although my child’s K 8 has childcare for a fee available for late openings, there are schools that have no plan in place.

By: Steve Buel

Steve Buel — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:05:10 +0000

Matt, you missed my point. Dump the whole thing as an alternative to teaching kids in school. Does the district still have two hour staff meetings every week? Used to. Plenty of time to “educate” teachers.

Also, does anyone in the schools have any idea how families actually operate? Seems like we forget way too often.

By: Steve Rawley

Steve Rawley — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:13:17 +0000

Thanks, all, for the words of encouragement.

Rita, thanks also for the reminder about SACET. I’ll include an update next week. There were a few other significant omissions (like the Million Father March) that I will try to catch up with soon.

(Mostly, this first edition was kind of a “hit it and quit it” sound check to shake out technical issues.)

About the late openings and professional development (PD), I certainly understand the intent. But I’m still not sure I understand the math. We’re putting five day’s worth of PD into 16 hours. Does that mean that we’re adding five days to the instructional calendar in exchange for the eight shortened days? If so, that’s definitely a net gain for students, and ought to satisfy those who question the value of PD.

Many parents I’ve spoken to are befuddled by the scheduling though. Early release might make more sense. It seems like the vast majority of parents have some kind of after care arranged, but many do not need before care. Now they do, but only eight days during the year. Seems like it would be a lot easier to arrange after care in general.