Happy Mother's Day

Happy! Happy!

We're going to have a good day -- going into the Village for Mother's Day brunch.

But first: I have to complain about my school district.

I have to. It can't wait.

Friday night -- Friday night -- the district launched a fresh constructivist assault via backpack letter and board email.

Friday night!

Mother's Day weekend.

Can't we get one weekend off?

Apparently not.

The intriguing question, for me, is what drives this behavior.

Does the district do this stuff on purpose, or do they simply not understand what the problem is?

They've been clobbered on TRAILBLAZERS; they've been battled to a standstill on the middle school model. They (and we) are experiencing nothing but pain each and every time the subject of constructivist reform comes up.

Now they deliver the exciting news -- via an emailed "press release" no less -- that constructivist education is coming to the high school. We are all of us to show up for the "kick off" event in our "strategic planning process," at which we will -- wait for it -- have an opportunity to ask questions.

Here are my questions, for starters.

Number one, does the board know that the superintendent they hired has a broad constructivist reform agenda?

I suspect not. I can't imagine she told them this when they hired her. Ed had one email from the board president last year that suggested the board sees what is happening here as a simple case of Irvington being brought up to speed.

Number two, does the board know what constructivism is?

I'm certain the answer to this question is 'no.' None of the 3 candidates running for the board knows what constructivism is; why should our current board know, either?

Number three, does the board know that this latest event will be viewed as a direct provokation by many of the most vocal members of the parent community? (5 days before the budget vote to boot)

"Number three" may be the most interesting question at the moment.

Friday night we received, I think, 5 different emails from the Board president.

First we got the weekly Board newsletter alerting us to next week's Landmark Event & telling us that a "press release" would follow.

(A press release? A press release to parents?)

Then we got the press release.

Then we got a correction to the press release; apparently the date on the press release was wrong.

Then we got a correction to the correction .... and after that I lost track. Ed says we also received a second copy of the press release.

(I'm thinking I may have to ask the board whether the press release was actually released to the press.)

Ed and I both, separately, read the blitz as a sign that the board knows this exciting new event has a significant potential to produce a fresh new onslaught of unhappy emails to the board. He says that when you repeatedly mix up the date, you do so because you're (unconsciously) dreading the whole thing; you're (unconsciously) hoping people won't come. And in fact an email blitz of the kind we experienced Friday night may indeed lower attendance. Who's going to sort through 5 different emails trying to figure out When and Where?

I had the same feeling.

Further evidence: the various communiques also informed us that the Coming Event will commence with our administrators asking "questions" based on some report none of us has seen or heard of.

I emailed the board asking for a copy of the report, and received a one-line reponse saying someone would get back to me.

After that, radio silence.

This is all the more revealing given the fact that I probably know the report; I already own, and am skimming, a copy of the book. Which I revealed in a follow-up email.

Assuming I do know what the report is, it shouldn't be difficult simply to say, "Yeah, that's the one." (Assuming the board knows it's the one, of course.)

"Someone will get back to you" sounds defensive to me.^*

...................

It's time to bring the issue of constructivism front and center here in Irvington. Thinking this through, I'm going to assume for the time being that a) the board doesn't know what constructivism is, and b) doesn't know that hostility to constructivism is the common theme running through (many) parent protests.

In fact, the report cited by the administration, Standards for Success (assuming there's not some other constructivist, Bill Gates-funded Standards for Success report floating around) is something the dissidents would approve of.

The fact that neither the board nor the administration appears to know this suggests that it's time to try to communicate the broader message.

That message is:

Students have a right to receive direct instruction in the liberal arts disciplines, and educators have a professional and ethical obligation to provide it.


^{* There's at least one other possibility I can think of .....}