There has been quite a bit of debate about the proposed change in A&E program, as well as other changes happening in our schools. What is concerning to me is that we have not heard any plan on how to assess the impacts of these changes. There is no doubt that these changes are being made with good intentions. However, how do we know they are actually reducing student stress? How do we know their effect on student learning and overall well-being? How do we know they do not have unintended negative consequences?
I understand measuring these changes can be difficult, and there may not be a perfect answer. But these changes are significant enough that we cannot rely on personal judgement alone and presume they will turn out well. We need a way to continuously measure and quantify their impact and make adjustments if necessary.
As residents and parents, we need to ask this kind of tough question and demand reasonable answers. In the case of some controversial changes, it is even more important to be able to measure the proposed change to avoid more controversies and further divisions within this great community.
It is time for school administrators and the board to develop and outline for parents a plan on how to evaluate changes that have already been made and those that are being proposed. We owe it to our children to do it and do it now.
Bin Yao
West Windsor
This superintendent’s letter is astonishing. I believe that it replaces the democratic and inclusive planning that helped to make our district great. It seems to me that the school board has a short memory of past mistakes, when two previous superintendents took total charge of the district using only their goals and created a stir among district personnel and parents. In most previous years, educational progress came with the help of strategic planning and the involvement of teachers, supervisors, parents, students, and the community in determining programming. WW-P always benefitted when the best minds of everyone worked together.
1. The letter states: “Community concerns have raised questions regarding stress and pressures that our children are facing” … “I am saddened that our community has had to live through this emotionally difficult time” … “the level of stress and pressure to achieve in our community is not healthy for children.”
Stress has always been a given as a common complaint at WW-P high schools, but this is a complaint that is absolutely contradicted by high-performing students. Those students quickly find that the curriculum is challenging, and that they will need to study more than they did in their last school. The WW-P curriculum requires that students to apply themselves, work hard, and get involved in extracurricular activities. Most all agree that kind of stress is healthy.
2. The letter states: We believe that the path forward is through the development of the “whole child.”
This revised emphasis on the “concept of the whole child” seems to be the basis for seeking change. It is hard for me to believe that the whole child school reform, proposed by John Dewey in the 1950s, is really back in play. That thinking was regarded as “wrong and harmful” during the Reagan administration in the 1983 report, “A Nation at Risk.” Launched in 2007 as a Whole Child Initiative, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development proposed a “whole child approach” in an effort to change the conversation about education, from a focus on narrowly defined academic achievement to a view promoting the long term development of children.
As the whole child approach has been implemented so far, it does not include a recognition of differentiation in the approach to teaching, as well as in the academic offerings for our students. Currently, under the aegis of “whole child,” students in the math program in grades 4 and 5 are to be taught by “schedule.” Differentiation has been put aside for the teaching schedule of the day. Thus, by insisting that teachers move forward ahead sequentially, the plan does not allow for differentiation within a class group. How can teachers truly assist students when they are told what to teach and when to teach it? I believe that the curriculum is being “dumbed down.”
3. The letter states: “I invite you to read about my vision.”
This does not appear to be a stakeholder vision, but rather a proposal devoid of consensus. And it is not how the district has brought new ideas to the table in the past. Many voices matter. Where are the teachers on this? “Educational decisions by fiat” are contrary to the manner in which WW-P has always been led. As I have spoken with a number of teachers and retired staff, this plan gets a “thumbs down.”
Jon S. Cosse, Ed.D
Editor’s note: Cosse was WW-P’s assistant superintendent for pupil personnel services from 1992 to 2005.
We will be happy to embrace changes even when the changes are difficult. That’s when we assume the changes are positive. Unfortunately this doesn’t apply to the series of changes to the WW-P district in the last couple of years. Those adverse changes disappointed many teachers and students and left many parents deeply concerned.
A series of changes have hit WW-P residents, family, students, and even the teachers negatively. Several educational programs were eliminated and some well-received teachers were forced to leave or re-position. Gifted & Talented programs, including A&E, were evaluated by external experts and a designated internal team. The external report spoke highly of the school district’s resources, efforts, and historical accomplishments in the G&T programs, and advised the district to expand these programs. Despite that, the internal report proposed eliminating A&E for 4th and 5th grade.
When parents raised concerns at the Board of Education meeting on September 8, a school official commented that data showed gender and ethnic disparity in the A&E program, and the higher percentage of Asian kids in the A&E program concerns school leaders. Dear school leaders, aren’t you aware that this school district has a large Asian population, and more than 60 percent of the students have Asian heritage? When can we leave race out of the picture and deem each and every student equally regardless of race, color, and gender?
More and more adverse changes have surfaced since then. For example, the Chromebook was implemented even in elementary school, despite the known controversy and high financial burden on tax payers; the midterm/final exams for high school were eliminated; the chamber orchestra was moved to after school without a late bus so that many families will have to give it up, and so on. All those changes were imposed by school administrators without any consideration of parents’ opinions. Where are parents’ rights after we paid the school expenses, including administrators’ salaries?
I understand that there are always changes when a new leader is in office, but please think again whether the changes you wish to have will be beneficial or detrimental to our children. It is never too late to make corrections.
Dear fellow parents, please attend board meetings and let your voice be heard. It is for our children, for our school district, and for this great country, since her future will be on today’s children.
Sophia Xu
Plainsboro
WW-P is at a crossroads. Having celebrated years of academic excellence and success, and enjoying steady yet fast appreciation in property values, the district has jumped on an endeavor of trying to bring students’ academic achievements and their social and emotional development into balance. The district is also taking on the challenge of dealing with the pressing student stress issue (especially in high schools), something that all its neighboring towns are sharing and none is fond of.
The school administration’s attention to those issues is well received. After all, who would not want to raise a “Whole Child” with the best all-around education possible? Who would not want his/her child to be motivated in deep and meaningful learning or healthy sport activities instead of being stressed out in meaningless pursuit of grades or trophies? Nevertheless, the approaches the school administration is taking, the changes it is making, and the reasoning behind those changes it has presented to the public is quite eye-opening, mind-boggling, and jaw-dropping.
Instead of strengthening those areas that are deemed weak, underdeveloped, or unbalanced, this administration is cutting programs in areas that this district is traditionally and famously strong in the name of bringing “balance to the community.”
Instead of carefully studying the main causes of student stress and working out the appropriate solution, this administration conveniently put the blame squarely on those traditionally successful programs and the final and midterm exams, and rushed to eliminate them.
This is a colossal mistake.
As many experts, educators, and parents have pointed out, there are various contributing factors to student stress, like pressure of college entrance, pressure from parents, peer pressure, too many activities, etc. Rushing for a cure by singling out academic programs as the convenient scapegoat not only will not resolve the issue, but also will bury the truth deeper and compound the problems. It also deeply hurts those who like and need those programs.
WW-P has been known for its top-notch math and science programs. I don’t know if that really causes balance problems that need such drastic surgical operation. Like every person has unique strengths and character, every school has its own identity and featured programs. I consider that quite natural and harmless. But suppose, for the moment, that our schools are indeed overly academically driven, or grade perpetuated, as the superintendent has denounced. What do you do to correct it? You don’t want to cut your strong right arm in order to strengthen your weak left arm, do you? You don’t want to lower the standards and requirements to make every school day easy and even boring to your children just for the illusion of a stress-free and happy “whole childhood” and only to realize later that their education has not prepared them adequately for their future adventures in life, do you?
Keep and enhance good programs that have been successful. Create more quality programs in areas that are deemed weak and underdeveloped to attract students’ interests and meet their unsatisfied needs. That is the right way to do it.
Exams are not all about grades. They are important and proven educational tools and yardsticks. They are the reality of life, too.
Programs like A&E math are not about grades at all. Math and science play a key role in the global competition of the 21st century. America is falling behind the world in preparing our children in those fields. Advanced math, advanced music, and advanced sports do not cause stress. To the contrary, differentiated education provides appropriate levels of learning and satisfies differentiated needs, and therefore helps to reduce student anxiety and stress.
First-class schools are ultimately defined by first-class teachers. Experienced teachers not only motivate students to learn and make the learning process more efficient and less stressful, they also instill into students a strong work ethic and good learning habits. If the district keeps letting or even forcing good teachers to leave, our children will be more miserable and stressful for sure, whether there is homework or no homework, exams or no exams.
Our tax money and limited resources should first and foremost be used to retain and train good teachers, not to buy those costly ChromeBook computers, hire those expensive and redundant supervisors, or build those new luxury administrative offices.
At High School South’s back to school night, I met a wonderful ninth grade math teacher. He is a veteran teacher, having been teaching in this district for 30 years, a funny gentleman, making everything fun and interesting. He teaches honors geometry.
This teacher illustrated to all the parents in the classroom how he guides his students to learn math and to approach complex math problems — by learning how to look into and frame the math problems from different perspectives instead of focusing on memorizing and applying formulas. In other words, learn to open the mind and think, really think. Very impressive.
What I was impressed most by, though, were the teacher’s comments on his students. He said he is very appreciative of the parents and those previous teachers who have sent students to his class, because all the students have very solid math foundations, and none has experienced any major difficulties in advancing to high school-level math. That makes his teaching very easy and enjoyable because he and all his bright students can explore the wonderful math world together with freedom and joy.
My take from this teacher’s comments is, high school math is built upon successful early childhood math education in middle and elementary schools. Early childhood is the golden and critical window of opportunity to establish the core foundation and basic skills in mathematics, music, and languages, which are essential to future success. This opportunity, once missed, won’t come back. Music training is very similar, but even more so in terms of early brain development, just as language skills. Plenty of research and literature supports this.
However, early childhood math and music education is exactly what the WW-P schools have now set out to cut, first in math, then music is next.
Obviously in his letter, superintendent David Aderhold has created a gigantic logic gap in his explanation of his changes. The means just do not match the end. He said he will educate a balanced “whole child,” but his acts do not. That gap has widened even further and the situation has become ridiculous because as more people realize the problems in his changes and voiced objections, he has become even more steadfast! Unbelievable.
Aderhold’s “simple philosophical approach” is indeed super simple, brainlessly simple, that is to cut, cut, and cut. Cut teachers. Cut programs. (But of course not expenses). But when good teachers are gone and good programs are gone, what are our children left with?
WW-P is at a crossroads. Superintendent David Aderhold must listen to the community and stop his single-minded changes. At stake is not only our tax money and property values, but also the future of our children.
Mike Jia
West Windsor
I attended the A&E math redesign presentation by the WW-P school administration. The presentation talked about revamping the existing A&E math program by introducing more differentiated learning for student groups and changing some of the test-in procedures. It also discussed eliminating the A&E math program for grades 4 and 5.
I liked the intention behind some of the items discussed. Specifically, the external review report for the Gifted and Talented program in the WW-P school district recommended introducing more effective math enrichment to address the large perceived difference of rigor between the basic math and A&E math.
However, I found the details on implementation of differentiated learning missing in the presentation. There is already an opt-in enrichment program (where teachers can volunteer to participate) in place in the school district. That program is ridden with lack of clarity of process, lack of resources, and in general has not been effective at all. In absence of any details, it is not clear at this point whether the proposed enrichment program would prove to be effective.
On the other hand, the external report lauded the current A&E math program based on the feedback from students, teachers, and parents. This program has been part of the WW-P school district for a very long time. There are currently several parents who grew up in the district and were in A&E. These parents, having had the first-hand experience, realize the important of this program in shaping their careers.
What I find truly astonishing is that the administration wants to eliminate a successful A&E math program for grades 4 and 5 and replace it with a program whose details have not been thought through. On top of it, the board members are required to vote on it within next four weeks! This gives the impression that school administration wants to do away A&E math for grades 4 and 5 in a hurry without caring much about whether the new enrichment plan would work out or not. I think the current plan would do disservice to deserving talented and gifted children in 4th and 5th grades who are/would be A&E material.
The onus is really on the school administration to provide concrete details on the proposed implementation, inform all parents in the school district via direct communication, and have an open discussion and Q&A in a town hall-style meeting. The new enrichment needs to run for at least two to three years in parallel to the A&E math program to prove its efficacy before any drastic step should be deliberated.
Prabhat Tomar
West Windsor
The Board of Education meeting on November 17 was a huge shock to me! The entire meeting threw out a hint that parents who want to keep the A&E math program do not care about whole child concept, especially the mental health of their children.
I don’t know where the root of this blame is. We simply want to maintain high quality math education, the strength of this district. We hope the new design has enough details, is well tested for effectiveness, and indeed benefits all students. If academic excellence is also part of the whole child concept we are on the same page.
No one wants to push their kids to be suicidal. I find it so frustrating that this message, the same message that was repeated over and over again in the past three months at numerous board meetings, still does not seem to get through.
Jie Gao
