#b#Editor’s Note#/b#: The WW-P Board of Education is scheduled to vote on proposed curriculum changes — most notably the elimination of the Accelerated & Enriched math program for grades 4 and 5 — at its meeting on Tuesday, December 15. Superintendent David Aderhold will also hold a town hall meeting Monday, December 7, in the High School South theater. The event is free but registration is required. Parents and former students have reacted strongly both in favor of and against the proposed changes. Here are their letters.
For a very long time, New Jersey Monthly ranked High School South in the top 10 high schools in New Jersey. As recently as 2006, South was in 9th place. In 2014 South was in 35th place.
The Board of Education is made up of volunteers who are elected to represent taxpayers, parents, and most of all children. They are there to be our watchdog, to check and balance the administration, not to be a rubber stamp.
There is a gigantic disconnect between Aderhold’s rhetoric and his actions. He has a stump speech about student stress that he repeats constantly. But his actions are to simply cut classes, cut exams, and cut opportunities.
If Aderhold is serious about reducing stress, where is the realistic, careful plan by the school psychologists and counselors, with input from students, teachers, and parents? The schools should incorporate classes and techniques that will make a real difference.
Instead, Aderhold looks all around to find the most fundamental (midyear and final exams) and impressive (ESL, A&E, music) parts of the whole system. Then he proceeds to cut each one, degrading the quality of our schools.
In the process of making all these cuts, he has managed to demonize bright 4th graders, anger high school students, alumni, and parents, and turn what has been a beautiful harmoniously diverse population into groups who feel marginalized. This is unforgivable.
High school students are also upset about Option 2 and independent study, and the banning of overnight club trips, which are the only way students can meet and compete with kids from other schools and win regional and national awards.
The result of all these cuts is that kids are still too stressed out. Music and A&E math are optional, so they don’t affect every student, and the kids involved love those classes. None of these actions do anything to reduce stress. Meanwhile the whole system has decayed.
And there are plenty of real problems that need to be fixed immediately. For instance, some high school teachers told their classes in September, “You’re smart, and you know how to study, learn the material yourself.” And then stared at their laptops. This is outrageous!
Some elementary kids spend math time playing a math video game. There is no evidence that is the best way to learn math. And the Chromebooks were a waste of money.
When is the administration going to cut the football program? The concussions and brain damage must be very stressful. Seven U.S. students have died this year playing football. And as reported on “60 Minutes,” the pulverized rubber artificial turf causes cancer.
Experts praise the A&E math program and recommend that it be expanded in the elementary schools. These classes have been in place for 45 years. The fondest memories of many students are the A&E math classes in elementary school. The A&E math classes are mostly enrichment, and math that is two years ahead of grade level.
Aderhold states that there is a problem with testing of 3rd graders for A&E, and that is why 4th and 5th grade A&E must be cut. Instead of looking carefully at the testing to find the problem and formulate a solution, he decides to cut the whole class for two years. What is the problem? (I have heard an anecdote, but seen no evidence or proof.) Perhaps parents need to be better informed about A&E and the testing. I can guarantee that for the top 5 percent the testing is not stressful at all.
This is the lazy approach to problem solving — don’t fix it, just cut it.
It’s now evident that the whole regular math program from K-6 moves too slowly and is not effective. Which explains why many parents have to supplement with Kumon. In response, Aderhold zealously wants to cut the one class that works perfectly, A&E math. Why attack A&E math because regular math is bad? Why not fix regular math and leave A&E in place?
Outstanding Principal Marilyn Hynes told me years ago that each class can have no more than a two-year difference in student ability, to allow teachers to teach well. The A&E kids are at least two years ahead in math. Thus they can’t be grouped with other kids for math.
Aderhold states that we don’t have time for evidence or planning, we have to act now. As if cutting math for smart 9 year olds is going to miraculously reduce stress for everyone. It’s a big stretch to say that anxious 6th graders can be blamed on 4th graders who are talented in math.
There is no time for parents or the public to see the new math plan, or for the Board to understand it. Thus there is no community support for these hasty, poorly thought out decisions.
Aderhold states “midyears and finals were not eliminated to remove stress.” Why were they eliminated? Studies have shown that practice and review helps put information into your long-term memory. This is essential to learning. Organizing notes and studying are literally how you learn. Thus, WW-P students have been robbed of a fundamental learning opportunity.
At the board meeting I attended, many parents gave substantive, analytical, intelligent reasons to keep A&E math. Afterwards, Aderhold stated that he did not hear a single reason to keep A&E math. Thus people feel that he does not listen. Unless the Board steps in and represents the whole community, this school system will further decay.
Apparently Aderhold is too busy cutting classes and clubs, repeating his stress speech, and enjoying the new $13 million offices to work on the serious issues facing our schools. Using traditional grading, he has earned an F minus, or 0 out of 100.
Carol Herts
#b#An Open Letter#/b#
I write to you regarding the recent proposal to redesign this district’s Accelerated and Enriched Math program. While the Board of Education’s objective of meeting the social, emotional, and academic needs of each student is commendable, the current proposal to replace the elementary school A&E program contradicts both this objective and the letter and spirit of this district’s mission. I urge you to reconsider this proposal.
I. A&E Math and Mental Health. Though I applaud the Board’s effort to address students’ stress and mental health, there is no evidence to suggest that 4th and 5th grade A&E Math is linked to increased stress. In Dr. Aderhold’s letter from October 16, the statistics compiled of students’ stress, which are used to justify changes in district programs, including the proposal to redesign A&E, are based on a survey of WW-P middle and high school students. Even ignoring this study’s egregious voluntary response bias, one cannot help but notice that Dr. Aderhold’s letter provides no information about students in elementary schools, nor any evidence that A&E Math in elementary schools has adverse effects. In fact, I would argue the opposite: delaying the A&E program and requiring students prepared for A&E to stay in the standard curriculum for two more years can be psychologically destructive to young students.
In lower-elementary school, before I entered A&E, math was by far my least favorite class. I already knew the material being taught, and I spent my classes deciphering the roundabout ways in which my teachers taught me to solve problems. I recall being made to do addition with dots and boxes — a useful way to learn to add, but a completely backward method for a student like me, who already knew how.
As a student in a class too easy for me, I was effectively forced to pretend to not know a concept until the teacher taught it, and was constantly told that my more efficient ways of solving problems were not the “right” solutions. Such experiences were frustrating, alienating, and, above all, curiosity-stifling, and during this time I never considered math a subject that I could enjoy. Had it not been for the A&E program, I doubt I would have found my passion for mathematics. I certainly would not have gone on to participate in MathCounts all three years of middle school, or become captain of North’s math team. I certainly would not be pursuing a math degree at MIT right now.
For advanced students who have already mastered the elementary school curriculum, the only result of delaying the A&E program for two years is systematized frustration and lost opportunity that prevents them from unlocking their full potential. To force such a result upon the students of this district is not only negligent — it’s cruel. If allowing students to take a voluntary one-time screening exam for the A&E program is objectionable, as Dr. Aderhold claims, surely forcing the same students to endure two years of this frustration is worse.
II. The Academic Value of A&E. I find it necessary to address Dr. Aderhold’s comment about the value of the elementary school A&E program in his letter from October 16. Dr. Aderhold argues that because “data collected show no statistically significant difference in students starting the program in Grades 4 and 5 versus students who start the program in middle school,” removing the elementary school A&E program will not have adverse academic effects. This could not be further from the truth. Of course there is no statistically significant difference between the performance of students who start A&E in elementary school and those who enter in middle school; students who test into A&E in middle school do so by demonstrating that they meet the same standards as their A&E peers, and it would be ludicrous to expect such students to perform at a different level. To suggest that the lack of such a difference implies the A&E program is ineffective or replaceable is a blatant non sequitur.
Elementary school A&E is, in fact, one of the most engaging and rewarding classes this district has to offer. In this class mathematics becomes problem-solving, and problem-solving becomes a game.
What makes elementary school A&E unique is the inclusion of challenging problems, tractable only with a creative observation, that students are not expected to solve immediately. Often these problems are not linked to individual units, but rather are designed to build general problem-solving skills. I still remember how working on these problems with my classmates, finding the insights hidden beneath their surfaces, became a game to me; I yearned for the “aha!” moment when I knew I made the insight the problem’s author cleverly buried for me to find. To this day I am grateful to my 4th and 5th grade A&E classes for this experience, and for showing me that mathematics can be beautiful.
The Board’s proposed system of “differentiated instruction” is a poor replacement for the A&E system currently in place. Under this proposal, pre-assessments before each unit will separate students in each class into groups based on ability, and these groups will receive different instruction; in such a system, what remains of A&E will become merely a series of accelerated classes for students who happen to know more about a particular unit than their peers, and the problem-solving, the enrichment, the core of A&E will disappear. Nor will the “differentiated instruction” proposal allow advanced students to learn valuable A&E-specific topics, such as modular arithmetic, maze theory, three-dimensional geometry, and the Pythagorean Theorem.
Moreover, forcing students who would otherwise be in A&E to receive “differentiated instruction” in their standard math classes makes all students worse off. The proposed system is unfair for students in the standard curriculum, whose teachers’ attention must now be divided not only among a class of students of varying abilities, but also among the A&E-level students who need more advanced instruction. It is unfair to A&E-level students as well, as 4th and 5th grade teachers, teaching classes of students of varying skill levels, cannot address A&E students’ extraordinary needs nearly as effectively as one teacher who teaches a class only of such students, and who has specialized experience in working with them.
III. The Social Effects of A&E. It has been argued repeatedly that the A&E program labels certain students as special, leading to harmful social consequences. However, it is unclear whether the proposed replacement, which still involves separating students by ability, labels students less. Moreover, the alleged social effects of having A&E, if they exist, are very small. Just as the most athletic students in my elementary school PE classes did not think any less of others who were not as athletic, my A&E classmates and I certainly did not think ourselves superior to others because we were in a different class for one period of the day. Elementary school students are, in fact, quite capable of looking past differences.
If anything, being in elementary school A&E had a humbling effect on me. Being in a class with 20 other advanced math students taught me that I didn’t need to be the best — that giving my best and enjoying math were more important than being better than others — and this class helped me to mature both as a student and as a person. And for advanced students, the peer group that A&E has to offer — which the “differentiated instruction” system, which isolates advanced students in their regular math classes, cannot replicate — is especially rewarding. Only among my A&E peers was it “cool” to team-solve Sudoku, or to tell each other logic puzzles, or to work out a winning strategy for the hand game Chopsticks. If such a community doesn’t embody the Board’s ideal of “Self-Directed Learners,” what does?
In light of the above, I call on the Board of Education to recognize its duty to safeguard the best interests of the people it represents. I call on the Board to suspend the proposal to redesign the A&E program until the opinions of those most affected by the plan — current and prospective 4th and 5th grade A&E students — can be heard, and to proceed with the proposal only with the approval of said students.
I call on the students, parents, teachers, and alumni of the WW-P community to witness the Board’s decision and hold it accountable to its mission “to develop all of our students as passionate, lifelong learners” — including those with extraordinary needs.
And finally, I call on the WW-P community to embrace the diversity within this district — and with it, the truth that different students have different needs, that each student must receive the education most appropriate for him so that all may reach their fullest potential.
Brice Huang
Huang is a member of the WW-P North Class of 2015 currently studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
#b#WW-P Actions Don’t Match Objectives#/b#
On October 16, David Aderhold sent a letter to all WW-P teachers and parents. I applaud his determination to educate the “Whole Child.” Particularly I agree with the notion of addressing the social, emotional, and academic development of each student, which should undoubtedly be one of the most important objectives of our education system. However, I disagree with the actions taken by the school district to achieve this goal.
Firstly, the letter cited Table 8 on page 33 of the external report claims that “68 percent of (high school) students reported that they are stressed always or most of the time.” What is not mentioned is that this is only one of the three parts of Table 8. The other two parts stated something equally interesting: (1). Seventy percent of high school students, as well as 77 percent of high school parents, find their experience in school neutrally/positively/very positively influence their attitude toward learning. (2). 81 percent of high school students, as well as 90 percent of high school parents, find their schools engaging. Thus my interpretation of Table 8 is that most of the high school students feel stressed as a result of school work and activities, but also feel positively (or at least not negatively) about learning, and find their schools engaging.
Secondly, stress may come from various sources. The survey question in Table 8 actually asked: “How much of the time do you feel stressed as a result of school work and activities?” School work and activities range widely from tests, homework, sports, to other extracurricular activities, all of which may cause stress. Additionally, stress usually results from uncertainty and lack of control. To attribute all stress to course work and exams is a misinterpretation of the survey results. As a representative student explained in his/her survey: “I am sometimes stressed because of my extracurricular activities clashing with my schoolwork, but most of the time it isn’t a problem,” and a middle school parent commented, “She enjoys school thoroughly — could not ask for a more fulfilling experience.”
Thirdly, the survey in Table 8 focused on middle and high school students, not elementary school students. We also see from this table that the percentage of middle school students who feel stressed is much smaller than that of high school students. Therefore, to claim that 4th and 5th grade elementary school students are feeling the same amount of stress is an unreasonable extrapolation of the collected data. It is totally unreasonable and unfair to use stress among middle and high school students to justify cutting elementary school curricula in the areas of math, music, and world language.
Fourthly, the letter states “I have not found an educator who has witnessed the test process in Grade 3 and believes it is developmentally appropriate to begin determining a child’s mathematical capabilities at this point in a student’s educational program.” I would like to emphasize here that, according to the WW-P website, the A&E math program is “not designed to serve the good math students, but rather to meet the needs of those rare students, who have unusual talents in mathematics, and who, because of those talents, learn mathematics in non-traditional ways.”
It is clear that the purpose of A&E is not to identify, at the age of 9 or 10, the next John Nash, but to provide an opportunity for those rare students who need it. By eliminating the A&E program for the 4th/5th graders, we are depriving them from being educated appropriately. Parts 3, 4 and 5 of the Whole Child Tenets state that:
• Each student is actively engaged in learning and is connected to the school and broader community.
• Each student has access to personalized learning and is supported by qualified, caring adults.
• Each student is challenged academically and prepared for success in college or further study and for employment and participation in a global environment.
By eliminating the A&E program in the 4th/5th grades, these children will no longer be actively engaged in learning, will have no access to personalized learning, and will not be challenged academically. We are essentially excluding them from being the “whole child.”
Further, I have found a rich body of research on A&E programs that discusses the potential benefits of starting the identifying process and accelerated instruction as early as third grade.
One of the seminal papers in this area, published in the prestigious Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, by Mills, Ablard & Gustin (1994) and titled “Academically talented students’ achievement in a flexibly paced mathematics program,” concluded that “Third through sixth-grade mathematically talented students (n=306) enrolled in a flexibly paced mathematics course made achievement gains far beyond the normative gains expected over a one-year period. When compared to students several grade levels higher, these highly able students gained as much as 46 percentile points from pre- to post-testing. Above-grade-level testing revealed that the students possessed a wide range of mathematics knowledge prior to entering the course, with some students scoring at exceptionally high levels. With an individualized learning pace, some students as young as 4th grade completed the arithmetic/pre-algebra sequence in their first year and returned the second year to successfully complete the beginning algebra sequence. Restricting such students to a rigid instructional pace and a ‘grade-appropriate’ curriculum may place them at risk for declines in motivation and achievement.”
James Wu
Princeton Junction
#b#Changes Send District Backwards#/b#
Unlimited investment and encouragement in science and technology talents has gained the U.S. unmatched competitive advantage and substantially changed our daily lives. President Obama has always been an advocate for STEM. One of his campaign goals is to inspire a more diverse STEM talent pool and set the standard with exceptional role models. Math is the core of STEM, the fundamental of the fundamentals.
The school administration is acting in a completely opposite direction by chopping off the grade 4-5 A&E math program on questionable statistics and conscious bias on gender and race. I have to ask our dear superintendent and his comrades. Is it possible that students who complain more about stress are likely to participate in your survey on stress level? Are they stressed out only because of the A&E program, or in general? Can you prove the causal connection? Can their family dynamics or social skills contribute to their high level of stress? Are they more inclined than others to feel stressed in all aspects of life?
America is built upon freedom of choices and value of its individuals. Why can’t a few talented students in math be acculturated into mainstream society, which advocates diversity and inclusion? The concept of “whole child” that our superintendent insists on promoting is also arguable. When President Johnson waged the war on poverty and started Head Start, he meant to bring disadvantaged kids up to speed, without compromising education opportunities for those fortunately already higher in the ladder.
What our superintendent and his allies intend to do is quite the opposite. Top performers will be pulled down to average out the whole student body to assure “some” students can have a less stressful school life. This illusion of “easy life” actually deprives them of critical learning opportunities to become a psychologically sound “whole child” who can face more serious challenges in a much more complex adulthood in this chaotic new century. This downward slippage to the overall public school quality, which stands out due to generations of traditions in academic excellence, could be the tip of the iceberg and may lead to a debacle in the future for the nation to lose its STEM stature.
Cultivating the “whole child” shouldn’t mean suppressing the talented, while sympathizing only with those falling behind. Instead, more focus should be on investing in extra academic and psychological help for those falling behind instead of depriving talented kids the right to reach higher. The U.S. never puts a cap on exerting individual potentials. Instead, it has drawn millions of STEM talents all over the world to sustain the workforce and employed armies of high tech workers overseas because of shortage of talents in STEM at home.
As a loyal taxpayer of WW-P for more than 10 years and a mom of a five-year-old, I’m here to fight to build our school district to stay at the top in New Jersey and in the nation for my daughter and for thousands of kids like her.
Min Li
West Windsor
#b#Chug-a-Chug to Nowhere#/b#
I had a long, candid conversation with Superintendent David Aderhold after an extraordinarily long Board of Education meeting and heated exchanges on November 17. We left the school at around 12:30 a.m.
That Board meeting was extraordinary, and maybe historical, not only because a record number of parents came out to continue voicing their opposition to the many changes Dr. Aderhold has been instituting in the schools since he took the office more than two years ago (this is a protest that had lasted for months), but also because Dr. Aderhold brought to the meeting a new group of cheerleaders — his elite administration team! They took up the front row tables in the meeting room. They gave big applause to the few speakers who supported the changes. Some of the administration staff even grabbed the microphone to directly voice their full support of the superintendent (of course). They gave the superintendent long standing ovations. On comments made by opposing parents (the majority at the meeting), they kept silent. The dividing line was crystal clear. The tension was high.
So exactly what are those people cheering for? And what are the others trying to stop?
It is a WW-P school train, packed with WW-P students and loaded with cars of changes — changes made to the subscription of raising healthy children and reducing student stress by the school superintendent and his team. The train chugs through the towns and heads for the future, picking up speed along the way. Two bold words “Whole Child” glitter on its head. All is great … until you look closely.
All the changes are covered in thick, dark canvas, except for the eye-catching prints “for reducing student stress.” If you happen to ask any of the Board members, none can explain exactly what those changes are and why and how they will work, let alone what kind of measurements and quality controls there are.
Dozens of parents have talked to Board members and the superintendent directly about their concerns. Even more have written to them or spoken at meetings to voice their concerns and objections. Hundreds of people have pointed out from every possible angle that the changes are the wrong prescription for reducing student stress because they won’t truly and effectively address the real student stress issue. All those changes will do is bring down the school district and divide the community. As I am writing this, there is already a 700-signature-strong petition to stop those changes, and the number is still climbing.
There are too many unanswered questions.
How come the midterm and final exams, the proven teaching tool and measurement of learning that have been used by teachers for hundreds of years, were suddenly deemed unhealthy for students and were banned from our classrooms?
How come an advanced and enriched math program that has been running so successfully for decades was also to blame for student stress and therefore has to be gotten rid of?
How come the highly respected instrument music teachers were banned from teaching the way they have been teaching successfully for decades? They were not only teaching music, but also teaching good learning habits, values of hard work, and responsibility. What does this have to do with student stress? How come those beloved music teachers are leaving one by one?
An energetic and beloved art teacher was still let go despite a petition with more than 200 signatures, a massive appeal made to the school board, and a sit-in that involved about half of the high school student body.
Both good programs and good teachers are being taken away bit by bit, chunk by chunk. What is going on?
The schools are being dumbed down in the name of reducing student stress. But unfortunately some people are only impressed by the big prints of “Whole Child” and the warning label of student stress.
Just listen to the few people who support the changes. You will invariably hear that they support the “Whole Child” idea and superintendent’s “courage” to take on the issue of student stress, but there is nothing else. They don’t ask or even care what those changes actually are or mean. Even some Board members hold the same attitude. As soon as the discussion touches the actual changes and plan details, they would mutter, dodge, or simply say “I don’t know. You have to ask the superintendent.” Or “Well, let’s trust the superintendent and his administration. They are the education professionals.”
I heard the same explanation again and again that night. I even heard people come up to the podium and say simply, “Dr. Aderhold, I support you!” without any explanation. It has gone all emotional rather than rational.
The Board has been writing too many blank checks of trust to this administration for too long.
Later that night, in private talks, I told Dr. Aderhold that I would have 100 percent supported and advocated his whole child initiatives if I had not seen what he actually did, because I myself am a strong believer in all-around education. In fact, I felt that something was missing or not quite right in this district shortly after I moved here in 2010. Maybe it was the lack of involvement in community activities from many parents, or maybe it was the overly competitive atmosphere, or both.
I told my children they have to work very hard, but they don’t need to study just for scores. I wanted them to participate on teams, make friends, and contribute to the community. My son loved team sports and was the co-captain of his travel soccer team. At home I am a laid back person on almost everything while my wife is on the stricter side. Nobody pushed me when I grew up. I hate being pushed, and therefore I hate to see my children being pushed too. Often my wife and I would disagree or argue on matters concerning our children’s education. On Kumon for example, I am not a big fan. In fact I was strongly against sending children there. I was a math major and knew from my own experience that math should not be learned that way. But my wife saw the need for Kumon and insisted our children go to Kumon, as many other families do. That deeply troubled me. When kids/families flock to Kumon after school, something is wrong.
What was going on?
Math is essentially a subject of concepts and drills. You learn the concepts first, then do lot of drills to help digest and groove-in what you learn, much like the lessons and drills in tennis. There is no shortcut for that. For most kids, the concepts need to be taught carefully in the classroom, and the drills through homework.
Granted, most Asian families like mine regard a solid early math foundation as essential to the success of their children’s education, much like language skills are critical lifelong skills. They tend to push more. But why Kumon? Don’t we have schools? Well, have you had a chance to closely look at the homework assignment and what is being taught in our schools (the regular math class, not the to-be-cut A&E class)? They are too shallow and boring to many kids. I heard many kids or their parents speak at the Board meeting on this issue. Those kids need challenges, but instead they are stuck in between the regular math class and the much better structured A&E class. They go to Kumon because they are hungry, because the schools are not giving what they need for growth! Please don’t blame those parents.
Pursuit of academic excellence (in anything for that matter — music, art, sports etc.) is not at odds with the goal of “Whole Child.” But expectations need to be properly managed. In fact, it should be part of the goal of “Whole Child.” Homework does not necessarily cause bad stress as long as the assignment is meaningful. Mandatory no-homework policies can only disrupt teaching plans and learning processes, much like taking tennis lessons without drills and practices. A dumbed down school policy may let some children feel things are “easy” for now, but it will eventually make their life harder and more stressful later at schools and in life. If the lower foundation is not solid, no tall building can be built on it.
Although my wife and I disagree on specific ways of raising a healthy child, we do share the same core values of education (also shared by a large number of parents in this district). First and foremost, we encourage our children to work hard and respect the hard work of others. Working hard is not only a personal merit, but also a responsibility in an interdependent society. (If you don’t do your best, how can you expect everyone else to do their best?) We also help our children take on challenges with a positive attitude and learn to enjoy hard work. The recent school changes are in direct confrontation with those very core values we cherish so dearly.
If someone’s action or inaction results in the taking down of a reputed excellent school system, this someone(s) must be held accountable, as one of the Board member said at the November 17 meeting.
But ultimately, this is an issue of right. When you take away a good program or a good teacher from students and hurt their chance to learn and grow, you are violating their right to education. When you cut a program and cite “ethnic imbalance” as the reason, you have crossed the line.
Not all changes are good. This full load of changes on this train of WW-P are particularly damaging and even explosive. The train is going nowhere.
Dr. Aderhold, please don’t try to be a maverick like Don Quixote.
Board members, please take up your responsibility.
Mike Jia
#b#Do Not Stifle Our Kids’ Curiosity#/b#
I attended the November 17 Board meeting. It was an amazing experience. People whose kids are mostly not in the school district were fighting against parents of local school kids. Our superintendent, the representative of the former, promoted the “whole child” concept and cited “stress” as an excuse to eliminate an advanced math program. Parents expressed anger and disbelief and supported the math program.
I attended Princeton University and have two masters degrees. By all means, I would not have been a “whole child” in our superintendent’s eyes. I spent too much time studying as a kid. But looking back, those “nerdy” hours have laid the basis for my confidence and creativity later in my life. After all, we don’t create new things out of nothing. We create out of the solid base of knowledge. Building such a base of knowledge doesn’t have to be stressful. When guided by curiosity and interest, even the most boring fact can become fascinating.
It’s parents’ and teachers’ job to ignite the fire of curiosity in our kids. When this fire is not present, we should ask whether we are teaching the right way. Are we pushing kids where no talent exists? Or are we conveying knowledge that we sometimes don’t even understand ourselves? The last question I would ask is whether we should eliminate knowledge. When it comes to the issue of A&E, I believe the right question should be how we can make math more interesting to more kids, not whether math classes should be eliminated.
Helen Ming
West Windsor
#b#Changes Needed, But Not in This Way#/b#
Many curriculum-related changes have been introduced in our school district since the last year. The changes have been introduced supposedly to deal with the stress the students face. The panacea that the school administration seems to think it has is to reduce enrichment programs, reduce flexibility, or remove important exams like finals. I still believe that the school administrators want to sincerely care for the children in the district. However, without properly involving stakeholders — the students and parents, without properly analyzing the root cause of the issues, and without a comprehensive plan, the measures taken may backfire, lead to more stress, and not help in creating well rounded future citizens.
I have been to a number of Board of Education meetings recently. A lot of parents have given feedback about the recent changes. More than 800 WW-P residents have signed a petition against these curriculum changes. I don’t think the administration has been listening with an open mind. The administration seems to cater to a minority of residents. I was severely saddened to see our wonderful community being bitterly divided.
We need our community to unite again. The onus is on the WW-P school administration and the Board of Education members to listen to WW-P residents, liaison with them, and craft a plan that we all believe would work.
Prabhat Tomar
West Windsor
I attended the November 17 Board meeting. I was literally shaking when I went to the podium to express my concerns. My family and I have lived in Plainsboro’s Gentry neighborhood since September, 1997. For the past 18 years, I’ve never seen anything like what was going on in that room — tension among different ethnic groups, hostility between school administrators and parents, and confrontational words being exchanged.
All of these were caused by the superintendent’s proposed changes of cutting a renowned and long-standing advanced math program (A&E math) for the 4th and 5th graders using gender and ethnic imbalance as one of the reasons.
Although my eighth grade son is good at math, he was never accepted by the A&E program. Without going to any math tutors, he made it to the 20-person Mathcount team not just once, but twice. He told me on several occasions that he felt bored in his current honors math class. He went on to ask his school counselor whether he can go to high school for math. The answer was NO.
My five-year-old son attended WW-P Mini Explorer program and Montessori preschool prior to joining WW-P’s kindergarten program. He recently told me that he didn’t want to go to school because it was no fun.
What my sons told me had me worried so much! We have handed our boys with trust to the schools for quality education, which should be fun and full of challenges at the same time. Cutting current programs and limiting access to educational resources is not just harmful to the kids’ future but also creating financial burden to the families who have been paying hefty property taxes.
Our school district definitely needs changes. However, any changes that cause tension and possible hatred among different people are not just wrong but also not acceptable.
I urge the WW-P superintendent and Board members to work closely with different groups of parents to come up with a functional plan that can unite everyone in the community and restore WW-P’s glory!
Helen Yin
Adams Court, Plainsboro
#b#Where Are the Plans?#/b#
Many parents like me are still waiting to see the details of the new design of the math A&E program for 4th and 5th grade. We have not received any information on how the clustering/grouping will be handled, how differentiated instruction will be carried out, who will be the teachers, and how students are assessed, what will be the curriculum, how does the re-design connect to the sixth grade math curriculum, and how to evaluate the effectiveness of the new design.
The community needs to see these details of the new design written down and needs sufficient time to digest the new plan.
Jie Gao
West Windsor
#b#Please Delay the A&E Vote#/b#
So the A&E vote is coming up December 15. OK … we’ve been told it’s not really taking away A&E, it’s merely a new system to make advanced math more available to more students. Great objective.
But objectives alone don’t equal success. Good intentions alone don’t equal success. So parents have been asking for a plan with details on exactly how this new program works. There was a past plan put up, but that only generated a lot of questions and concerns, which have not been addressed. So we turned to Board of Education members, and even today most of them are not exactly sure how it will work, and their limited interpretations are in many different directions.
So in all fairness, whether you are for change or against change, how can we expect Board members to responsibly vote when they are not certain how the plan works? We are about two weeks away from the vote. We’ve been told, “trust the experts.”
Yes, I am ready to trust them, but only after “experts” explain this new system fully and effectively to the Board and parents. Additionally, if we cannot understand the program, how can teachers and students understand? And if teachers and students cannot understand, then how can they fully leverage this new program?
My proposal is to take a step back and make sure this is well thought out. Many parents are on board with the objective, it’s only how we get there that is a major problem, and that’s because many are uncertain. The Board and parents need a detailed plan put out to the public, to promote a true open discussion and understanding.
This will take some time, and the December 15 vote will need to be delayed, but ultimately this will benefit the school administration objectives. I am positive our superintendent, with his attention to detail and extreme caring for our children, wants to ensure parents understand his plans fully so we can all work together for success.
Peter Syrek
Plainsboro
