PLEASE DON'T FORGET TO ATTEND THE IMPORTANT SCHOOL BOARD MEETING AT 7:00 PM TONIGHT, at the Board Offices located at 425 S. Main Street in Pennington!
Adam M. Finkel, Sc.D. Letter to the School Board on “Strings and Science” -- CUSP GUEST OPINION
May 19, 2008
Dear members of the Board and Dr. Ferguson:
I apologize that despite my great interest in any proposed revisions to the Elementary school curriculum, I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting (I am attending Commencement at Penn Law School, and then at UMDNJ, until very late this evening). I would appreciate if this comment was made part of the official record of tonight’s meeting, despite my inability to read it in person. I have spoken at Board meetings 4 or 5 times in the past, and never received any response, comment, or question from any Board members during the meetings, so it does seem that this method of expressing my views is equivalent to my being with you in person.
Of course, I have no idea what Ms. Napolitano’s presentation this evening will contain, and so I apologize further if this statement is in part made repetitive by her proposal. But I recently heard the rumor that part of what is being proposed will involve returning Primary Strings to next year’s Third graders, as a mandatory part of the school day in the first semester and as an “elective” in the second. If this is accurate, I commend the District for reaching this conclusion, and urge the Board to ratify it.
Given the importance of musical education, motor-skills development, and the foundation that instrumental practice lays for the rest of the District’s music program, it is crucial that the “elective” be available during regular school hours, and I hope this will be the case. Apparently, students will have to rent violins for the “elective,” which seems unfortunate given that the taxpayers have already paid for the instruments and they will not, I am told, be used by First graders next year. A system that provides a refundable deposit for damage would allow students to use the instruments at no financial risk to the District, but if you reject that idea, I urge you to set up a mechanism whereby those of us willing to subsidize rental fees for those who would find it a financial hardship can do so. I would be happy to contribute to such a fund and to help look for other sponsors.
I want to look forward, but I hope it is clear that last year’s decision to reshuffle the Music department staff was unnecessary and harmful both to the students and to relationships between the Board and the voters. Taking Strings away from this year’s 2nd and 3rd graders ignored the expressed wishes of at least several hundred parents, in favor of the very narrow special interests of a few parents who objected to the program for personal reasons or who wished to further expand Band offerings for their older children. Naturally, it saved not a single penny, as all the Strings teachers remain on the payroll, only teaching other instruments. I have been told (and no, Dr. Ferguson, I won’t “give you his/her name”), that at least one of the Strings teachers has been taking night lessons in how to teach Band instruments, at his/her own expense. Even putting aside the harm done to the students, this is no way to run a “company,” let alone a public-sector organization, and I hope our human resources experts will agree and will work to prevent such arbitrary reshuffling in the future.
Looking forward, the single most important question those of us who are interested in education have is “where will the 42 minutes come from?” I have no idea if this was just explained in the presentation, but if the proposal is to reinstate Strings while cutting General Music, I must object. That decision would compound last year’s mistake with a worse mistake. Instrumental performance without a foundation in how music works is like programming a computer to write a novel—it is not education. If instead, the proposal is to end the one-year experiment with “science taught more slowly,” I must also object. The choice should not be between music and a poor science program; we need a good science program first and foremost, and then Strings can be taught in place of something that the District and the community as a whole agrees is less important. I want to briefly recap how we got to this point:
- Last spring, we were promised a “new science curriculum,” and indeed we were eventually told that the “real” reason for cutting Strings was to make room for this material, which supposedly involved use of hands-on demonstration kits that were paid for but not used due to time constraints.
- As the months went by, it became increasingly clear that the 2nd and 3rd grade teachers had been given no new material or new training whatsoever. As early as September 27 of last year, I wrote a letter to the Hopewell Valley News reporting that our teachers had told us publicly that their only option was to “fill the time.” A number of parents addressed the Board as early as
April 2007, expressing concern that this was exactly what was going to happen; we were rebuffed, and those of you who have not since left the Board should accept this huge “we told you so” graciously. - Interestingly, not more than 2 hours after that letter appeared online on Sept. 27, Dr. Ferguson sent the following e-mail to the Principals and 2nd-3rd-grade teachers. I received this from someone in the HV school system (and no, Dr. Ferguson, I won’t “give you his/her name”…):
Principals: kindly forward this email to your second and third grade teachers. I have recently heard that a few of the teachers in grades two and three are unclear regarding the expectation for the instructional time gained through the reduction of strings. I was under the impression that the agreements made at the board level had been conveyed to you, but it is possible that with Mr. Bach's departure during the summer this may not have been communicated clearly.
It is the board and administration’s expectation that the additional 42 minutes per week gained from the reduction of strings will be used to increase instruction in our approved inquiry based science curriculum. Should you require support, Mary Yeoman's [sic] remains available to you for the successful implementation of this curriculum.
Thank you for your continued service to our students.
I ask the Board: what message does it send to order teachers to spend 42minutes “increasing instruction in our approved science curriculum” without (to this day!) providing any new material or conducting any training that might make that time worthwhile?
I learned from a meeting in March with Ms. Yeomans and Mr. Umstead that the teachers regard that extra 25 hours a year as a chance “for the children to ask more questions,” which is of course not a bad thing, but it is a far cry from what we were led to believe would happen. At Toll Gate, the unit on the solar system was mostly taken up with memorizing lines for a (well-done) school play, and the only other science for the year (the unit on the human body) just began two weeks ago. Meanwhile, the state mandate that 2nd graders learn some chemistry, some physics, and some earth science has been ignored. This is a bigger problem than just the waste of the extra time, but that problem has now put the larger issue on the table.
I have described what has happened with Strings and Science this year as “theft” and as a “cruel hoax.” Strong words, but no one has explained why this is an incorrect characterization. Of course, the three salaried officials responsible for this have all resigned, so we have no choice but to look forward, mindful that it is always easy to pass the buck to less senior officials, especially when you are on the way out the door.
I respectfully suggest that the Board discuss and approve the appointment of a joint parent-teacher-Board committee to evaluate and improve the Elementary Science curriculum from top to bottom. Rather than return last year’s insult from the Board president—“you parents simply don’t have the expertise we do”—with the retort that among the parents I know are actual working scientists, elementary-school science teachers from other districts, professors of science at places like Princeton and UMDNJ, how about we agree that we ALL have something to bring to this discussion? I would be
happy to be part of a committee with people who don’t have the level of expertise that I do, because expertise alone is only part of the story. I firmly believe that such a committee could do in three months what the District has not been able to do on its own in the last twelve—that is, to improve the Science offerings beginning in September.
I can imagine reasons why the District would reject this idea, but I cannot imagine any good reasons.
Again, I apologize that I could not be here tonight. If anything I’ve presented is inaccurate, I would appreciate an opportunity for actual dialogue, and would be happy to attend the June meeting for that purpose.
Sincerely,
(Dr.) Adam Finkel
Hopewell Township
Recent Comments