What is the answer to seven times seven? Quickly! You may know the correct result, but does your elementary school child enrolled in the Bridgewater-Raritan school district know? That, in a nutshell, is the educational controversy which is now swirling about in this school district.
Two weeks ago today, I attended a work session of the B-R Board of Education at which there was a special presentation and discussion of Everyday Math. The basis for the Board’s lengthy discussion was a quarter-inch thick report on double-sided paper. The report summarized the completed work of a 9-member Everyday Math (EDM) Committee, all educators except two parents from the B-R School District.
Outcome: A written response by Superindent Michael Schilder which, among other points, recommends that he “. . . direct a sub-committee of the Five-Year K4 Mathematics Program Evaluation Committee to review mathematics programs other than Everyday Math for consideration of adoption.”
The preceding quote is a mouthful, but it simply means that another committee (no parents this time) will be charged with reviewing EDM and other Math programs further. By February, 2009, the new committee is to come up with potential alternatives that may replace EDM – note the conditionality and ambiguity of this sentence.
The ensuing discussion among board members, the superintendent and his assistant superintendent, Cheryl Dyer was lively and controversial. There is no unanimity of agreement on the status of EDM between the B-R BOE and the administration.
My concern is that the September 9, 2008, meeting of the B-R BOE was a work session. No formal board action can legally take place at such a meeting unless it is specifically placed on the agenda and identified as an item on which “action may be taken.” That means a formal resolution, published on an agenda, in advance under the Open Public Meetings act, presented to the board, discussed by board members, and opened to the public for comment before the board votes on it.
No such item appeared on the agenda of the September 9th meeting with respect to action to be taken on EDM. The agenda item listed was to be for discussion only. The significance of this is that the sub-committee referred to in Dr. Schilder’s recommendation may already be a done deal, without formal board action having been taken.
At the end of the Tuesday, September 9th meeting, the B-R BOE did not fully concur with Dr. Schilder’s sub-committee proposal. There was very strong opposition to the formation of such a committee by at least several members of the board. Even more seemed to be opposed to the EDM program, but wished to let the sub-committee go forward. Very confusing! That’s why the B-R BOE needs to place this item on its agenda for a regular board meeting and schedule it for an up or down vote as to whether or not to proceed with the Superintendent’s recommendation for another committee.
This clearly is a policy matter, one of the few issues for which a board of education has direct oversight responsibilities. Additionally, preparation of a board agenda is one of the other few items over which a school board president – Cynthia Cullen in this case – has direct accountability.
If this is not done, the sub-committee will be formed, move ahead with its work and will issue a report in mid-February, 2009, just in time to start up another April school election controversy!
No comments:
Post a Comment