Last spring during the petition drive when many parents were writing the SCASD Board to urge them to drop “Investigations”, about a half-dozen disbelieving parents forwarded to me the replies they received from Board member Donna Queeney, which read in part:
This board member isn’t qualified to evaluate our curricular programs and choices. Rather, I believe strongly that we must hire good people and rely on them to select and evaluate such programs.
This belief, that the votes of Board members are rubber stamps that should be applied unquestioningly to the recommendations of District staff, appears to be at the root of another problem in SCASD. In a story in the morning’s CDT, reporter Ed Mahon describes how the Board – on the recommendations of its financial advisors – essentially placed a bet on interest rates that now seems likely to cost the District millions of dollars.
Board members deserve our gratitude for volunteering to serve in what must be a tiring and thankless position much of the time, and it’s clear that not all the Board members share Donna Queeney’s view on this – three of them went against the recommendation of District staff and voted against purchasing the second edition of “Investigations” in June. It’s important, however, to realize that there are consequences for SCASD families when Board members vote uncritically, including higher property taxes to cover ill-advised investments and sliding math performance resulting from ill-advised curriculum choices.
I attended the League of Women Voters forum last night. Of the 5 candidates for the 4 4-year positions on the school board, Gowen Roper and David Hutchinson support Investigations, Jim Leous supports it in addition to other resources, Penni Fishbaine emphasizes more traditional approaches, Brian Kaleita is strongly against Investigations. On the question of teaching creationism in the schools, Kaleita is in favor of teaching creationism, the other 4 candidates oppose creationism in the science classroom. Kaleita is also against spending money on a new high school. He is anti-tax and feels that the North and South buildings can be renovated as they are. All 4 other candidates cited the community imput to the district plans which call for two new buildings on the Westerly Parkway site. While replacing Investigations is a priority for me, creationism and an anti-tax position are not a trade I’m willing to make.
I agree 100% with Susan’s position and it’s important to recognize that there are other issues besides the math. I could never vote for someone who would support teaching creationism in a science classroom.
Leous’s position is disappointing. Why apply a supplemental band-aid to a curriculum that has produced such poor results and generated such dissatisfaction when there are many programs that focus on conceptual understanding along with attention to traditional algorithms, practice, and fluency?
This is particularly disturbing considering that the people who are making curricular decisions for the district are not qualified either. They are making these decisions based purely on emotional responses to a curriculum that does not work. These people have not the credentials to make curricular decisions.