Last week’s story on the state of Stamford Public Schools ended with the following thoughts from Superintendent Joshua Starr:
“Fundamentally, if the purpose of education is to perpetuate the chosen social and economic order, we’re failing miserably at it in America today. We’re not preparing kids to be successful in college, or even get to college, and we’re not preparing kids to engage with people of multiple perspectives and abilities. We’re not giving them the tools to communicate. Those are the kinds of things that have to be addressed. The minimum is the achievement gap issues.”
Which brings us to the million-dollar question regarding education reform: Where do we begin?
“With curriculum,” Starr said before presenting a clear picture of what that reform should look like.
“If you organize everything around what kids need to know and [what they need to] be able to do, and you’re really clear on what those expectations are, and you know what the best pedagogical practices are that are most likely to get kids there, you just sort of move out from there.”
According to Starr, curriculum must be front and center.
“If you’re not grounded in absolute clarity of what kids should be able to know and do, which rests in your curriculum, then you’re just poking at structures,” he said.
In presenting his vision for curriculum and instruction, Starr identified a number of questions that need to be addressed.
“What kind of curriculum do teachers need? What are best assessments to understand how kids are doing? What kind of professional development do you need to make sure teachers know what they’re doing and have the help and support they need? What does instructional leadership look like so that principals are monitoring and supporting? How do you align resources to get coaching? How do you use data to influence policy and budget allocation decisions and to mobilize the community?”
And while reforming schools has been at the forefront of our national discussion, Starr said the focus must be on the instruction.
“The urban education reform is paved with structural solutions to instructional problems,” he said, referring to the words of the noted education scholar Richard Elmore. ”You’ve got to focus on the instructional piece.
“I think we’ve done a good job (in Stamford) of organizing ourselves around [the instruction] because we’ve been relentless and because we haven’t strayed from it and because I’ve been pretty clear that we don’t really have the room to do a lot of other stuff [that] I wish we could do. We’re going to focus on what’s most important: core curriculum, good professional development, monitoring of instruction, good assessments. We’re not even close to being where I want to be.”
To get closer, Starr spoke candidly about the role teachers and schools play in raising student achievement.
“Teachers and parents and administrators know it’s about what happens in the classroom,” he said. “Although there are a lot of people who want to make excuses for why a kid can’t learn, people know that it’s about teaching and learning. It all comes down to what you do with the child - the instructional core. What happens between the child and the teacher and the content. That interaction in which you have six and a half hours a day to do something.”
Which brings us to perhaps the most debated topic in education today: teacher accountability. I’ll give you Starr’s take on that one later this week.
Excellent point by Starr:
“If you organize everything around what kids need to know and be able to do, and you’re really clear on what those expectations are, and you know what the best pedagogical practices are that are most likely to get kids there, you just sort of move out from there.”
His remarks points up how Greenwich’s “Vision of the Graduate” has failed students and the school system. There is not a single word in that “Vision” that says anything about what kids “need to know.” Instead, the “body of knowledge” that children are supposed to acquire is explained with nothing more than an asterisk, with a footnote at the bottom stating that that body of knowledge is laid out in state and federal requirements. That’s right: that’s it. Yet that content-less, standard-less “Vision of the Graduate” hangs in every classroom in the district.
The Greenwich BOE needs to go back to the drawing board and insist that a clear plan for what students are expected to learn, and what teachers are required to teach, should be formulated and that set of standards should be displayed in every classroom.
Comment by Sean — February 16th, 2011 @ 2:23 pm
“Although there are a lot of people who want to make excuses for why a kid can’t learn, people know that it’s about teaching and learning.”
Actually, often one of the most basic reasons why a child can’t learn (or not as fast or at the same level than other kids) is rooted in intellectual limitations. To be blunt some are smarter than others. Unfortunately it is not PC anymore to say it. We can comment on athletic ability, or musical ability but not on intellectual ability.
As a parent of 3 children, that are fairly close in age but have different academic aptitudes, I can clearly say that I can not teach the same curriculum at the same speed to my kids, especially not at the same time.
This is one reason why heterogeneous classrooms, especially in upper grades and core subjects, as promoted by Starr and the majority of the former BOE, are a failure waiting to happen.
So, Starr wants to have a curriculum that on one hand teaches “intellectually and/or language challenged” kids and on the other hand challenges highly intelligent and advanced kids in a heterogeneous classroom (24-30 kids/teacher)?
Even the best teachers will have a problem combining those two goals and, in this instance, it is not because we lack teacher accountability.
The first step to achieve high standards is to eliminate principals that do not set high standards for their teaching staff. Or, if that is not possible set clear academic standards for them. Accountability and excellence starts at the top.
As Starr said:
“What does instructional leadership look like so that principals are monitoring and supporting?” In that regards he showed a clear lack of leadership for the last five years.
Comment by Facts — February 16th, 2011 @ 2:32 pm
Thanks for this great series. My apologies for the knuckleheads who have been criticizing your work as too pro-Starr. It is very interesting to understand where his mindset is coming from. Many towns have superintendents who just swoop in, stay a few years, then move on before anyone can figure out if anything they are doing has any positive effects. Its a job where its much easier to be a babysitter than a change agent, so hats off to him for actually trying to change things. No doubt that his efforts are bound to ruffle feathers along the way.
I was impressed by his budget this year which was oriented to not remove any more teachers from the system. It seems like he has the right mindset in these tough times. I hope he really does plan to stick around a while to keep working on his initiatives.
2 areas I think Stamford needs to work on now. 1) Not Starrs fault at all, but the capex budget is ridiculously low for the school system, and is guaranteed to bite us in the rear end 5 years from now when we are faced with many emergency repair needs rather than dealing with it in a more proactive fashion. It may look like you’re saving money, but you’re only postponing it. 2) I think there is definite room to cut in the central office, for no other reason than it hasn’t been done in years, and if every other part of city government gave up a bunch of people, there must be extras there too. Especially given how many teachers were cut in previous years, if people could be removed from the classrooms where they matter most, we could also make some tough choices back at HQ.
Comment by Mark — February 16th, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
Thanks for the kind words.
You bring up a great point, one that shouldn’t be overlooked. In a day and age when superintendent’s come and go, we have to give Starr credit for not only sticking around, but making a long-term commitment to Stamford.
Thanks again. Please keep reading and contributing.
Comment by Charles Costello — February 16th, 2011 @ 3:58 pm
So is this why Stamford still has its high school English curriculum in draft form? Because changing it every year (sometimes mid-year) is what is best for providing the kids with the sort of stable, balanced instruction they need? This “clarity” he speaks of doesn’t exist in Stamford. Charles, I’m sorry that your interview with him left you with such a false representation of the man as he truly is.
I don’t fancy myself a “knucklehead,” as Mark so gently put it, but someone who has seen the slapdash, “let’s throw everything against a wall and see what sticks” method of reform around here. Relentless? Haven’t strayed from the organization? I’d love to know who he thinks he’s fooling, because it isn’t the teachers of this district, I know that much. What he says and what he does are two very different things. He would do well to check in on his administrators to see how they’re delegating the things that he thinks are working so well. I hope he isn’t relying solely on their reports to find out what’s going on in the schools, because if he is, he must not know (or care) that the majority of them would sell their mothers to keep their jobs. Sorry to say it, Charles, but he turned the slickness on for you.
Comment by Melissa — February 16th, 2011 @ 9:40 pm
Once again, Charles, you write as if you are so informed about the status and organization of schools in Fairfield, yet, you insist on building your entire educational foundations on interviews with chief administrators. Wouldn’t the information you try to forward to your readers be more reliable and valid if you finally interviewed those folks actually managing and teaching in the classrooms instead of exuding the virtues of one, Dr.Starr and his glorious leadership? I think you are so enamored with authority, given your strict religious and right-winged political background, that you would believe anything that a chief authority figure (administrator) states. Melissa has been the only reliable, fair and reasonable author from a teacher’s standpoint that you have ever on your blog. I would believe her “life” in a Stamford school as the truth as opposed to your hero worshiping superintendent. Charles, your respect for authority, any authority, has tainted your thinking and, of course, your writings. You have this blog to inform your readers about what is actually happening in the school is Fairfield, which is a real stretch, but your need to be in control-authority once again. Unfortunately, these conditions blinds you from the facts. P.S. Mark- Melissa is not a “knucklehead” and name calling only defines who you are. Your Favorite Colleague, Herb
Comment by herb — February 17th, 2011 @ 9:04 am
Melissa, I would be curious to hear more of what you mean re the curriculum changes. I think its safe to say many people have varied opinions re Mr. Starr, so you may very well have some valid points. I’d bet you are correct that he doesn’t know everything that goes on everywhere in the system, but I’m going to guess he’s reading this blog online, and may well learn something from you. I will repeat my earlier comment, that if you follow how the “superintendent industry” works, unfortunately it is one where many journeymen supers move from state to state, only staying a few years in each place. We should still be happy he is trying to change things and wants to stick around.
Re the “knuckleheads”, perhaps a bit harsh or I should have clarified better, I was referring to a recent column where someone got very personal re claiming Mr. Costello didn’t know anything re Stamford schools and had some very particular info where he went to school, as if it was relevant. Sounds like it was Herb from above, I don’t want to waste time going back to look, but thats what I was referring to. If you have issues with Mr. Starr, but can somehow refrain from attacking the messenger Charles, then you’re not a knucklehead, so my apologies to Melissa.
What do you expect Charles to do, write some blistering attack on Mr. Starr? Do you realize Charles is a teacher himself, so its unlikely he’s going to write some heated online critique of a superintendent from the town next door. Maybe you should thank him for writing this column, or would you rather have no information at all, which is where you’d be if he didn’t write it. I don’t know him, but I appreciate being able to learn this stuff. Make your own judgments without attacking the messenger.
Comment by Mark — February 17th, 2011 @ 10:14 am
Thank you, Mark.
Comment by Charles Costello — February 17th, 2011 @ 11:19 am
To Mark- Of course it is relevant if one is purported to be an “informer” of what is happening in Stamford schools to have some direct association with such school system. What is your issue? It sounds as if you and Charles are one in the same- that is, do not ascertain all the facts, do not explore the alternative points of view, merely pontificate what you think is the truth. Please do not incriminate me with your name calling, as it make you sound meek and/or seeking redemption. “Knuckle Head,” Herb
Comment by herb — February 17th, 2011 @ 11:34 am
Mark,
There are a few things you need to know about “Herb.”
First, he changes his identity and occupation with each comment.
Second, he is part of a crowd (a rather large crowd) that doesn’t accept any opinion that differs from his.
Third, he has no first-hand knowledge of what goes on in schools.
And fourth, like so many others, when you call him out he goes into hiding.
Welcome to the internet, Mark.
Comment by Charles Costello — February 17th, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
Thanks Charles. My bad, I had assumed he was somehow associated with Stamford, instead I imagine he’s unemployed, sitting home in his underwear, posting on multiple internet boards regarding topics in which he has no real stake as a substitute for interaction with live human beings.
Anyway, props to you for putting up with his ilk. Personally, I’ll heed some good advice I once heard: Never get in a wrestling match with a pig. Afterward, you’re both dirty, but the pig likes it.
Comment by Mark — February 17th, 2011 @ 3:05 pm
Mark, I’ll let you have the last word on this one.
Let me just say that “Herb” is entitled to his opinion and he’s more than welcome to comment on this blog. The fact that he posts anonymously and attacks me (and others) personally is his choice, and not surprising in this day and age. Believe me, I can take it.
I hope you continue to contribute.
Comment by Charles Costello — February 17th, 2011 @ 3:59 pm
To Mark,
Length of employment and being successful do not necessarily correlate (especially in the public sector). But I guess it also depends on what you want the outcome to be.
Also, if I remember correctly Starr applied recently for another superintendent job in another state and didn’t get it.
Third, I am curious what age your children are and why you think Starr has done such a great job. Both Melissa and I gave specific examples why we think the initiatives Starr and the BOE implemented do not work. What do you think works better now and for whom?
Comment by Facts — February 17th, 2011 @ 9:09 pm
blah-blah-blah – yet another collection of fancy words, sound declarations and good intentions from Dr. Starr, which lead to bad decisions
and wrong proposals. Everybody knows how it should be – I would like to hear about the realistic steps to get there – not daydreaming or clueless experiments with our kids. “structural solutions to instructional problems” – who can decipher that?!
> we have to give Starr credit for … sticking around
How does this correlate with his shuffling school principals?
Kudos to another state! Can we talk them into changing their minds?
Comment by Parent — February 18th, 2011 @ 1:16 pm
“If you organize everything around what kids need to know and be able to do, and you’re really clear on what those expectations are, and you know what the best pedagogical practices are that are most likely to get kids there, you just sort of move out from there.”
Where is Starr’s own specifics that he refers to in this quote? Instead, his idea of specifying is to just pose questions. He chooses to put all the figuring out for each child on teachers and then labels that struggle as good teachers or bad ones, rather than a lack of planning, specifics and true direction to his original statement.
Starr…answer the question… What do kids need to know and be able to do to become productive, informed, critical thinkers, and compassionate citizens of our society? And when should they learn each piece of that answer? How do you make up for the holes that kids start with? How do you have the individual child addressed in you grand scheme in Stamford? And if you feel the teacher is the critical piece why is your relationships with the classroom teachers the most broken aspect of your leadership?
Comment by Rose — February 20th, 2011 @ 4:57 pm
The way in which you are conducting yourself on this thread can undermine your credibility. Keep your composure. You shouldn’t be so easily baited into distracting and unflattering exchanges.
Although it is not the complete truth from every possible angle, I think you did good work on the piece.
Best of luck.
Comment by Silence Dogood — February 20th, 2011 @ 6:47 pm
“The way in which you are conducting yourself on this thread can undermine your credibility.”
I’m sorry, I don’t get that one.
“Keep your composure. You shouldn’t be so easily baited into distracting and unflattering exchanges.”
I respect that.
“Although it is not the complete truth from every possible angle,”
Keep in mind that I’m reporting, not commenting.
“I think you did good work on the piece.”
Thank you.
Comment by Charles Costello — February 20th, 2011 @ 7:16 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim Forde and Julia Wade, Joshua Starr. Joshua Starr said: Starr: It’s the Curriculum http://t.co/hVSNrxt via @AddThis [...]
Comment by Tweets that mention Starr: It’s the Curriculum - Teacher Talk - Connecticut News -- Topsy.com — February 20th, 2011 @ 7:56 pm
Mr. Costello: Regarding comment number 4, taking 5 years to move to Stamford and NOT getting other jobs (in Milwaukee and Greenwich, I believe), demonstrate committment and “sticking-around”, for which Dr. Starr should get credit?????????
Comment by Another Parent — February 22nd, 2011 @ 11:38 am
I don’t have any doubts about Starr’s committment to Stamford. Not to say that he’s done this, but considering other opportunities, inquiring about different positions, and even interviewing for other jobs doesn’t mean you lack committment to your current work.
Comment by Charles Costello — February 22nd, 2011 @ 3:30 pm
Mr. Costello: So I guess that Sarah Palin was “committed” to the people of Alaska…..until something different/better came to the fore. These are discussions where we all have to be mindful of our own biases, and I fully realize that I have mine. However, with respect to this, after many years of corporate life, there were times when recruiters would call. The simple fact (for me) was that when I was “committed”, my response was thank you very much/nice to chat, but no thanks. When I wanted something else or to move on, I would explore further. One does not climb on a plane to a new city for full interviews if one is not seriously interested in pursuing options. Just my experience. Separately, you sound like a great teacher whose students have benefitted from being in your class. Good to hear.
Comment by Another Parent — February 23rd, 2011 @ 2:05 pm
I guess my point is that you can be committed to a place and at the same time explore other options.
“Separately, you sound like a great teacher whose students have benefitted from being in your class. Good to hear.”
Thank you. I really appreciate that.
Comment by Charles Costello — February 23rd, 2011 @ 3:58 pm
[...] Starr: It’s the curriculum – 2/16/11 [...]
Comment by Buh-Bye Jerry, Hello Josh « The "More" Child — April 25th, 2011 @ 10:30 pm