Description of attempts to work within "the system"

Norm,

Here's a copy of Mel's comments Nov. 24 to the Board. She said it was ok to post on the web site, but you can check with her to confirm. Her comments show that diligent efforts to work within the system have failed, and as much as I hate to escalate the controversy, I see little choice now, especially with the Schools already requiring freshmen to sign up for semester science courses next year without offering any alternatives.

She also told me she was working on a set of messages to send to the Board this weekend, and I think you should ask her if you can post them on the web site as well. She's done a wonderful job of researching the issues we've been talking about, and I think other parents should be free to see the information she has.

Keep up the good work on the web site.

ZZZZZ

______________________________________________

Comments to the Portage School Board November 24, 2003

Hello. My name is Melanie Kurdys. My residence is 2267 Preserve Blvd in Portage. I am a parent representative on the Curriculum and Instruction Council, the CIC. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am a volunteer who was asked to participate in this process. I am excited to see that our District is willing to take significant time and effort to improving curriculum for all students. Improvements and innovations are very important. The Science Curriculum Proposal, which I am here to speak about, has many good recommendations which will be of benefit.

Last Wednesday, the CIC voted to approve the Science Proposal. Prior to the vote, there was a brief discussion regarding parental concerns. The Curriculum Coordinator, Denise Bresson, represented the parent concerns in a five-page handout that included a column titled Resolution/Answer. (I have attached a copy for your review.) When asked if the parental concerns were resolved with these answers, as the parent representative, I assured them they had not. The answers provided do not resolve 19 items, which I have flagged as "open". When asked how many parents still have concerns, Ms. Bresson answered "6".

We are here tonight to make it clear to you, the School Board, that these issues are not resolved and significantly more than 6 parents are concerned. Many who were unable to be here tonight are sending you letters stating their concerns.

You might be wondering why this issue has become so controversial and fraught with tension. Why has it not been diffused within the operating framework of our curriculum development process? The simple reason is that the administrators of our schools have not been listening to the parents. And in fact, they have refused specific requests to work together for resolution. Let me give you some examples.

In September, I requested the opportunity to present some concerns and ideas to the Science sub-committee, which I did. However, I was told I could not stay to participate in the discussion afterward. Some misrepresentation and misunderstanding of my work lead the committee to disregard the suggestions. I was never given the opportunity to provide clarification.

When the Parent Information Sessions started about a month ago, most of you Board members know the administration specifically designed the meetings to control the number of participants. During these meetings, parent questions were responded to, but adequate answers were not provided. The administrators did not offer to follow-up on unresolved items, they did not indicate they would review the concerns with the Science sub-committee. They did not offer a means to get back to parents to assure that the concerns were resolved. In addition, during these meetings, administrators became defensive and argumentative. At one meeting, the Superintendent stood in the back of the room and laughed out loud at concerns raised by parents. These meetings were obviously not conducted with the intent of working cooperatively with parents.

If you refer to item 13 of parent concerns, you will see that it is the intention of the administration to communicate more completely after the proposal is official. This communication is clearly too late in the process to effectively incorporate parental concerns into the design.

Earlier this month, the Portage Northern Parents group president requested a meeting to resolve parental concerns before last Wednesday's CIC vote. The request was made to our principal and invited the involvement of PN science teachers, counselors, the IB coordinator, and several parents and suggested a Board member act as a mediator. The offer was denied and we were directed to work through the district office. This request to work together to seek resolution was never initiated.

Several parents sent e-mail messages directly to CIC members to explain outstanding parental concerns. The Curriculum Coordinator wrote an apology note to the committee, making it clear that this direct communication was inappropriate. Some materials were sent directly to Ms. Bresson for inclusion in the normal packet communication. She insisted the materials edited to her specifications before they would be included. No CIC members contacted these parents to seek additional understanding before last Wednesday's vote.

In a memo I sent the CIC, before last Wednesday's meeting, I requested that we vote to send the proposal back to the Science Sub-committee to work through a resolution with the parents. I was not recognized at the meeting to make this motion. No one asked about the idea at the meeting. In all, there was less than 15 minutes of discussion about this proposal, which is a comprehensive change to our science curriculum Kindergarten through 12th grade. Again, a request to work together to resolution was disregarded.

If any of these opportunities to work together had been pursued by our administrators, it is most likely we would not be here tonight seeking your assistance.

As a parent representative to the CIC, I am asking you to intervene on our behalf. Specifically, I am requesting that:

1. All implementation work currently underway on the Science Proposal be stopped. The proposal is a comprehensive K-12 design and modifications must be evaluated based on the entire scope or the proposal.
2. Send the proposal back to the Science Sub-committee with specific direction that they work with parents cooperatively to resolve outstanding concerns. Additional communication with parents would be appropriate at this time. I volunteer to be part of that resolution team.
3. Stop work on the next curriculum review subject, Social Studies. The level of conflict that arose from this process clearly indicates there are flaws in the design. You are aware that the Curriculum Review Process is new and it is not unusual for a new process to suffer design flaws. Once you conduct a thorough process review, the cycle can be restarted. I must add, most parents think we should be looking at MATH next as a very high priority.
4. Help your administrators see parents as customers, parents as partners, not parents as adversaries. The leaders of an organization set the tone. If they value customer service, if they value open communication, if they value a cooperative environment where differences are embraced and leveraged for the benefit of all, the rest of the organization will follow.

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to address you tonight and I look forward to working with you and the committee to a successful resolution.

To comment on Melanie Kurdys' comment, click here.

go back to portagescience.org