Anyone concerned about the standards in D87 should start attending board meetings. No, there's not a referendum on the horizon, but something that could have a greater impact. Did you know that the D87 board is discussing the elimination of all 'basic' track courses from the curriculum? Under the guise of 'differentiated education', this will mean combining the basic and regular students in one class. Thus we'll go from basic, regular, honors and a few AP classes to regular, honors and a few APs.
Advocates do their best to spin this as good thing:
http://www.partnershipforlearning.org/category.asp?CategoryID=6
Since there will be a much wider variety of kids within the same class, the teacher will have to slow down to ensure that kids who may be struggling aren't left behind. Or as they put it.. "Instead of piling more of the same work on advanced students, a teacher might find new things for them to read or do while the others are working."

I haven't heard any reason for eliminating the basic track, and I think we're owed an explanation.
The net result if this goes ahead will be lower test scores throughout the Glenbards, lower rankings, a less desirable school district. Speak up NOW if you are concerned about this.

thanks for the heads up, did this get suggested last night?

thanks for the info, highly taxed...but where did you hear this? board meeting? i would really like to know because i think this is a really bad idea.

Maybe this is a trial balloon to test the publics mood regarding the possibility of hiring more teachers to handle the apparent 3 tier classification of students that they say exist.

My suggestion: buckle down and hire an outside tutor. Cheaper and more effective in the long run.

As far as how the information came about, teachers are discussing it with the students.

quote:

My suggestion: buckle down and hire an outside tutor. Cheaper and more effective in the long run.

My guess is that you do not have a high needs student. Students with LD's need a slower paced classroom to learn.

i hadnt heard this, highlytaxed. where would the teachers be hearing this? administration? or is this a push for an aide in every class? or 2 teachers?(thought you'd like that idea, gus!)
boy, this would sure dilute the quality of ALL education in D87!

I want to politely offer a correction: Students with LD's do not necessarily need a slower paced classroom. It's a common misconception that ALL special ed kids are LD and that they ALL need slower paced curriculum. In fact, to qualify LD, one's IQ must be average to above average (miniumum) with noted deficits in specific areas. For example, a student might have a Full Scale IQ of 125 (superior) but show a significant deficit in working memory, processing speed, or any other number of possible areas. The deficit must be one standard deviation below the full scale IQ. In the case of my example (IQ 125), a student with an average IQ (say 100-110) in processing speed would technically qualify for accommodations and services. Now, they may not ever qualify if they are finding success in the classroom. So, it is more likely that kids with normal IQ's that have deficits falling below 95 will be the ones getting services because that deficit is low enough that it's much more likely that the student is indeed struggling in school.

That being said, I don't really understand the tracking system used at Glenbard West. I know there are paced classes and my suspicion is that some of these would remain despite this talk of getting rid of the basic classes. I also wonder if this discussion to differentiate is simply to try and provide greater challenge to kids who have been placed in basic classes. Accommodations needed for success can be provided at any level. Some people may find it shocking, but there are certainly special ed students in honors classes! With the right support (given the student has the overall ability to succeed in an honors class), a special ed student can succeed in any level class.

I don't know that this would require the district to hire more teachers at all. It would likely just shift things a bit.

If we could get a link to Board minutes or something that explains the discussion going on, that would be really helpful.

As always - a reasoned response by Amy. This thread needs more facts and less speculation and hearsay before too many people get too fired up.

And I can get fired up too! But I'll wait to hear more factual information regarding this plan...and if it's stupid, I'll be the first one yelling!

hi amy and ge mom: i'm not fired up, but i think that the fun and games of two years ago means that we should all closely follow anything that may be cooked up on crescent blvd. call me a cynic, but that whole episode(failed refs...6 period day) really educated me-and not in a way district 87 would approve! so...let's at least keep our ears to the ground...

Absolutely would not argue with that at all. We are supposed to be smart consumers, right?

Dear Buggy: only point I'm making is that hiring more staff, etc, is a lot more expensive than sending your students to an outside tutor for 4 years. Tax levies are forever.

I think that questions about curricular issues should go directly to the curriculum director at 87- the school board probably relies quite heavily on her expertise. With NCLB and changes in special education laws, most districts are changing to a response to intervention model for providing support to students who need it without the need for testing and IEP's in order for students to get support- the discrepancy based model for students getting support will soon be a thing of the past. Response to Intervention is a 3 tiered model that provides general instruction for all (tier I instruction), students who can not achieve the standards with tier I alone will get more intensive instruction- tier II (generally those students performing in the lowest quartile) and the students who are achieving in the lowest 5% will get the most intensive intervention. Theoretically- with this model all students should be able to meet the academic expectations in a regular class. I have major concerns about the use of the word ALL in NCLB because you are setting yourself up for failure when you expect ALL students to be able to master standards or act in a certain way- but that is a whole other story- and something to take up with the Federal government. Some of the Glenbard feeder districts are further along in the process than others and I am not sure where D87 is in the process. From what I have heard it takes about 7 years for districts to fully change over to a response to intervention format. IEP's will not be as frequent as they are now, but more students will get additional support-(students will not have to meet eligibility requirements in order to get support they need) There is a potential for the need of some additional staff to facilitate some of the tiered interventions but perhaps a few less classroom teachers- staffing patterns probably would stay the same- and the bar would be raised for students who typically would take the basic level courses. If my children were in that situation I would personally want the bar as high as it could be- not just an easy way out.

The understanding that I am under is that 2 of the highschools in Glenbard 87 have basic level courses (North and South) and 2 do not (East and West). I would think that there would be a desire to get all schools in the district on the same page in terms of course offerings and student expectations.

West does have basic classes for English, math, science and social studies for freshmen through seniors.

So does East.

I will have to double check my sources...in looking at the West handbook there are basic classes that are not part of the regular track for English all 4 years, Math- Freshman year, Science- Freshman and Sophmore, and Social Studies Freshman, Sophmore,and Junior year. I don't know how many sections of these basic courses are offered or how many students could "handle" a regular track class with support, but would like to see students be exposed to the most rigorous curriculum possible across the board. Reducing needs for basic track classes should be viewed as a positive. I would hope that the district has thought about what would happen if the regular track were too difficult for students who are currently in basic classes to pass- drops outs would increase if students were failing- and that would not be good for the district either.