Response from Matt Andrzejewski
(1) Do you think Advanced Learning is adequately included in the district priorities detailed in the Strategic Framework and School Improvement Plan processes?
No. The Strategic Framework makes scant mention of advanced learning and the SIPs that I’m most familiar with (i.e., Cherokee’s) makes no mention of Advanced Learning. I was one of the parent facilitators of Math Olympiad at Thoreau for 2 years; there are a substantial number of advanced learners at Cherokee that I know personally.
If so, where do you see it?
The Strategic Framework mentions a few things regarding advanced learners: Goal 2 refers to a “challenging” education for every student. Priority area 2 makes mention of a pilot for increasing participation in AP courses for minorities in one HS. Priority area 5 describes an external review of the Advanced learner plan. In my mind, this is not sufficient for our kids’ needs.
If not, why isn’t it included?
I don’t know why Advanced Learners aren’t mentioned more in the strategic framework. In regards to the School Improvement Plans, frankly, I find them muddled.
To quote the Cherokee SIP, section on “Progress Made During Prior Year (approximately 50 words): Reading and math instruction have been a focus of learning in Cherokee and over the past school year, and there has been an increase in the number of students proficient in both reading and mathematics. Moving into the 16-17 school year, we are excited about Cherokee's future and future successes.”
The phrase “there has been an increase…” is the only statement relevant to progress. The others are about focus and hope. It seems to me that someone is trying to meet a 50 word limit. These documents are onerous and not very informative.
One thing I do know is this: Jennifer P Cheatham’s contribution to the Strategic Framework was so significant as to be listed twice on the “Thank You Planning Group” page (p. 3).
(2) How should the district invest time and resources to meet the instructional needs of students who could benefit from challenge above grade level standards while continuing the critical work of helping other students reach grade level proficiency? Will you make this a priority for our district if elected?
I will make this a priority. My wife and I were both advanced learners and my daughter is as well. While we have been content with the opportunities at Thoreau and West HS for my daughter, the opportunities at Cherokee were not sufficient. I have stated numerous times that our Middle Schools need a lot of work.
I recognize that we must strike a balance between the needs of our advanced learners and other kids with intensive needs. And typically, the word “needs” means money. However, I think there are many cost-neutral or minimal impact ways that we can address these issues. While in graduate school at Temple, I conducted an experiment on alcohol with the help of a 12- and 10- yr old (Jeffrey and Steven Lavenberg; they are thanked in the acknowledgments section of our paper. And don’t worry, they didn’t drink the alcohol, but collected data.). My nephew, while in high school, was engaged in a turtle-tracking project in the St. Louis area. My daughter took oboe lessons with the professor of oboe at UW while at Cherokee. I mention these because I think the MMSD could engage the UW community to a greater degree and provide advanced learners many additional opportunities for instruction and learning. And its not just about math and science; it could also be about oboe, performing arts, visual arts, leadership, history, etc.
The advanced learner report that just came out (I apologize for not knowing what it is called) suggested that the opportunities available are not enough. If I recall correctly, survey data indicated that most thought they were too easy. We have one of the greatest higher learning and research institutions in the world down the street from our Administration building. Engaging the UW community more formally could be an enormous first step.
(1) Do you think Advanced Learning is adequately included in the district priorities detailed in the Strategic Framework and School Improvement Plan processes?
No. The Strategic Framework makes scant mention of advanced learning and the SIPs that I’m most familiar with (i.e., Cherokee’s) makes no mention of Advanced Learning. I was one of the parent facilitators of Math Olympiad at Thoreau for 2 years; there are a substantial number of advanced learners at Cherokee that I know personally.
If so, where do you see it?
The Strategic Framework mentions a few things regarding advanced learners: Goal 2 refers to a “challenging” education for every student. Priority area 2 makes mention of a pilot for increasing participation in AP courses for minorities in one HS. Priority area 5 describes an external review of the Advanced learner plan. In my mind, this is not sufficient for our kids’ needs.
If not, why isn’t it included?
I don’t know why Advanced Learners aren’t mentioned more in the strategic framework. In regards to the School Improvement Plans, frankly, I find them muddled.
To quote the Cherokee SIP, section on “Progress Made During Prior Year (approximately 50 words): Reading and math instruction have been a focus of learning in Cherokee and over the past school year, and there has been an increase in the number of students proficient in both reading and mathematics. Moving into the 16-17 school year, we are excited about Cherokee's future and future successes.”
The phrase “there has been an increase…” is the only statement relevant to progress. The others are about focus and hope. It seems to me that someone is trying to meet a 50 word limit. These documents are onerous and not very informative.
One thing I do know is this: Jennifer P Cheatham’s contribution to the Strategic Framework was so significant as to be listed twice on the “Thank You Planning Group” page (p. 3).
(2) How should the district invest time and resources to meet the instructional needs of students who could benefit from challenge above grade level standards while continuing the critical work of helping other students reach grade level proficiency? Will you make this a priority for our district if elected?
I will make this a priority. My wife and I were both advanced learners and my daughter is as well. While we have been content with the opportunities at Thoreau and West HS for my daughter, the opportunities at Cherokee were not sufficient. I have stated numerous times that our Middle Schools need a lot of work.
I recognize that we must strike a balance between the needs of our advanced learners and other kids with intensive needs. And typically, the word “needs” means money. However, I think there are many cost-neutral or minimal impact ways that we can address these issues. While in graduate school at Temple, I conducted an experiment on alcohol with the help of a 12- and 10- yr old (Jeffrey and Steven Lavenberg; they are thanked in the acknowledgments section of our paper. And don’t worry, they didn’t drink the alcohol, but collected data.). My nephew, while in high school, was engaged in a turtle-tracking project in the St. Louis area. My daughter took oboe lessons with the professor of oboe at UW while at Cherokee. I mention these because I think the MMSD could engage the UW community to a greater degree and provide advanced learners many additional opportunities for instruction and learning. And its not just about math and science; it could also be about oboe, performing arts, visual arts, leadership, history, etc.
The advanced learner report that just came out (I apologize for not knowing what it is called) suggested that the opportunities available are not enough. If I recall correctly, survey data indicated that most thought they were too easy. We have one of the greatest higher learning and research institutions in the world down the street from our Administration building. Engaging the UW community more formally could be an enormous first step.