On January 23rd, 2012, the GCISD School Board approved the elimination of the on-level ("regular") course track for all middle schools. Currently, middle school students can select between Gifted & Talented/Accelerated, Pre-AP and on-level course tracks when selecting classes in Language Arts, Social Studies, Math and Science. Starting with students entering the 6th grade in August 2012, there will only be two options, Gifted & Talented/Accelerated and the new "College Readiness" track. Some members of the community have expressed a concern that the new "College Readiness" track will be a "watered down" version of the Pre-AP track, in order to accommodate students that would previously have taken the "on-level" track. However, this is not the intention of the new "College Readiness" track. As in the case of the current Pre-AP track, the new "College Readiness" track includes a curriculum that will prepare students for future AP courses at the high school level. In order to guarantee that all students are college ready by the time they graduate from high school (a goal of our new LEAD 2021 district strategy), the students that would normally have taken on-level classes will be placed in college readiness courses.
As an aside, current middle school students will not be affected by this change (they will still have the 3-course track options for the rest of this year and for their subsequent years in middle school).
One concern about this change is how we are going to ensure that on-level students going into the 6th grade will be ready for a more challenging curriculum within the "College Readiness" track. Rick Westfall, GCISD's Chief Learning Officer, mentioned during this month's Board Meeting that GCISD will review and improve the curriculum at the elementary schools in order to support the new 2-track approach at the middle schools. As this change affects current 5th graders going into 6th grade, GCISD will also offer assistance outside the classroom at the middle school level in order to ensure these students can perform at the college readiness level. This is no different than the assistance that is currently offered at all our middle schools for students that need additional help.
The key strategic goal of LEAD 2021 is to ensure that all students have a "personalized learning plan that leads to college and career readiness." GCISD intends to change the K-12 curriculum in order to establish college readiness as our minimum education standard. Eliminating the on-level track at our middle schools is a change that will lead us towards that goal.
If you have any comments or questions about this matter, please post them below or send an email to jorge@jorgerodriguez.org.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The key strategic goal of LEAD 2021 is to ensure that all students have a "personalized learning plan that leads to college and career readiness"
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean we will have "ARD" meetings for every student? Will the district be providing additional resources to ensure the personalized learning plan will be implemented to meet the needs of that child? I don't understand how a sweeping change in the curriculum right can be put in place without public debate or discourse (no matter how noble the aims). This will now effect my 5th grader (going into 6th grade GT program), my 2nd grader (as " Rick Westfall, GCISD's Chief Learning Officer, mentioned during this month's Board Meeting that GCISD will review and improve the curriculum at the elementary schools in order to support the new 2-track approach at the middle schools. ") and my soon to be kindergartner. All right before we know the impact the new more academically rigorous STAARs test will have.
Did I miss the time when parents could ask questions, offer opinions, tell there elected representatives how they wanted to be represented?
Wouldn't it have been wise to change the elementary curriculum FIRST before putting the incoming 6th graders into a more rigorous curriculum set? You are putting the cart before the hourse. I am not impressed how little thought appears to have gone into this. Your one minded goal of assuring that EVERY child goes to college is impractical and it's premise is unsound. Not all children need or even should go to college. In today's word a college degree will simply mean more debt with little return. Learning a skilled trade will often pay more with less resulting debt than a degree for a four year college. So telling everyone they are now taking college readiness courses is foolish. Perhaps EVERYONE should be given the OPTION of taking college readiness courses or a track you could call "life readiness".
ReplyDeleteYou all jumped the gun on this one with little to not input from those you affect most.
The district and the board should be ashamed of themselves. This is a huge sweeping change that affects students at every educational level. To implement such a change with no input from the parents and voters of this district was a big mistake! You make it clear when you want help passing a bond, fighting the state on funding, making a calendar change, etc. The only reason people know about this is because of parents at one elementary school spreading the word.
ReplyDeletePutting the cart before the horse is something that this district has a history of. Making this change before you took the steps to prepare students and teachers for this change is incredulous. The students that were on level will now be placed in larger classes with a more rigorous curriculum. The Pre-ap type student will be in a class where even though material will be the same, it will often be repeated, losing out on valuable time for hands on "deeper" learning. Teachers that are used to teaching similar students figuring out what makes each group tick, now will have to diversify their lesson plans. Because the classes will still be diversified to teach to the indivual potential, why would it not make more sense to keep the classes homogenous.
Would you please use our tax dollars to prepare our children for a college education, and quit USING THEM them to solicit funding for the school system by prodding and threatening them (yes some of your teachers are threatening students) to participate in fund-raising activities. These children are NOT your employees.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeletePlease take this fundraising issue to your school principal. Students should not be forced to participate in fundraising activities.
(I answered other questions/comments on the middle school curriculum changes on a new Blog post).