Board of Ed Candidates Find Common Ground, Outline Differences

At the March 15 Hilton Neighborhood Association Candidates Forum, the six candidates for three seats on the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education found common ground and outlined their differences.

Many of the candidates agreed that the schools were already very good. They also agreed that curriculum needed to be an ongoing focus — offering more choice, variety and rigor to all students.

But there were differences.

Amy Higer, Jennifer Payne Parrish and Karen (Tia) Swanson noted that they were fully in support of the recent Board decision to reduce levels in the middle schools and the high school. Jeff Bennett, Wayne Eastman and Madhu Pai — who are campaigning together — said that, while they did not support the decision, they were committed to making certain it was implemented well.

Candidates Jeff Bennett and Amy Higer threw those differences into highest relief. Near the end of the debate, Higer said, "What the election boils down to is if people think the district is 'on the right track.' I think it's on the right track."

After noting some commonalities, Bennett said, "We have differences. It's about governance. It's about asking questions of the administration. It's about monitoring proposals to see how well they were implemented...."

Bennett also said that he felt the Board needed to be more accessible and that Board meetings needed to have longer comment periods for public speaks (Pai also echoed this view).

De-leveling

Higer was the first to say she was running because she felt the district had "reached a critical moment in our history." She called the last five years of de-leveling policy a "thoughtful, reasonable and multi-faceted reform program aimed at giving every child access to the best possible education."

However, Higer said, "There are voices in our community that would like to turn back the clock."

"There is a widespread agreement within our community that every student can benefit from a stronger, richer curriculum," Madhu Pai argued. What divided the community, she said, was the decision on how to deliver that curriculum. "I'm not convinced that proposal was the best."

Going forward Pai said that decisions "should be made with data and due diligence." She talked about focusing on "excellent implementation" of the reduced levels and the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme by "collecting and monitoring" data "year over year, not just on student achievement but on structures in place."

Jennifer Payne Parrish had a different take on data. Payne Parrish said she felt that the less than 50% college graduation rate for graduates from the Class of '04 — and equally unimpressive data from the two following years — was more than sufficient to justify the vote on reducing levels. "The number of students in Levels 2 and 3 are the students who are mainly unsuccessful in college," said Payne Parrish.

Payne Parrish did agree that data were important. "However, we do have to evaluate how it's going to be succesful," she said. "We've been doing that, looking at common assessments and NJASK scores."

"And the 7th grad data, go back and look at it. It shows that the only students that are stuggling are those level up students. And I think that they do need to struggle and it's okay. It means that they getting a rigorous curriculum and environment."

Payne Parrish's views on data were echoed by Swanson who said it was a "misconception" that the data did not support the Board's decision on reducing levels and IB.

While Eastman had voted against the de-leveling proposals, he told the audience, "Let's make them work." He talked about offering choice and flexibility, particularly at the high school. "We're all levelers, we're all de-levelers. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's not."

Differentiated Instruction

Both Higer and Swanson made comments explaining and supporting differentiated instruction. Higer said teachers needed training and support, but, "They can do it. They've been doing it. They've been doing it really well."

Bennett said he wanted differentiated instruction to work better by giving teachers more time to plan — perhaps paying them if necessary to come in after school or during the summer.

Excellent Schools and Stronger Curriculum

A number of the candidates voiced the opinion that the district's schools were good, even very good. But all talked about making them better.

Pai called herself the "lucky beneficiary of changes made at the grade school level," but talked about taking the schools further, offering "best-in-class education starting with a strong and rich curriculum," including early access to language, more after-school achievement programs.

Wayne Eastman talked about his role serving on the global innovation task force on the Board of Education. He talked about improving curriculum "through competency-based learning, through technology, through extracurriculars." As chair of the Board's Finance, Facilities and Technology Committee, Eastman noted that any idea would need to be looked at in terms of its cost. He said that ways to improve curriculum and excellence could happen affordably by looking "not just in the confines of the good old-fashioned school day." Eastman said extracurriculars could be used to do things like learn Mandarin and "bust the achievement gap with young kids right at the beginning."

Jeff Bennett also talked about building a "really great curriculum." He talked about introducing more sophisticated literature in the middle schools — naming Fitzgerald and Hemingway — and rethinking social studies. Bennett said he's like to see extracurriculars like a model U.N.

Swanson talked about "broadening the greatness and evening it out so that there is not uneven quality across classrooms and across schools." She said that she felt the district was moving in that direction already. Swanson also talked about continuing to provide more supports to teachers, including best practices and teacher mentoring.

Payne Parrish brought up "one area of opportunity" — science enrichments. As a scientist herself, she said that she noticed her one daughter was "coming home with not a lot of science work." She called this perhaps a "mistake of the Board." Said she would like to see more scientific experimentation at the grade school level. Payne Parrish saw that perhaps being integrated into math.

Later in the forum, Higer and Swanson both talked about how increased social studies could perhaps be built into the English Language Arts curriculum and increased science into the math curriculum.

In his closing remarks, Bennett made a nod to those remarks. "It's great that we all actually want to have more science and social studies in our curriculum particularly in the grade schools."