For today’s question, candidates were asked for their thoughts on the “lowest-achieving schools” designation. Please read the Demoractic candidates’ responses after the jump. You can read the responses to the first, second, third, and fourth questions as well. Also please feel free to leave comments on the candidates’ responses. The candidates and your fellow voters appreciate your feedback!
Today’s Question: DOE Commissioner Susan Gendron released the list of school achievement and progress. Part of that list were the ten persistently lowest-achieving schools. These schools are eligible for $12 million in federal grant money if they do one of the following; fire the principal and implement reforms such as extending learning time or adding professional development time, fire the principal and half the staff, or close the school completely. Do you agree with the lowest-achieving label? What do you think of the reforms required to receive federal grant money?
Libby Mitchell: As a former teacher, I know that students learn in different ways and achieve at different levels. I do not believe that it is helpful for any student or for any school to be labeled as low-achieving. What is helpful is to identify areas where schools and students need to focus more effort, reassess their teaching and learning strategies, or try new approaches to learning. To demand excellence in education does not mean firing everyone in a school determined low achieving. It does mean the state and local leaders must find out why students are not getting the education they deserve and make the changes dictated by that analysis. Leadership within the school is fundamental; community support if critical.
Rosa Scarcelli: I agree that in order for school achievement to improve, it has to first be measured. Offering the lowest-achieving schools a tangible and attractive incentive to make dramatic reform is reasonable, fair and hopefully effective.
Donna Dion: In reviewing the [school achievement and progress] I am not in a position to support or reject the stated recommendations. Numbers do not clearly indicate the status of any school district. The State would not be doing our job properly if we immediately reacted by the report, instead of evaluating the school system and actually what was taking place in the school district, a plan takes immediate evaluation. Firing principles and staff is not going to take care of the educational deficiencies, cause and effect. Plan to address problems not numbers.
Steve Rowe: No, I do not agree with the *lowest achieving* school designation. A review of the criteria used to label schools at *lowest-achieving* shows it was driven by a formula that did not include all of the factors indicating how well a school is performing. Furthermore, the options offered to schools in order to qualify for funds are drastic and highly punitive. This punitive approach to funding represents the worst of *No Child Left Behind.* NCLB has not helped Maine and the law must be dramatically altered so less emphasis is placed on standardized testing when evaluating student and school performance.
Learning is a shared responsibility of the student, teacher, parent, school, and community. We should allow schools to develop restructuring efforts to increase student achievement and create *learning cultures.* When we infuse innovation in the classroom, eliminate one size fits all approach to learning and have greater parental involvement all of Maine schools will be great.
Pat McGowan: Agreed to participate, did not respond in time.
Account
Start a blog
Send us your news
Post an event
See it. Fix it.