State Senate
Candidate David Pollock of Moorpark, CA has responded to my concerns, which I posted
at http://skrashen.blogspot.com/2016/05/too-little-discussion-about-education.html
(I sent copies of my statement to all the candidates who were listed on
twitter.)
Mr. Pollock has
generously given me permission to share his comments. It is good to know that
at least one candidate is aware of the issues I brought up, and clearly
understands their importance.
His response:
I appreciated
seeing your article, and I think we are in violent agreement on most key issues
in education. Just as a matter of background, I started my career as a
certified ground and flight instructor (just like teaching K-12, except your
students try to kill you every day). I took an active interest in my
local (Moorpark) schools in 1992 when my two children started attending, and I
chaired the district's Committee for Effective Schools. We recommended,
and the school board adopted, a series of reforms that included distinctive
instructional programs at each school and voluntary enrollment from outside
attendance boundaries. I was elected to the school board in 1994,
primarily to oversee implementation of the reforms. I eventually became
president of the California School Boards Association and have also served on
WASC accreditation teams for high schools in California.
I agree that we
have to be careful about preschool programs. I alway refer to
"quality" preschool programs, but I agree that they should also be
developmental in nature. It is no secret that kids learn through
play. In fact, I think we need to infuse higher grades with more time to
play and explore. I think quality preschool programs are particularly
important for kids in poverty who have less exposure to cognitive stimulation
including bright colors and articulate conversation.
I am aware of
the push for STEM instruction and worry about that too. In Moorpark, only
one of our six elementary schools specializes in STEM instruction (it's called
the Flory Academy for Science and Technology and is a NASA Explorer
School). Other schools specialize in cultural literacy (Core Knowledge),
active learning, performing arts, etc. The point is, there is no one
"right" way to teach children and school districts should embrace
variety. And in case anyone doubts this is a good strategy, I point out
that during my 15 years on the school board, Moorpark won the U.S. Academic
Decathlon four times.
As for
technology in schools, our emphasis was on technology for teachers. We
invested in Prometheus boards for every classroom as a multi-media presentation
tool for instruction. This was a big push of mine as a member if the
Technology Strategic Planning Committee for the district. As far as
computers for instructional use, I see it as just one tool in good RTI
methods. Use the computers for kids that need access beyond the lesson plan
and have the teacher focus on directed instruction for those students that are
struggling. I'm a big fan of the Kahn Academy for independent study.
Yes, I am a big
believer in libraries. It think we have some of the best school libraries
in the area, and in my work on the city council, we are planning a brand new
public library based on what has been successful in other communities.
I was on the
school board when Prop. 227 was passed and, since we still believe bilingual
programs were succeeding for many of our students, we utilized the "one
month" rule to identify students that would benefit from bilingual
programs and then secured parental permission to place them in that
environment. I haven't read the new proposed initiative, but to the
extent that it frees school districts to do what is most successful for kids, I
am in favor.
There is an old
farmers adage that goes, "weighing the pig does not make it fatter."
I have railed against high-stakes testing from the beginning. While
I agree that there most be some norm-based testing for summative purposes, I
think the primary purpose of any testing must be useful diagnostics as feedback
to the teacher. And so long as teachers are routinely checking for
understanding, I think the need for formal testing should be minimal.
Whether or not
competency-based testing proves to be effective, I still believe that testing
should be minimal and largely discretionary. We only need to do enough
formal testing necessary for summative purposes, but, again, testing should be
a routine matter of checking for understanding and for genuine diagnostic
purposes.
I appreciate
you asking these questions and welcome your advice. I intend to be on the
Senate Education Committee to help restore California's schools as the gold
standard of public education.
