![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 2nd, 2009 06:16 pmEarlier this week, I was up in the greater Bangor area to attend the Maine Drop Out Prevention Summit, along with more than 250 other folks, almost all of whom were from Maine, unlike me.
The event was tightly structured, from the 8:20am start on Monday to the final pre-lunch session on Tuesday. By tightly structured/i>, I don't merely mean the starting and ending times of sessions, but how the so-called breakout sessions were handled.
There were 12 groups, with 3 assigned to each topic (in no particular order):
1.) Early Intervention
2.) Making the Most of Instruction
3.) School and Community Perspectives
4.) Core Strategies
I'm not going to go through our process step by step, but suffice it to say that for every step, there was a form to fill out. Within our room, we went to 2's and 3's and each small group developed a broad list of needs. From there, we had to report 2 of those to the room as a whole. Then the room voted on which of those should get the most focus.
The next day, we were shown our top 4 vote-getters and told to determine which two of those to detail actions for. Those two would be read to the entire group, with actions.
Then we would be done.
*********
Aaaaaaaargh!
I'd gone to this event with the intention of being mostly quiet. I know that while I have my strengths, I am hardly an expert in drop-out prevention, and I was looking forward to hearing from those who were, or at least who were more experienced than I.
There was a panel in the morning of the first day at which a variety of programs from around the state were represented, and those folks talked briefly about what their programs did and for whom. Unfortunately, it was decided (not by the attendees) that the scheduled Q & A with the "panelists" wouldn't fit the timeframe, and they could not keep the Commissioners waiting, so the "Children's Cabinet" was presented and given a sample case to discuss - which they rightly noted had too little information to permit them to make an informed decision.
The loss of the first was frustrating. Its being replaced with the second... just too much.
While there were more folks with alternative schools experience gathered than anywhere this side of the alternative schools conferences, they sure didn't seem to have critical mass, overall - and their voices and experiences were given no particular credence in the room my group was in. I've not heard that it was different elsewhere, though it may have been.
So... some notions - notions that work, mind you - were shot down as things to consider, without discussion. Our facilitator was just that - she was not an expert in our field, seeking to guide the discussion, beyond "the commissioners won't go for that," and similar valid, but limited, observations.
Our group reported out two recommended needs, though the second one pretty close to a last minute addition when we were running out of time:
Policies that interfere with completion of high school must be changed or eliminated.
All students' learning styles must be assessed, addressed, and valued. ("Valued" was tacked on the end of my wording, and it was no longer worth arguing, if I wanted the rest of it included.)
*********
One of the other groups suggested to the assembly that we get rid of NCLB.
*********
Okay, so we didn't really listen to or consider, collectively, the experiences of those in the field. And we really didn't get the breadth of ideas to play with.
But at least we got to discuss and explore the ideas presented to the assembly by the 12 teams, right?
Bzzzzzzzzzt!
Nope. Upon completion of the report-out process, a few closing words were uttered, we watched a slide show of snippets of the two days, and we were done.
Done.
The event was tightly structured, from the 8:20am start on Monday to the final pre-lunch session on Tuesday. By tightly structured/i>, I don't merely mean the starting and ending times of sessions, but how the so-called breakout sessions were handled.
There were 12 groups, with 3 assigned to each topic (in no particular order):
1.) Early Intervention
2.) Making the Most of Instruction
3.) School and Community Perspectives
4.) Core Strategies
I'm not going to go through our process step by step, but suffice it to say that for every step, there was a form to fill out. Within our room, we went to 2's and 3's and each small group developed a broad list of needs. From there, we had to report 2 of those to the room as a whole. Then the room voted on which of those should get the most focus.
The next day, we were shown our top 4 vote-getters and told to determine which two of those to detail actions for. Those two would be read to the entire group, with actions.
Then we would be done.
*********
Aaaaaaaargh!
I'd gone to this event with the intention of being mostly quiet. I know that while I have my strengths, I am hardly an expert in drop-out prevention, and I was looking forward to hearing from those who were, or at least who were more experienced than I.
There was a panel in the morning of the first day at which a variety of programs from around the state were represented, and those folks talked briefly about what their programs did and for whom. Unfortunately, it was decided (not by the attendees) that the scheduled Q & A with the "panelists" wouldn't fit the timeframe, and they could not keep the Commissioners waiting, so the "Children's Cabinet" was presented and given a sample case to discuss - which they rightly noted had too little information to permit them to make an informed decision.
The loss of the first was frustrating. Its being replaced with the second... just too much.
While there were more folks with alternative schools experience gathered than anywhere this side of the alternative schools conferences, they sure didn't seem to have critical mass, overall - and their voices and experiences were given no particular credence in the room my group was in. I've not heard that it was different elsewhere, though it may have been.
So... some notions - notions that work, mind you - were shot down as things to consider, without discussion. Our facilitator was just that - she was not an expert in our field, seeking to guide the discussion, beyond "the commissioners won't go for that," and similar valid, but limited, observations.
Our group reported out two recommended needs, though the second one pretty close to a last minute addition when we were running out of time:
Policies that interfere with completion of high school must be changed or eliminated.
All students' learning styles must be assessed, addressed, and valued. ("Valued" was tacked on the end of my wording, and it was no longer worth arguing, if I wanted the rest of it included.)
*********
One of the other groups suggested to the assembly that we get rid of NCLB.
*********
Okay, so we didn't really listen to or consider, collectively, the experiences of those in the field. And we really didn't get the breadth of ideas to play with.
But at least we got to discuss and explore the ideas presented to the assembly by the 12 teams, right?
Bzzzzzzzzzt!
Nope. Upon completion of the report-out process, a few closing words were uttered, we watched a slide show of snippets of the two days, and we were done.
Done.
