To the Editor:
In response to the announcement made at the March 22, 2010 Board of Ed meeting, I wonder why the current problem facing Wyoming and South Mountain schools—specifically the sharing of a technology teacher between South Mountain and Wyoming schools—has not been openly covered by the Item and Patch. Lisa Levine (a parent at Wyoming School) eloquently addressed this problem. The Item chose to ignore her presence and position.
We understand that with the financial aid cuts made by Trenton we have to make sacrifices. However, I ask if the sacrifice is equally borne by all schools in the district?
We have already had losses not experienced by the other schools. The Washington School neighborhood lost its school when it was sold to the state. South Mountain lost its neighborhood school when it was decided in 1983 the school was no longer necessary. At that time, the board intended to sell the property. The South Mountain community opposed this. Thank God they did. At that time, the community was told our children would all be bussed to Wyoming. We did not like it, but we did it. We did not spend unnecessary money on a redistricting consultant.
Last year Wyoming School was reduced to two fifth grade classrooms. We now have 27 children in each classroom (the largest elementary sections in the district) housed in classroom built to accommodate 25 students. Four children have to hang their coats in the hall. They also have to use plastic bins stored in the hall to hold other possessions. At one point, Wyoming had to send a new fifth grade student to South Mountain because there was no room. Wyoming and South Mountain also currently share a music teacher.
How can it be contemplated that South Mountain and Wyoming schools not have a full time technology teacher? How will these children excel in the middle school without the benefit of a full time technology teacher when their peers are not similarly deprived? Gone will be our morning broadcast (which the children love) and many other programs if we are forced to have a part time teacher.
To suggest that sharing a technology teacher will not be a sacrifice for our children is absurd. Our technology teachers not only teach classes; they support our classroom teachers. They video tape lessons and programs, they produce our weekly announcement program, they run staff development programs for teachers and this year three information sessions for parents. The technology teacher also inventories all tech equipment and supplies and troubleshoots all problems in our school allowing Ed Center technicians to service the three larger schools. Is the Ed Center prepared to send someone to Wyoming and South Mountain whenever we have a problem?
As the governor of New Jersey has said, state aid should not be affecting the children nor should programs be eliminated. Why is Millburn eliminating an elementary technology position and adding an additional administrative position? The elementary technology teachers have a connection with the children of Millburn. The coordinator of technology is an added layer of administration. Our current assistant superintendent of curriculum and instruction and technology integration has a staff developer (not working with children), data base manager (not working with children); has hired consultants to help with her work (not working with children) and now a coordinator of technology who will not be working with children. Does anyone discern a troublesome pattern?
For almost thirty years I have watched as the South Mountain and Wyoming communities have made one sacrifice after another. It is time that the current board rectifies this. It is time that all students are treated equally in the Millburn Township School District.
Julia M. Cino
Millburn
In This article
-
South Mountain Elementary School
2 Southern Slope Dr, Millburn, NJ -
Wyoming School
55 Myrtle Ave, Millburn, NJ -
Anonie
10:12 am on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
I'm not really sold on why we need elementary school technology teachers.
First, there is no good evidence that using computers at such an early age significantly improves learning, especially compared to traditional methods that are less costly. In fact, using computers can detract from learning and also diverts resources from other programs like math, music, art, science. It seems to me that most children are completely capable of learning to use computers appropriately at an appropriate age outside the school setting, especially in the home where computers are no longer a novelty. Much of the push to include computers in school relates back to when this was not the case.
In any event, if, as this entry suggests, one district is is being disparately, significantly and adversely affected, that impact should be take into consideration by school administrators. Of course, it is likely that districts will be somewhat disparately affected. It is not possible to achieve perfect equality when trying to pare a budget. We are not Shylocks--we can not easily cut fractions of people.
Anonie
10:14 am on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
http://www.tnellen.com/ted/tc/computer.htm
13 years old but still relevant.
M.Moore
12:13 pm on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
In the budget as currently proposed, there are no cuts at the other 3 elementary schools that are in any way comparable to this. All the elementary schools are losing their instructional aides, all of them will see cutbacks in supplies, lunch aides and substitute hours. Only two schools will have their children taught differently than the rest of the district. Because the total population of the schools is 650 students, the proposal includes having the Wyoming and South Mountain media specialists (i.e. librarians) teach technology to the 4th and 5th grade students. That is unacceptable. Take someone out of the Ed Center and replace the retiring technology teacher.
Anonie
12:58 pm on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
I appreciate your advocacy for your own district. However, just because you say it is unacceptable does not mean that it is unacceptable.
It seems reasonable to me to have one teacher of technology for 650 students. Is that ratio materially worse than that of the other schools? By how much? You also assert that this will result in the teacher teaching differently than the children being taught at other schools. How so?
Why would you take someone out of the Ed Center?
And why is a technology teacher so important.
Personally, I would look to reduce the technology teacher positions in general and restore other positions and resources or expand the classroom time spent on math, reading and other traditional fundamental skills. The technology program is very expensive, but there is no real evidence of its benefits. Sure, it is cool to see all those shiny Apple computers in your school system, but the benefits seem dubious to me.
Good luck.
M.Moore
1:13 pm on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
I'm not arguing for the position of technology teacher; I'm arguing for the position of equity amongst our students. If the district thinks the position of technology teacher is a necessary one, than all students should be taught by a technology teacher. If the district believes that a media specialist can adequately teach technology to 4th and 5th graders, than all 4th and 5th graders should be taught technology by a media specialist.
To answer your question, the other 3 schools have one technology teacher for 500-550 students, not 650. In addition, the technology teacher is present for 5 days in each school. In the proposed budget, Wyoming and South Mountain will not have a technology teacher present in each school every day. The technology teachers do more (as stated in the letter) than just teach technology - not having them in the school for 2 or 3 days is a disadvantage for one group of students.
lehivalleygrrl
5:47 pm on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
For those doubting the necessity of educational technology specialists in schools, I'd like to offer some strong support for computer-assisted learning, based on years of research:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technlgy/te800.htm
If you don't have time to read it all now, scroll down to "research results."
This is just the tip of the iceberg.
JV
6:14 pm on Tuesday, March 30, 2010
I do think that having a technology teacher situated in the building is important, for all the reasons outlined in the above letter. I also believe that striving for equity throughout the entire district should be a given. Having 4th and 5th graders taught technology (in two out of five schools) by anyone other than a technology teacher IS unacceptable. The need for serious changes is obvious; the budget is extremely tight. I just hope that, as the board members said at the meeting last week, the changes are as far removed from the classroom as is possible.
Anonie
12:31 pm on Wednesday, March 31, 2010
That NCREL piece is not research. It is a meta-analysis. It aggregates research to conclude, inter alia, that "student achievement in reading and mathematics, an association consistent with earlier reviews of the research literature on the effectiveness of computer-based instruction."
I could be wrong, but in our elementary schools, computers are not being used in classrooms to teach math, science and reading. We don't really have computer-based elementary school instruction. Rather, students access computers in a technology lab. The focus is on using and appreciating computers. As an example, the second grade curriculum provides that "students will:
•Demonstrate respect of peer work.
•Be introduced to proper keyboarding technique.
•Create multimedia projects.
•Use selected electronic resources.
•Use appropriate Internet sites.
•Use appropriate curriculum-based software.
Only the last item vaguely relates to traditional learning. Now, I'm not against kids learning about technology, but in this fiscal environment, it is a question of priorities, and this technology curriculum seems to be more about getting comfortable with technology than enhancing student achievement in the traditional disciplines in the way the NCREL meta-analysis suggests.
Personally, I would oppose it, but one implication of the NCREL study might be not that we need specialized technology teachers, but that we might need computers in the classroom, not in the tech lab.
jean p
12:17 am on Thursday, April 1, 2010
I heard from a teacher in the district that technology teachers spend much of the day helping other teachers do basic things on their computers that they should otherwise have the skills to do. If true, there is a simple solution. Require teachers to have the basic skills that all workers are required to have --come one, we all have to have basic computer skills-- and you will have more than enough time for the students!