PEORIA, IL -- Two proposed programs for the Peoria District 150 schools were tabled by school officials after both evoked controversy from parents and teachers. The programs were discussed at the May 6 meeting of the School Board.
The public comments began from a teacher, Molly Gray who questioned why the board was being asked to approve the Heinemann Literacy "Product" for grades K-1 at the astonishing cost of $322,759.
Gray said the current program, called Journeys, is "very effective," the children love it, and there is no reason to replace it.
Here is a recording of the public comments
Download D150 May 6 2019
A school administrator was asked by the board to respond, and defended the new program as more challenging for the students, but admitted that the Journeys program was also effective. The board then tabled the purchase.
The other program is even more controversial, the free Facebook-designed curriculum called Summit Learning, destined for Washington Gifted Middle School. A presentation there last week drew the ire of parents. Here's the Journal Star's story on Summit, with a correction stating that a Facebook charity now pushes the program.
-- Elaine Hopkins
Activist Sharon Crews has also questioned this program, and here are her comments:
Even though Dr Kherat’s Friday evening’s e-mail states that Summit Learning will not be implemented next year, clearly this administration still believes that a personalized learning system is the wave of the future and still favors Summit Learning.
Undoubtedly, the administration wanted Summit Learning to be used throughout the district; therefore, Washington Gifted—the district’s most successful program—was chosen as the guinea pig for the pilot program. However, Summit’s success at Washington would not have guaranteed success at lower achieving schools. If it’s true that Quest is using Summit right now, we have good reason to believe the program would not be an improvement for our schools.
Up until Monday’s meeting at Washington, the administration’s expectation was for the board to vote “yes” to implement Summit next year at Washington. The administration had even hinted that Summit would help improve Washington’s test scores to restore its standing as a Top Ten school.
The district’s administration itself is the cause of lower test scores because standards have been lowered and class sizes have been increased substantially. Also, Summit is designed for Title I students, so it would have been inappropriate for and harmful to Washington students.
The decision to implement Summit at Washington next year had been made without seeking questions and/or opinions of teachers, parents, or even board members. Ignoring these groups when major decisions are made should stop.
Last Monday’s meeting at Washington was not the administration’s idea—the parents requested and the principals organized it. Just as Lathan did not anticipate raising the ire of Charter Oak parents, this administration overlooked the fact that Washington parents know how to advocate for their children.
I believe that those in the know would agree that Washington Gifted and the Richwoods IB program are the two most successful and long-lived in the district—and both include components of personalized learning. My proof of their success is the stellar success of Mahliyah Adkins-Threats—who, along with many of her classmates—graduated from college, having acquired lucrative four-year scholarships all over the United States.
After graduating from Truman University, Mahliyah received offers for graduate degrees at universities all over the country. Having accepted a five-year scholarship with a lucrative yearly salary at the prestigious Washington University in St. Louis, Mahliyah is now in her second year of earning her PhD in Developmental, Regenerative and Stem Cell biology.
Even though Summit brags about a partnership with Harvard, Summit turned down Harvard’s proposal to study the program; therefore, impacts on student outcomes have not been measured.
Since Summit is backed by the Zuckerbergs and Bill Gates, computers and remote learning are bound to be overused. This district needs to do extensive research into the negative impact that remote learning and over use of technology has on young people.
General complaints about personalized learning, in general, and Summit Learning, specifically, are rampant throughout the country and need to be considered by our administration. Also, personalized learning and Summit demand small class sizes—District 150 cannot afford small class sizes, and our teacher shortage makes small class sizes impossible. You have to be realistic.
--Sharon Crews