Pine-Richland Principal Ignores Parent Concerns (email sent April 2010)

Dear Mr. Pietrusinski,
I am bringing these concerns to you since they relate to the high school directly, although they do ultimately question the direction of the district as a whole. About a month ago, I cc-ed you on an email I sent to John Dolphin regarding concerns about the nature of the Symposium on Ethics in Education (I met with him and Ms. Poulakos, it was not uplifting). Since then my discussions with parents have been relayed to current and former school board directors and to Dr. Bucci. She did advise that more balance was needed and that in the future approval by the Academic Achievement Committee would be required for the readings. This is not considered adequate and more areas of concerns have developed. I have a director asking to have a meeting next week with Dr Foley to discuss curriculum concerns (including the STEM for HS) and I thought you should be informed of these things.
While the individual required symposium readings of themselves would probably be typical in a HS education, with the notable exception of Paulo Freire, it was the humanist worldview shining through the students' essays, and the total lack of contrasting/opposing sources, that was most troubling. Many of the voluntary (chosen by students) sources could be considered Marxist, Progressive and/or Socialist (e.g. Georg Hegel, John Dewey, Aldous Huxley, David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche) and all display a secular humanist viewpoint. One student was pro-abortion and even said it was the "non-life" of the fetus as opposed to an actual death. Several expressed strong anti-Christian sentiments, and several were anti-capitalist (including a student who used Adam Smith as his primary source). In addition, the 2009 Symposium also promoted Socialism through the use of John Dewey, one of the leaders of the Progressive movement. The Dan Pink (aide to Al Gore and known for Marxist views) book contains a lot of spirituality (meditation, labyrinths, new age) which is inappropriate for a school setting (perhaps not in the required chapter on Symphony, but promoting even a part of the book is an approval of the whole; I didn't see a part of the Bible being used even though it has been a standard for ethics for thousands of years). The Gary Marx (globalist promoting change through socialist consensual thinking) book is intended to impress on the needs of schools to change to meet a globalist future. All three saw the need for everyone to have the same right-brain emphasis and skill set to succeed.

But there is another theme shared by the two events: "direct instruction (traditional classroom teaching) is oppression of students" and for education to be "democratic" and nonoppressive, per Freire, teachers must not be inflicting their views and opinions on their students, but must be flexible and prepared to learn from their charges. There is no truth and no facts at all (postmodern), just opinions, and even basic facts like dates and events can be obtained from the internet and should not be learned, since regurgitating facts is not important to the critical thinking skills these students must experience. Its too bad neither symposium gave the students any data, research, or evidence of what teaching methods really work and the relationship to the different learning styles of students (one kid complained that classes were not available to re-wire left brain students). Many parents do not agree that imposing teachers' (and perhaps the district's) views of the how our existing educational system must change is appropriate or fair.

Even if these children were expressing their families' worldviews, this event involved 150-200 students and many teachers, and was attended by the highest levels of PR adminsitration. To have our tax dollars spent to advocate such views is a significant problem that cannot be resolved simply by having the Academic Achievement Committee review next year's readings, especially considering most of them have been used in classes (and thus approved explicitly or tacitly) or were used by the district itself in its Strategic Plan and Transformational Blueprint.

The next issue relates to teachers imposing their personal biases on students; I obtained some class notes for Honors World Cultures. I have attached the file. It contains many factual errors about Christianity (3 gospels do not agree, 3 were based upon Mark, Easter replaced Passover, developed from Greek paganism and Zoroastrianism), had a clear bias aganst Christianity (could not list any attractive qualities but had plenty for Islam), was insulting with the "COEXIST" bumper sticker in the middle of the presentation, says Islam is more democratic and spiritual than Christianity, bias in Crusades presentation. It is not appropriate to denigrate one religion in this manner, and this was used in more than one class.

Finally, can you explain what is planned with the STEM/PLTW curriculum? I finally found a little mention of it in the Academic Achivement Committee meeting minutes and agendas, but no details and nothing in the HS monthly newsletters, nor did any HS parents I found know anything about it. As a mechanical engineer, the curriculum philosophy of PLTW troubles me (this is from the PLTW website):
All PLTW high school courses have several underlying content areas in common. As students progress through the sequence they will become proficient in:

• working as a contributing member of a team
• leading a team
• using appropriate written and/or visual mediums to communicate with a wide variety of audiences
• public speaking
• listening to the needs and ideas of others
• understanding the potential impact their ideas and products may have on society
• thinking
• problem solving
• managing time, resources and projects
• researching
• going beyond the classroom for answers
• data collection and analysis
• preparing for two- and four-year college programs

PLTW's curriculum makes math and science relevant for students. By engaging in hands-on, real-world projects, students understand how the skills they are learning in the classroom can be applied in everyday life. This approach is called activities-based learning, project-based learning, and problem-based learning or APPB-learning.

Research shows that schools practicing APPB-learning experience an increase in student motivation, an increase in cooperative learning skills and higher-order thinking, and an improvement in student achievement.

Activities are a method of instruction that involves directed teaching of a particular process or procedure. Activities engage students in learning skills that are later applied in more complex situations. Activities lead students to higher levels of learning.

Project-based learning is a comprehensive approach to instruction that presents a project or relevant activity that enables students to synthesize knowledge and to individually resolve problems in a curricular context.

Problem-based learning is both a curriculum organizer and an instructional strategy that presents a problem, which is relevant and related to the context where students are the stakeholders. Students synthesize and construct knowledge to help them actively grapple with the complexities of the problem and develop strategies to direct their own learning. When students experience a problem in context, they are more likely to make connections and thus see the value in what they are learning.

This could be great for some students, but it sounds like an ongoing group lab project with an intent to make future engineering managers out of everyone. WIll all classes in science and math be impacted by this? If not, will honors, pre-AP and AP non-PLTW classes still be offered? Will parents have the opportunity to review the plans for change in these areas?

Is there a way to avoid teachers whose worldviews are openly contrary to my own Christian values (e.g though the scheduling process or with help of Guidance)?

Is there a plan to encourage teachers to consider the community's values when presenting material that could be controversial, like religion and philosophy? It is important that everyone respect the religious and political viewpoints of one another. It would be impractical if not impossible to opt-out of all the courses involved in the Symposiums.

Will the quality of my kids' educations be impacted if they are wired as left-brain learners and do not thrive in the group/constructivist student-centered learning models that seem to be preferred? Will they be denied opportunities that are afforded to right-brain children, the outgoing popular kids who like doing group work and projects, such as pre-AP, honors and AP classes (I know of children who tested well but were denied the GATE program because they were not outgoing enough)? We were advised by MS guidance that the pre-AP social studies are primarily Socratic circles and that much of the grade is based upon class participation, which excludes my smart but shy 8th grader. Occasional group work and public speaking are good opportunities, but I know I always preferred to work solo. Of course I have seen the right-brain emphasis in the Strategic plan and particularly in the Transformational Blueprint. Being a left brain person is not a deficit that needs to be corrected (e.g. Bill Gates)! I have done much research on this since the new constructivist elementary math program pushed my 3rd grader - and many others - into a ditch this year with its real world problem conceptual emphasis; it would sting less if due process to implement this new curriculum had been followed. Being excluded from AP classes has a significant impact on college, both cost and admissions, as I am sure you are aware.

I appreciate your time and hope that we can discuss these matters soon.