|
Post by brant on Jun 4, 2009 11:28:06 GMT -5
Rather than address eb204's pointless diatribe, I will respond to this. I grew up one step from the ghetto on the west side of Chicago. Most of my grade school was black. Most of my friends were black or other races than Caucasian. I do not have a racist bone in my body. That being said, I cannot tolerate the direction our society has taken with respect to allowing the family structure to deteriorate. Most of this has been caused by the liberal agenda of our politicians. One of the reasons I moved to Naperville was because I thought it was a conservative, pleasant, wholesome area to raise a family. It has a very high percentage of two-parent families. Am I a bad person for wanting to limit my exposure to "diversity"? Let me ask you and the others here...would you be happy if we suddenly had a high percentage of low-income families in D204? Or a high percentage of non-English speakers? All in the name of diversity? Be honest. There is nothing wrong with variety and even trying to be a melting pot to a certain degree. But many of us work in Chicago and endure a hellish commute and obscene property taxes to live in an area that tries to maintain whatever is left of the "ideal" life. As the years have gone by, I have started to see that Naperville and D204 in particular are not immune from the same things that caused me to want to live here-- primarily increasing social agendas by those who supposedly know what's good for us. Suddenly everyone has a peanut allergy, everyone is autistic, teasing is bad, everyone has ADD, we need a/c in the schools or we'll die, etc. We have come to expect less and less from our kids, partially because we're told they have issues that are out of our control when in fact many of them can be attributed directly to parenting. Just look at the woman whose kid was promoted up through 5th grade when he couldn't read at a 2nd grade level. I can't help but believe the woman did nothing to monitor her child's progress, yet in all likelihood the kid was or will be diagnosed with some sort of special need. I do acknowledge there are legitimate special needs kids. But I am convinced that this has become an industry unto itself and has become a self-fulfulling prohecy. People don't want to hear they are poor parents...they much prefer to be told their child's problems are due to an "illness." Again, there ARE real cases that deserve treatment and sympathy. I just happen to believe there are many more that are imagined. Many will disagree with me on this. I do agree with some of what you are saying that we as a society are expecting less and less from our kids. As I am in my 50s you already know that we were alot tougher and more independant then the kids today. I also believe indulgance is a form of child abuse. But as the father of a special needs child I can tell you we wouldn't wish it on anyone. It is real Hell and isolating.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 4, 2009 12:42:41 GMT -5
We have come to expect less and less from our kids, partially because we're told they have issues that are out of our control when in fact many of them can be attributed directly to parenting. Just look at the woman whose kid was promoted up through 5th grade when he couldn't read at a 2nd grade level. I can't help but believe the woman did nothing to monitor her child's progress, yet in all likelihood the kid was or will be diagnosed with some sort of special need. I do acknowledge there are legitimate special needs kids. But I am convinced that this has become an industry unto itself and has become a self-fulfulling prohecy. People don't want to hear they are poor parents...they much prefer to be told their child's problems are due to an "illness." Again, there ARE real cases that deserve treatment and sympathy. I just happen to believe there are many more that are imagined. Many will disagree with me on this. Asmo, There are some points we can agree on. Like brant, I agree that our society is expecting less and less from our kids. But I also feel that society needs to become more educated on the issues that some of these kids face and become more and more tolerant compassionate with what some of these parents face. As with the case of the mother you referenced....My guess is that the school told her all along about how well her son was doing, how he was advancing socially, making new friends, paying more attention, blah, blah, blah. She took them at their word and perhaps didn't question his reading level since other areas may have been prioritized. That doesn't mean she was an apathetic parent or that she wasn't involved with his reading. I would caution you before jumping to such conclusions about these parents. Oftentimes, many real disabilities don't come with a specific identifier. If my son was in a wheelchair, no one would be telling him that he could walk if only he "would try harder". He has a real disability even if it isn't noticeable to others. If you met my child on the street when he was having a tantrum, you would probably think he was a brat or that I was a bad parent or both. That's fine. Parents of special needs kids get that a lot. On the other hand, you'd probably never be able to pick my kid out of a group of kids as the one with special needs because we have worked with him and his school to build the proper supports to help him be successful and fit in among his peers. That is the definition of success as it relates to my child. Does that mean he's "cured" or that it is an "imagined" illness? Perhaps to you, maybe. To us, he's learned the skills he needs to adapt to his environment. There are many that have helped him along the way, including his parents, his team at school, his peers and other understanding parents. People can be a part of the problem or they can be a part of the solution. Being a part of the problem is unhealthy as well. To get back on topic, I hope that part of the search criteria for the new super is that professional development continues to be a priority. This would include all areas of education at all levels . There is room for improvement in student acheivement at all levels and it should start with professional development and finding the most appropriate ways to teach all kids, regardless of what level they are at.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 4, 2009 14:14:42 GMT -5
We have come to expect less and less from our kids, partially because we're told they have issues that are out of our control when in fact many of them can be attributed directly to parenting. Just look at the woman whose kid was promoted up through 5th grade when he couldn't read at a 2nd grade level. I can't help but believe the woman did nothing to monitor her child's progress, yet in all likelihood the kid was or will be diagnosed with some sort of special need. I do acknowledge there are legitimate special needs kids. But I am convinced that this has become an industry unto itself and has become a self-fulfulling prohecy. People don't want to hear they are poor parents...they much prefer to be told their child's problems are due to an "illness." Again, there ARE real cases that deserve treatment and sympathy. I just happen to believe there are many more that are imagined. Many will disagree with me on this. Asmo, There are some points we can agree on. Like brant, I agree that our society is expecting less and less from our kids. But I also feel that society needs to become more educated on the issues that some of these kids face and become more and more tolerant compassionate with what some of these parents face. As with the case of the mother you referenced....My guess is that the school told her all along about how well her son was doing, how he was advancing socially, making new friends, paying more attention, blah, blah, blah. She took them at their word and perhaps didn't question his reading level since other areas may have been prioritized. That doesn't mean she was an apathetic parent or that she wasn't involved with his reading. I would caution you before jumping to such conclusions about these parents. Oftentimes, many real disabilities don't come with a specific identifier. If my son was in a wheelchair, no one would be telling him that he could walk if only he "would try harder". He has a real disability even if it isn't noticeable to others. If you met my child on the street when he was having a tantrum, you would probably think he was a brat or that I was a bad parent or both. That's fine. Parents of special needs kids get that a lot. On the other hand, you'd probably never be able to pick my kid out of a group of kids as the one with special needs because we have worked with him and his school to build the proper supports to help him be successful and fit in among his peers. That is the definition of success as it relates to my child. Does that mean he's "cured" or that it is an "imagined" illness? Perhaps to you, maybe. To us, he's learned the skills he needs to adapt to his environment. There are many that have helped him along the way, including his parents, his team at school, his peers and other understanding parents. People can be a part of the problem or they can be a part of the solution. Being a part of the problem is unhealthy as well. To get back on topic, I hope that part of the search criteria for the new super is that professional development continues to be a priority. This would include all areas of education at all levels . There is room for improvement in student acheivement at all levels and it should start with professional development and finding the most appropriate ways to teach all kids, regardless of what level they are at. I can appreciate that some kids have real issues; I also don't feel comfortable lumping them all in to one category called SN. All I'm saying is that I fear we are too quickly diagnosing and branding some children as having SN disabilities....which, in its own way, is as disservice to the children who are truly affected. And once the infrastructure is in place and growing, I have this paranoia--perhaps unfounded--that we will begin searching for possible "patients" simply because we have so many "doctors" on staff. My sister-in-law, a teacher, says that she has seen many parents guilted into putting their kids into special behavioral programs, when in her opinion they were exhibiting normal "kid" behavior. She thinks some teachers almost feel an obligation to identify one or two of the class clowns and recommend them for counseling and/or treatment. Of course, this is hearsay and I didn't witness the kids to make judgment on whether I thought their behavior was within the realm of normal. Maybe I should be angry at all the districts that apparently don't treat SN students well, which forces parents to look for districts such as ours. I admittedly don't know as much about SN as many of the people here who actually have kids deserving of the programs we have to offer.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Jun 4, 2009 15:20:18 GMT -5
I can appreciate that some kids have real issues; I also don't feel comfortable lumping them all in to one category called SN. All I'm saying is that I fear we are too quickly diagnosing and branding some children as having SN disabilities....which, in its own way, is as disservice to the children who are truly affected. And once the infrastructure is in place and growing, I have this paranoia--perhaps unfounded--that we will begin searching for possible "patients" simply because we have so many "doctors" on staff. My sister-in-law, a teacher, says that she has seen many parents guilted into putting their kids into special behavioral programs, when in her opinion they were exhibiting normal "kid" behavior. She thinks some teachers almost feel an obligation to identify one or two of the class clowns and recommend them for counseling and/or treatment. Of course, this is hearsay and I didn't witness the kids to make judgment on whether I thought their behavior was within the realm of normal. Maybe I should be angry at all the districts that apparently don't treat SN students well, which forces parents to look for districts such as ours. I admittedly don't know as much about SN as many of the people here who actually have kids deserving of the programs we have to offer. You hit on some very valid points, which I've highlight in red. IMO, there are teachers who don't know what to do with some of the "class clowns" and, consequently, refer them for counseling/treatment because they simply don't want or know how to deal with them. In this case, making these kids just another number is not right either. I've met several parents who have moved to this district for that very reason. On another note, you have parents who fight the district (not just ours) to get special ed for your child and it's denied. We had a doctor's diagnosis and yet the SD we were in refused to give him special ed services. Now, as a parent, it was not my proudest moment to learn of my son's disability. I wish it could have simply been my parenting skills that needed a little refresher course. It pained me to have to, essentially, stand up and shout "my kid has special needs!". I would have given anything for him not to have a "label. But we knew what he needed and fought for it. Why would I go to all the trouble to advocate for him and get him the support he needed and label him as "special needs" knowing others will know of his disability. I don't think any parent wants that for their child or thinks "if only I had a label for my child". We advocate for our kids simply because no one else will. Thanks for understanding my perspective and others here who have special needs children.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 9, 2009 7:38:38 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1611373,204-vote-new-super-criteria-Monday_na060709.article 204 to vote on revised superintendent criteria on MondayJune 9, 2009 By RUTH MOON For The Sun The Indian Prairie School District 204 board Monday approved a revised list of criteria it received in a special the day before to proceed in the search for a new superintendent. Bill Attea of the superintendent search firm Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates — which conducted the search for outgoing 204 Superintendent Stephen Daeschner as well as District 203's new superintendent — presented results of interviews with various members of the community in new list of search criteria, revised from the list used to select Daeschner two years ago. The new list is compiled from Attea's interviews with board members, cabinet members, district principals, parents, the Indian Prairie Educational Association Executive Committee and classified employees. The additions emphasize the importance of staff retention and development, achieving goals, good organizational skills, involvement with the community and the ability to work with a limited budget. Search criteria will be presented for a vote in Monday's board meeting. One concern Attea mentioned applies both to the future superintendent and the rest of the school board. Many district members feel the board is too secretive, he said. "If I heard it once I heard it 20 times in small groups — (concern about) the lack of responsiveness in returning phone calls, giving reasons for answers," Attea said. "(Community members) are looking for more transparency." He also recommended updating board policies, several of which are outdated. Attea cautioned, though, that his list represents specific characteristics district members want in a new superintendent, but doesn't include key qualities more difficult to quantify, such as strong leadership and good interpersonal skills. "Too often, boards get hung up on the things that are easily measured — they hire people who have the learned skills but don't have the inherent skills," he said. "You're not going to find anyone who meets all of these characteristics. You didn't last time, and you won't this time. What you're going to have to do when it comes down to making a decision is ask how closely they come to meeting your criteria."
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Jun 10, 2009 7:32:03 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1614291,naperville-D204-sets-bar-high-for-leader_na060909.article D204 sets bar high for next leader June 10, 2009 By TIM WALDORF twaldorf@scn1.com Indian Prairie School District 204's board approved the desired criteria of its next superintendent during its Monday meeting. The criteria were compiled by Bill Attea of the superintendent search firm Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates. Attea spent last week interviewing various members of the community to determine what they wanted from the district's new leader, and whether those desires still fit the description that led the board to select current Superintendent Stephen Daeschner for the job two years ago. Those interviews were conducted with board members, superintendent cabinet members, district principals, parents, the Indian Prairie Education Association Executive Committee and classified employees. "I'd like to publicly thank a large number of people that, on very short notice, agreed to get together with Bill and share thoughts and allow him to get this work done," said board member Mark Metzger. Kathy Piehl said she voted for the criteria "as long as everybody knows we're not going to find this person." Metzger clarified, noting that "Attea made it clear that this person doesn't exist." Indeed, Attea told the board during its special Sunday meeting that it will have to decide which candidate comes closest to meeting the criteria, which are outlined on the district's Web site, www.ipsd.org. Some of the criteria listed there are as follows: • Advance the academic performance of all students and reduce the achievement gap through the utilization of teaching, learning and staff development strategies proven to be successful through research and best practice. • Develop consensus among individuals and groups with differing priorities by being an astute listener and helping all parties focus on the mission of the district and the needs of all students. • Recognize the need to be actively engaged in the schools and community and accessible to the district's various constituents. • Demonstrate the ability to balance the widely varying demands placed upon the district's budget while continuing to provide a top-quality educational program for students. • Manage the district within the constraints of current fiscal realities, including resource limitations. Experience as a superintendent or central office administrator in a large, diverse suburban district and an earned doctorate from an accredited institution are preferred.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Jun 10, 2009 7:59:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by momto4 on Jun 10, 2009 9:40:45 GMT -5
Hmmm, I wonder what made people think to list this one??
|
|
|
Post by popquizkid on Jun 15, 2009 0:38:17 GMT -5
Just a word about including an "emphasis on special needs kids" as a quality sought in a new superintendent...we would be fools NOT to look for this quality in an incoming superintendent. Whether our numbers of special needs students are greater or lesser than other districts', we still have special needs students attending school in 204 which means that we need a head honcho who has experience in leading all teachers and administrators in instructing every child - regardless of their designation. Knowing a thing or two about special ed law wouldn't hurt, either.
Asmo, if I may call you that?, what would you say to the parents of a typical student who suffered a brain injury following an accident? Should they immediately be escorted from our district's boundary attendance? Where do you draw the line? A stutter? Dyslexia?
I, for one, want a superintendent who aims to produce independent, functional members of society of all of our students. If we don't strive for that, we will ALL be footing the bill for lifelong services for individuals who could have received instruction that would allow them join the workforce and reach a level of self-sufficiency. The costs of doing otherwise go WAY beyond fiscal.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 15, 2009 10:02:24 GMT -5
Of course I would not ask them to leave. At the same time, I don't want every kid with ADD, a stutter or dyslexia to gravitate to D204 because of our excellent rep for SN. I read something on the other board that stood out...we actually spend more money for busing SN kids (1.6 million miles) than we do for the regualr student body (approx 1 million miles). I don't know if those numbers are accurate, or whether we get additional state funds to cover the costs -- hell, I didn't even realize that SN kids take separate buses -- but it points to my concern that having a higher than normal percentage of SN kids is not something we should strive for. We should of course treat all the existing SN kids as best we can.
|
|
|
Post by sashimi1 on Jun 15, 2009 10:59:54 GMT -5
Asmodeus, have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
I do not have a SN child, but certainly know quite a few families in our district that have children with special needs. Hate to over-generalize, but these are some of the most wonderful, giving and selfless families I have ever met (which I think is part of the blessing they have received from having children with special needs).
I do not know the details of the economics involved, but suspect the burden on each taxpayer in the district is relatively small (there is state funding involved and the cost per child gets balanced out through the tax base of a high population base).
Regardless, I will also tell you that whatever the added cost has been to my taxes, the value received back is tenfold. My children have been blessed through their relationships with classmates who just happen to have some special needs. And I suspect that all of our children (SN and non SN) learn invaluable lessons in character, kindness, tolerance and acceptance resulting from the fact that we may have a little higher population of SN children than the average community.
If in fact our community has a reputation that draws more special needs families than the average community, I think this is great and something we should all be very proud of! And I sincerely believe our entire district is enriched by having these wonderful families as part of our community.
|
|
|
Post by lorip on Jun 15, 2009 12:02:44 GMT -5
Asmodeus, have to respectfully disagree with you on this one. I do not have a SN child, but certainly know quite a few families in our district that have children with special needs. Hate to over-generalize, but these are some of the most wonderful, giving and selfless families I have ever met (which I think is part of the blessing they have received from having children with special needs). I do not know the details of the economics involved, but suspect the burden on each taxpayer in the district is relatively small (there is state funding involved and the cost per child gets balanced out through the tax base of a high population base). Regardless, I will also tell you that whatever the added cost has been to my taxes, the value received back is tenfold. My children have been blessed through their relationships with classmates who just happen to have some special needs. And I suspect that all of our children (SN and non SN) learn invaluable lessons in character, kindness, tolerance and acceptance resulting from the fact that we may have a little higher population of SN children than the average community. If in fact our community has a reputation that draws more special needs families than the average community, I think this is great and something we should all be very proud of! And I sincerely believe our entire district is enriched by having these wonderful families as part of our community. Sashimi1, Thanks for posting your comments. I have met many of these families (mostly through the Special Needs PTA) and agree that they are some of the most selfless people around. I have learned so much from them myself. What they do for their families in incredible. I believe that lives are truly enriched by our interactions with these kids. My own daughter wanted to be a peer buddy at her school because of her brother. Now I would think that with as much as she puts up with at home, she would want to steer clear of anything "special needs" just to get a break from it all. However, this was one of the things she talks about most when she talks about school. I'm very proud of her for taking part in this. I see the tolerance, acceptance, and inclusion that our district can and should be proud of. If people want to flock here because of that, then we are doing more than just being a district with a good reputation with special needs kids. We are creating more opportunities to educate other children, parents, teachers and community members how to accept people as human beings first. Thanks again for posting.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Jun 15, 2009 13:48:21 GMT -5
Yes Great post sashimi, and welcome back.......
I don't think the SN program here in 204 has drained resourses away from other programs, I do think 204 getsadditioanl funding so it's revenue neutral - or very close -.
Asmo, I do see your point too, whereas you don't want to see 204 becoming a dumping ground for SN students (the term is not meant in a bad way for those with Special Needs) to the point where resources are being taken away from the regular students. I know 204 has gained some National Rep as a good school dist for SN, and I am proud of that too. I love how the regular students themselves are stepping forward to help their peers with SN. They will go far in real life
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Jun 15, 2009 16:48:11 GMT -5
I definitely can see that our lives are enriched with our relationships with SN kids, and I am proud of the fact that we treat them so well. Having said that, I don't agree that having more SN % than average is beneficial. All I'm saying is that it doesn't seem good for the overall health of the district if we have a way higher than average number. I don't know what the number is that puts us in what I would call a detrimental position...but hypothetically, if 50% of the student body were SN, wouldn't that potentially be a problem?
|
|
|
Post by sashimi1 on Jun 15, 2009 18:59:50 GMT -5
Lorip...sounds like you have some great kids.
I know some siblings of special needs children who are just remarkable human beings. There is a family in our area that has three children who play hockey (2 girls and 1 boy). One of the girls has Downs Syndrome, but played last year with her sister on the Pink Panthers' girls team.
My son's team (with the girls' brother in goalie) played the Pink Panthers in a very competative game. Near the end of the game, the ref called a penalty and the goalie's sister (with special needs) got to take a penalty shot. The shot was drifting to the left of the net, but her goalie brother (all of 8) intentionally deflected the puck in the goal so his sister could score. All of the kids (on both teams) cheered and no one on my son's team had a problem giving up the goal. One of the simplist,and most selfless and beautiful things I have ever seen.
That was a lesson I could never have taught my son on my own.
|
|