In an attempt to inform the readers of the Dispatch about Gilroy
Unified School District programs, challenges, and the results of
our efforts, the Dispatch editor graciously agreed for me to
publish three or four articles this school year.
In an attempt to inform the readers of the Dispatch about Gilroy Unified School District programs, challenges, and the results of our efforts, the Dispatch editor graciously agreed for me to publish three or four articles this school year.
Topics I plan to address include the challenge of maintaining a clear focus on improving student achievement in an environment of diverse interests, accountability mandates, and public scrutiny. I will also highlight the important role of parents and community in supporting improvement and creating a community-wide culture to support learning. I will also address the difficulty of maintaining an instructional improvement focus in an environment of declining human and fiscal resources.
However, as important as all of these topics are, I decided there was something more pressing that needed my attention and warranted its place as my first article. After reading the Dispatch editorial titled “GHS English thumbing its nose at ‘best practices,'” I feel compelled to respond. Opinions reported as facts can have a devastating impact on people, in this case those working hard to make the needed changes to improve student learning at Gilroy High School. So, to clear up some misinformation, I am giving some facts, as I know them.
The first two paragraphs of the editorial discuss the poor reading and writing performance of GHS students or, in the author’s words, “a troubling area of neglect, academic excellence in reading and writing skills at Gilroy High School.” The fact that this editorial was written about the process currently being used to improve the English curriculum should be evidence enough that this area has not been neglected. Improving reading and writing skills is an issue for all public schools and is not only an English department issue at GHS. It’s a system issue that starts in kindergarten.
What should be acknowledged is that teaching and administrative staffs in the district, including GHS staff, are taking the necessary steps to address achievement in reading and writing. GHS, like its elementary and middle school counterparts, not only met, but also far exceeded, its target for growth on the API.
Of the 60 high schools in the four counties of Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz, only seven high schools made greater gains than GHS. Grades nine to11 had higher increases on the reading portion of the California Standards test than other grade spans in the district.
I do not agree with the author’s assertion that students have no place on the Reading List Advisory Committee because they have neither the life skills nor the qualifications to make curriculum decisions. Students in the Advisory Group are not making the decision about English curriculum; they are providing their perspective on the curriculum they receive. Eventually, the Board of Trustees will make the decision about curriculum.
Also, Board Policy 6141 encourages participation of parents, community members and students who are broadly representative of the district’s ethnic and social-economic composition. Student voice has been valuable on many district advisory committees, including having a student representative on the Board of Trustees, where decisions are made that affect all GUSD students.
In response to the statement that the district already has a broad-based coalition of parents to listen to: How do you determine whose voice to hear and whose voice to silence? There are many voices still unheard in our community but highly represented in our student population. Part of our mission to improve communication is to ensure these voices be heard as well.
The Alliance for Academic Excellence is an example of one coalition that has been very instrumental in bringing to the forefront issues that need to be addressed. Their input has led to changes that are consistent with the district’s direction to create a rigorous, standards based curriculum for all students. Their input has not been ignored. But to suggest their parent voice is the only voice to be considered on this issue is way off base.
The author claims that the English department “dismisses the works of Shakespeare,” and that the department members “exclude classic, accepted college preparatory texts out of hand,” but GHS students study Shakespeare’s work in English I, English II and British Literature for seniors. They don’t in English III because that class focuses on American Literature. The current reading list includes both books that are considered to be classics and more contemporary.
And finally, in response to the claims that there is “a logjam of resistance” to adopting a state approved anthology, prior to the publication of the Dispatch editorial, the English department had already met and decided to begin a process to pilot several state approved anthologies.
There is always some resistance to change, especially when addressing long-established practices and beliefs. But in the case of the English program at GHS, the resistance described in the Dispatch editorial is overstated. In fact, Principal Bob Bravo and his team should be commended for moving forward with all of their strategic initiatives in spite of a significant reduction of resources.
The associate principal position responsible for curriculum improvement was eliminated last year, resulting in others assuming tremendous work loads in order to keep all school improvement plans moving forward. Even with these obstacles, my focus on implementing best practices is not being ignored by the staff at GHS.
In retrospect, maybe by addressing last week’s Dispatch editorial I touched on my initial thoughts for this first article; the challenge of maintaining a clear focus in an environment of diverse interests and public scrutiny, or the role of parents and the community when moving forward in a time of declining human and fiscal resources.
The controversy over the English curriculum at GHS may be a good example of how both of these issues play out in the public on a daily basis, and how often in an effort to clarify the public’s misconceptions, our energies are detracted from what is so important to the employees of GUSD; moving all students toward improved academic achievement.
Edwin Diaz is the Superintendent of the Gilroy Unified School District. He will contribute a guest column on an occasional basis.
