KY Board of Ed. – Public Comments that are not public!
Many years ago, the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) started to have a public comment session during their meetings. People could sign up for a speaking slot that might be limited to three minutes if enough signed up to speak, with a maximum of 30 minutes available for all speakers combined. It was a good idea that allowed the public to present concerns to the board in an open forum and over the years this proved quite valuable. For example, as I recall, problems with the operation of the Kentucky School for the Blind first surfaced in one of these short presentations and that led to major rework of that school’s operations.
The operation of the public comment period got a bit less public once COVID-19 hit, but the board continued to solicit e-mailed comments right up to the KBE’s December 2, 2020 meeting – sort of.
At first, as was done before COVID-19, there were no restrictions on comment submissions. As recently as the October 7, 2020 meeting of the board, the Public Comment Section instructions only said:
But, for the meeting on December 2, 2020 the comments were considerably more restricted. The instructions now read:
So, no longer can the public bring something new to the board’s attention. Only items already on the agenda can be addressed.
But, it gets worse.
For the December 2nd board meeting only one person, Donnie Wilkerson, who is a teacher from Russell County, submitted a comment.
It wasn’t a very long comment.
But, the only thing mentioned at the meeting was that Wilkerson had submitted a comment and that the department of education staff would get back with him. The public never got to hear what the comment was about let alone actually see or hear the comment.
So, let’s improve the situation. Wilkerson supplied us a copy of his comment, and here it is (with his contact information removed):
“Subject: Public Comment for KBE Meeting December 02, 2020 RE: Agenda Items XVI.C. and XVII.A.
Kentucky has great schools, great teachers and best of all great students! Why then are most measures of academic performance declining or stagnant with disturbing ever present and growing racial and socio-economic gaps? It could be that we have largely ignored the research of how we learn . . . the brain science that should be informing not only teacher education programs, classroom pedagogies and curriculum but also standards and the accountability and assessment models on your agenda today.
For decades we have largely embraced and promulgated one pedagogical model based on constructivist theories popularly espoused by John Dewey. “Inquiry based”, “student led”, “discovery learning”, “problem and project-based learning”, all done in “small groups” with a teacher/facilitator as “guide on the side” have been the mantras. Though high sounding and appealing, research supporting their superior efficacy is sorely lacking. Even more disquieting are the findings showing statistically significant negative correlations for these methodologies with struggling learners. The bulk of the research, rather, informs an explicit content driven instruction model delivered by a highly skilled and engaging teacher . . . that oft maligned “sage on the stage”. Meta-analysis’s comprising hundreds of studies involving thousands of students clearly shows that “teacher as activator” yields far greater effect sizes than does “teacher as facilitator”. Recent literacy research now documents the need for early phonics instruction followed by strong content knowledge-based instruction in the core disciplines. The research additionally points to lack of background knowledge as one of the biggest factors causing reading levels to languish after third grade along with a precipitous decline in growth, not only in reading but in math and other subjects. Academic standards as well as accountability and assessment systems must embrace this reality!
We must stop the focus on flawed, high stakes testing models that are often neither valid nor reliable (KPREP) and an accountability system that changes almost yearly, requiring a skilled psychometrician to explain. Whether we use stars, dash boards or color-coded boxes makes little difference. Weighing the pig using different scales will not make him grow! Instead, we must focus on systemic pedagogical change if we truly wish to embrace equity and insure growth for all students! We must avoid, though, a return to the equally flawed and failed KIRIS or "Program Review" models which rely on so-called "performance based" assessments. These are not evidence based and are ambiguous, highly subjective and fraught with opportunity for manipulation. Instead, there are proven, valid and reliable instruments readily and commercially available, immediately. An ITBS modeled, norm-referenced* exam could be given at every grade level and every content area every year at a fraction of the cost of the time-consuming criterion-referenced* KCCT/KPREP models we have fallen prey to. These assessments allow longitudinal tracking of growth and provide almost instant valid and reliable data to address our ever widening socio-economic and racial gaps. All learners can then spend less time preparing for and taking tests and more time learning! Standards must be concomitantly designed and aligned to reflect strong CONTENT based instruction. What a disaster we’ve foisted on the students of this state with the last few years of science standards and assessments. At least former board members now acknowledge their mistake in the equally tragic adoption last year of Kentucky’s content-devoid social studies standards.
The high sounding and well-meaning but largely non-evidenced based constructivist methodologies of the last three decades have “left behind” the most vulnerable and held stagnant most of the rest. Kentucky’s education community should immediately begin to focus on systemic pedagogical reform especially in guidance to colleges of education and in all professional learning initiatives. The overwhelming evidence, based on hundreds of studies involving thousands of students, points to the superior efficacy of strong teacher led, explicit instructional models. The research further concludes that a content rich core curriculum yielding extensive background knowledge is the most important factor in advancing reading ability especially with those most at risk, caught in those ever widening socio-economic and racial gaps. If we are truly committed to equity our accountability and assessment systems must be designed accordingly.
Thank you for your time and service to Kentucky’s kids!”
As I said, Wilkerson’s comments are not very long. I was able to read them in about 4-1/2 minutes, well under the 30 minutes supposedly allotted for the public comment period.
However, the “public” never got to hear Wilkerson’s “public” comments. They were not posted with the board’s online agenda materials for the meeting, either.
That’s just not right.
How does Wilkerson feel about this? Here’s what he had to say:
“Here is a copy of the comments I submitted. I read the instructions and attempted to follow them precisely. I think anyone reading them would come away with the anticipation that remarks would be read aloud during the comment period up to the 30 minute time limit. Comments would be prioritized based on the timestamp of when they were received. All of that made sense to me! They also admonished that the comments must have to do with something on the agenda. I get that, too , but may not totally agree with that limitation, however, my comments were directed specifically to two agenda items by number! Why bother with any of this, if you do not plan to publicize the remarks! AND they acknowledged that mine were the ONLY ones received!
Believe me, I understand, too, the limitations of Covid, but that can be no excuse for this.”
So, going forward, if the board doesn’t improve its “public” comment process, if you make a comment, feel free to also pass it along to us at BIPPS. If the board won’t make your “public” comment “public,” we will.