Welcome to the Cambridge Family Information Network. 

marc_mcgovern_cfin_forum.pdf
File Size:	125 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

alice_turkel_cfin_forum.pdf
File Size:	128 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

nancy_tauber_cfin_forum.pdf
File Size:	75 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

NEWS FROM CFIN  Sept. 12, 2011 on Intensive Studies Program Future

isp-evaluation-update-sept-12-2011.doc
File Size:	28 kb
File Type:	doc

Download File

---

humanities_ss_ela_attributes_6_30.doc
File Size:	303 kb
File Type:	doc

Download File

---

NEWS FROM CFIN: June, 2011
At the first meeting of the Cambridge Family Information Network, there were 22 parents from King Open, Morse, Cambridgeport, Graham and Parks, CRLS, Peabody, Baldwin, Haggerty and Amigos.  Four of those parents were also School Committee members (Alice Turkel, Patti Nolan, Nancy Tauber, and Marc McGovern).

The meeting focused on three main themes:
1.       Sharing progress and activities regarding community building among Upper School clusters (aka Triads, but Peabody/Baldwin is a dyad).

There was a range of what school communities are doing to start developing their cluster/upper school, and a range of feeling about working with the superintendent and his cabinet.  One upper school cluster had organized three committees (curriculum, building and facilities, and community) across its three feeder schools, with each of the feeder school principals leading one of those cross-school work groups.  One cluster had organized some social interaction for kids; the other two had conducted a mix of events for kids, and contact between teachers and or parents.  One cluster is using some of the $500 from CPSD for community building to hire a facilitator for a fall event. One cluster felt heard and respected by the superintendent and the process of the IA implementation; others felt that promises made by the superintendent during pre Innovation Agenda vote meetings were not being kept. 

2.    Surfacing concerns and issues about IA implementation among parents at the different schools

Parents shared what are emerging as key issues within their school communities that they worry might not be addressed within the implementation plan. These included:

a)      Upper School identities: flexibility vs. uniformity, or standards vs. standardization.  Although the issues varied amongst the schools, we seemed to share a consensus about this concept:  Clusters should have some rights to define their identities, most specifically in terms of key teaching practices and structure that represent best practices from their existing K-8 schools.  Whatever the feeder schools felt were best practices they wanted to preserve (for example, Haggerty’s inclusion and differentiated learning) should be included in decisions about how the schools are staffed and organized.

To what extent will Upper Schools have permission from Central Admin to shape their own identity, that is, to have some choice in how the core curricula and other state and federal standards are taught?  Some fear that encouraging variation in practice will result in the current situation where some schools are more chosen than others, and the achievement gap will continue.  It was noted that the floor for every Upper School should be no less than excellence, and then variation in style and practice across Upper Schools should not matter.

b)      Decision-making and role of the School Committee.  We also understood from parents present and School Committee members, that these decisions are currently being made by the superintendent and the cabinet, with some input from the teacher team.  Although the School Committee is responsible for CPSD policy, there is no clear definition of what is considered policy; and no agreement among the four members present about what decisions should be seen as policy and therefore the realm of the school committee and requiring a vote.

c)       There is greater need for transparency in the implementation process.  Although there is a great deal of hope that the IA will be successful, many parents are anxious that the things they love about their school, both instructional practices and school culture, will be lost in the new Upper Schools.  Some schools fear being swallowed whole by a larger more dominant school, and others fear losing what has taken many years to develop into a successful middle grades program.

3.    Defining the role of CFIN and Next Steps

The purpose of CFIN is still under development, but there seemed to be general agreement that CFIN should facilitate communication among families district-wide and between families and the administration and School Committee, including sharing information among schools and Upper School clusters, and surfacing concerns and issues regarding the implementation of the IA.  Everyone present agreed there is a need for an independent parent group focused specifically on IA implementation. 

Parents present agreed to hold another meeting over the summer, to keep momentum going to respond to the decisions already being made in the IA implementation plan, and to plan for the fall.  One parent suggested that the goal of the next meeting could be to define two key messages for the administration and School Committee to hear from parents.

Another suggestion that met with wide support from those present was the proposal that CFIN sponsor a School Committee candidates’ forum in the fall.

Other next steps include:  posting to the CFIN website (www.cambridgefamilyinfonetwork.com), information on how each of the clusters is working together; and what they would like to see sustained in their new upper school; reaching out to school communities not yet represented (which include Fletcher Maynard, Tobin, Kennedy-Longfellow and King); and continuing our discussion about how to work with the School Committee.

In attendance: Marc McGovern, Patty Nolan, Nancy Tauber, Alice Turkel (parents and School Committee members)

Parents: Pamela Blau (Amigos, Haggerty),  Kathryn Codd (Morse), Bob Cowherd (G&P),  Mary Devlin (Morse),  Emily Dexter (CRLS),
Julie Duncan (G&P),  Yogesh Gajjar (G&P),  Kate Ginniss (Haggerty),  Tara Greco (G&P),  Luci Herman (KO),  Melissa Luedtke (CRLS),
Anita McLellan (G&P),  Joanne Nicklas (G&P),  Anne Holtzworth (Baldwin, ISP Peabody),  Sue Vargo (G&P),  Monica V (Cport),
Judy Weiss (G&P), Jayme Shorin (KO)

Notes: Sue Vargo, for CFIN


Statement by the Cambridge Family Information Network before the School Committee, May 17, 2011

Read by Judy Weiss on behalf of Sue Vargo and CFIN

It has been two months since the Innovation Agenda was passed, and since then people across the city have been meeting and working to give shape to this framework.  The efforts made by Superintendent Young and the School Committee to engage families and teachers across the district prior to passage of the IA, including the creation of the Citywide School Advisory Group, were welcome and important gestures.  Many of us came away from meetings with the Superintendent and from School Committee meetings feeling reassured that parents and teachers would have a significant seat at the table.  It seems, however, that there is a growing disconnect between the official structures being developed to implement the IA, and the parents and teachers of the district.  Central office staff are discussing many of the same issues and problems as parent and teacher groups based at schools, but the process and structures for parent/teacher involvement are unclear and inadequate, and effective communication among the various groups and decision-makers is lacking. Although the monthly meetings between Superintendent Young and the Citywide School Advisory Group are important and necessary, they are not sufficient.  Things are moving quickly, with important decisions about leadership structure, teaching teams, and other critical issues being made by Central Administration without sufficient input from our communities.  Successful implementation of the IA is dependent, however, on the participation of all of the key stakeholders, including parents and teachers. 

  A group of parents from a number of school communities have come together out of a common concern about the disconnect between the “official” IA process and the work going on at the school-level, the lack of transparency about the implementation process to date, and the need for timely and accurate information so that families stay informed and know where and how they can participate in shaping implementation of the Innovation Agenda.  Our group is called the Cambridge Family Information Network (CFIN), and our goal is to help families be knowledgeable about the IA and what it means for their school and their children, as well as to provide constructive input to the process now underway.  We are reaching out to families at all of the schools and are launching a public website that will provide a central location for accurate information about IA-related happenings at the district-level, at each school, and among the new triad groups, so parents do not have to search multiple websites to find the information they are looking for.  Our intent is to facilitate communication and to dispel rumors, as well as to advocate for our children. Because we believe that families and teachers offer the key link between the strengths and resources of our schools and the changes directed by the Innovation Agenda, we begin by requesting parent and teacher representation on each of the IA design teams.  Greater family and teacher participation in the implementation process can only result in a stronger upper school system. It also will result in greater buy-in from families, who may be less likely to leave the district because of the IA. 

As the Innovation Agenda acknowledges, its success depends on community support and involvement.  We hope that the School Committee, Dr. Young, and the IA Planning Team will recognize the value in our work and benefit from the connections we are making among parents and schools.