John Ramos - Ex Super of Bridgeport CT choosen as new Super

Thanks. In his position, I'm not sure I would have responded differently, nor done differently in Bport. Sounds like he's paying attention here, and that's obviously more important at this stage,

I wish I could have made it. I'm curious if anyone asked him about addressing the needs of so-called "Gifted and Talented" kids, etc. (or if that issue is already dead in the water? )…
- rj

ice said:

... cutting $60mm out of a $215mm budget, he felt compelled to 'fall on his sword' and go to the state's governor for relief.

That's not a budget cut. More like an evisceration.

Very early on, he briefly touched on "meeting the needs of accelerated students" or something like that. He also mentioned the need to cultivate different types of "giftedness." So I'd say it's on his radar, at least to the extent that he went out of his way to demonstrate his awareness of various local hot-button issues last night.

And yes, before anyone asks, he was asked to provide his thoughts on PARCC.

He stated that he is generally against over-reliance on standardized testing, quipping that "an elephant doesn't change its weight just because you weigh him every day". He said he feels that 'teaching to the test' takes the creativity and joy out of learning and contributes to student burn-out over the years.

He was not asked to comment on the hotter-button issue of policies on opting out.

First -- As an SOMSD parent, I was impressed by all the other parents at the meet and greet. I thought our community came across ridiculously well. Thoughtful. To the point. Informed. Involved. Concerned. Offering assistance. Gracious. And diverse in a myriad of ways -- from backgrounds to current concerns.

I liked that Dr. Ramos appeared to want community input into future decisions. I also liked that he referenced collecting data and information and outcomes... something I felt our previous Supt did not do well, if at all.

That said, Dr. Ramos seems a good politician, as most Supt's are.

For example, as stated in the article, when asked about his plans on deleveling, he outlined his recent experience with reducing numbers of levels, and the need for differentiated instruction, but also acknowledged how difficult it was to do differentiated instruction well. (Earlier in the meeting he stated emphatically that AP courses weren't leaving, and also recognized that there are accelerated learners). After discussing reducing levels for a bit, he indicated that no one should think that he's going to 'blow up the district', and went back to reference info gathering and servant leadership as his first steps.

He also indicated that he has a plan for how to do the info gathering -- but would need to discuss with the BOE before he unveils it. My trusting side believes he has a good plan for this, and may actually do it! My skeptical side is wondering how much of this is good political-speak, and is just using it as way to avoid providing direct answers for his plans for our district.

I'm hopeful that he will be able to deliver. My skeptical side is going into hibernation for the summer.

sprout said:

First -- As an SOMSD parent, I was impressed by all the other parents at the meet and greet. I thought our community came across ridiculously well. Thoughtful. To the point. Informed. Involved. Concerned. Offering assistance. Gracious. And diverse in a myriad of ways -- from backgrounds to current concerns.

I came a little late, but I totally agree.

One of the things I liked about him is that he acknowledged how complex and difficult education is. This is not a guy who is going to waive around the term "differentiated instruction" as if it solves everything. At the same time, I saw him as having a real sense of justice.

He is going to be pressured intensely right away to resume the deleveling push started by Osborne. I don't see him agreeing to that. I think he'll take his time. And I think he's more persuaded by the individual circumstances of each child, rather than "changing the system." Experience brings that kind of perspective. I could be wrong, though.

robjohn99 said:

I wish I could have made it. I'm curious if anyone asked him about addressing the needs of so-called "Gifted and Talented" kids, etc. (or if that issue is already dead in the water? )…
- rj

It was sort of mentioned obliquely by a Tuscan parent. I saw him as open to it. I think the bigger issue is that there are some in the community that will fight tooth and nail against any gifted and talented program.

sprout said:

I liked that Dr. Ramos appeared to want community input into future decisions. I also liked that he referenced collecting data and information and outcomes... something I felt our previous Supt did not do well, if at all.

My biggest worry about him is that he is not a details / implementation guy. He just didn't give me that vibe. And he sort of acknowledged it as a weakness, but said that he was relying on his leadership team to help him.

The whole notion of a leadership team feels like a huge change from the former Superintendent, who sort of reigned on high and delivered judgments down. Ramos seems more like someone who would really listen closely to principals and teachers. So maybe that's a good thing.

I'm keeping an open mind. I think it's very difficult to know what will happen until we are at least a year into his tenure. I think we are still dealing with the aftereffects of the former Super "blowing up the system." It would really be hard to propose massive changes, without dealing with the IB elephant in the room.

Welcome to the community Mr. Ramos.

Best of luck.

ALee said:

I think the bigger issue is that there are some in the community that will fight tooth and nail against any gifted and talented program.

Extremely curious as to why would people fight against it?

lanky said:

ALee said:

I think the bigger issue is that there are some in the community that will fight tooth and nail against any gifted and talented program.

Extremely curious as to why would people fight against it?

Search MOL for gifted and talented and you'll see the scope of the debate. I'd rather keep this thread focused on Ramos.

.

lanky said:

ALee said:

I think the bigger issue is that there are some in the community that will fight tooth and nail against any gifted and talented program.

Extremely curious as to why would people fight against it?

I think the part of the answer is that our district is extremely strapped for funds, and so prioritization of our limited resources becomes a battlefield. Funding G&T for the small percentage of students it applies to would mean less funding somewhere else.

sprout said:

lanky said:

ALee said:

I think the bigger issue is that there are some in the community that will fight tooth and nail against any gifted and talented program.

Extremely curious as to why would people fight against it?

I think the part of the answer is that our district is extremely strapped for funds, and so prioritization of our limited resources becomes a battlefield. Funding G&T for the small percentage of students it applies to would mean less funding somewhere else.

In some quarters the objections go far beyond that, but, as ALee says, that long and complex debate belongs in another thread.

susan1014 said:

sprout said:

lanky said:

ALee said:

I think the bigger issue is that there are some in the community that will fight tooth and nail against any gifted and talented program.

Extremely curious as to why would people fight against it?

I think the part of the answer is that our district is extremely strapped for funds, and so prioritization of our limited resources becomes a battlefield. Funding G&T for the small percentage of students it applies to would mean less funding somewhere else.

In some quarters the objections go far beyond that, but, as ALee says, that long and complex debate belongs in another thread.

Agreed.

susan1014 said:

sprout said:

lanky said:

ALee said:

I think the bigger issue is that there are some in the community that will fight tooth and nail against any gifted and talented program.

Extremely curious as to why would people fight against it?

I think the part of the answer is that our district is extremely strapped for funds, and so prioritization of our limited resources becomes a battlefield. Funding G&T for the small percentage of students it applies to would mean less funding somewhere else.

In some quarters the objections go far beyond that, but, as ALee says, that long and complex debate belongs in another thread.

iswydt

I have been thinking about the two parents at the meet and greet who offered their assistance/expertise, and suggested that Dr. Ramos utilize parents as a resource. It reminded me that I had offered our previous Supt my professional expertise pro bono for some work that it was clear the district could use. I heard nothing, I followed up, and still heard nothing.

I know it is an enormous challenge to coordinate the work of people who don't officially work for you, but I do agree with those parents that there is a goldmine of parent expertise, interest, and energy waiting to be tapped.

If Dr. Ramos can figure out how to harness parent energy and expertise in new areas, it would be a significant accomplishment. This could have the potential to fill some needs without budgetary strain (in addition to the many parents already contributing their time, energy, money, sweat, and tears, via the already developed or more traditional outlets we have at our schools).

I too thought Ramos seemed smart and amiable, but I was concerned with the amount of emphasis he put on information gathering and listening (and all the information gathering processes including KIVA). It sounds like another time consuming study. I guess I assumed he'd come in with a good understanding of the issues and hit the ground running, not spend the first 6 to 9 months learning about them. I appreciate that he wants to listen, but I felt he emphasized this too much, and didn't talk at all about what his priorities would be. It seemed like he should have some handle on these priorities already or else how did he convince the board he was the one for us?

There was the non-negotiable "equity and excellence" mantra. And who knows what the heck he means by that, but they are the words we've heard over and over, and it tends to be code speak for insuring that black kids get the focus of attention. Of course, the fact that black kids could be gifted and talented, and there should be a gifted and talented program to capture those kids, gets ignored because it is not politically correct. And heaven forbid, he would bring back levels.

laur said:

I too thought Ramos seemed smart and amiable, but I was concerned with the amount of emphasis he put on information gathering and listening (and all the information gathering processes including KIVA). It sounds like another time consuming study. I guess I assumed he'd come in with a good understanding of the issues and hit the ground running, not spend the first 6 to 9 months learning about them. I appreciate that he wants to listen, but I felt he emphasized this too much, and didn't talk at all about what his priorities would be. It seemed like he should have some handle on these priorities already or else how did he convince the board he was the one for us?

But what are the district's "issues" that he should be addressing? I'm sure if you ask 10 parents you would probably get 10 different answers. I don't want a superindent who would come into the district immediately with a list of things he is going to tackle. Maybe his list is not what we (the clients - parents and students) would see as the most important issue. I like that he stated his priorities would be driven by input from parents, students and staff.

Whether I agree or not, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a Top 5. I'd offer the following:

- District finances/plan
- Achievement gap
- Leveling/placement
- Population density/redistricting
- Racial bias complaint

ctrzaska said:

Whether I agree or not, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a Top 5. I'd offer the following:

- District finances/plan
- Achievement gap
- Leveling/placement
- Population density/redistricting
- Racial bias complaint

And in my opinion, the issue he needs to address pretty quickly is hiring a new Director of Special Services (current director is retiring). And a big part of that is planning what the Special Services department is going to look like under this new administration.
- plus the future of IB at the middle schools

One might consider some effort to modernize the high school curriculum. What we have is very, very good but it lacks much focus on the 21st century. The robotics club helped create the robotics course which now has 3 sections per semester. And we have CAD and computer graphics. We lack any focus on the things many kids need to learn for the 21st century. We could use more courses (listed below) to engage those kids who for a host of reasons do not want to sit in a classroom and discuss literature or history or my own precious physics.

The world many of our grads will go out into has changed substantially since the 1960s or so and our curriculum, using a line I have used for the past three years, is we have a terrific curriculum...(pregnant pause) for the life I led, but not for the life our kids will lead.

Having classes in electronics, bio-tech, robotics, coding, CAD, advanced robotics, and more will help engage many students and open doors to college and careers that right now we can't open. In robotics classes we see kids who are usually not engaged in academic classes all of a sudden get interested and excited about a course. They learn some programming and some building, all aimed at a specific task. Old fashioned problem solving with more modern tools.

A few years after I moved to Maplewood the District closed all of the voc-ed classes in a fit of political correctness that all kids are going to college. By shutting down these courses a lot of kids were cut off from learning things that engaged them and reduced their interest in school. We need to bring back a modern-day version of tech-ed, introducing students to the fundamentals of modern society.

I am sure there lots of issues for the new superintendent to address. I think this is a very important one and one that I sense a lot of people would like to see happen.

I would.

Esiders said:

ctrzaska said:

Whether I agree or not, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with a Top 5. I'd offer the following:

- District finances/plan
- Achievement gap
- Leveling/placement
- Population density/redistricting
- Racial bias complaint

And in my opinion, the issue he needs to address pretty quickly is hiring a new Director of Special Services (current director is retiring). And a big part of that is planning what the Special Services department is going to look like under this new administration.
- plus the future of IB at the middle schools

Special Svcs wasn't at the front of my brain, but can see that as a key to-do. IB I did think of, but lumped it under finances (I'd strike it almost immediately).

And to Jude's point, I could see a curriculum review/revamp as well, which I also think important, though I'm not sure how many would agree on that being top 5 outside of increased rigor. Interesting question.

Jude says: "A few years after I moved to Maplewood the District closed all of the voc-ed classes in a fit of political correctness that all kids are going to college. By shutting down these courses a lot of kids were cut off from learning things that engaged them and reduced their interest in school. We need to bring back a modern-day version of tech-ed, introducing students to the fundamentals of modern society. "


Absolutely amen, Jude. Our kids were in the district at the time the voc-ed was eliminated. It seemed so wrongheaded then, and even more so now. Not only have the world and work changed since we were in school, but even in the past ten years the change is huge. SOMA schools were great for our kids, but SOMA and schools everywhere will be unrecognizable in a few more years, so best get on it now, jmo.

I can't say top 5 or top 2 or top 10 for any of the issues. Each one is important to a large subset of the population and for all of them arguments can be made as to why the issue is important to everyone. So I won't walk into that morass.

What I am saying is that absent addressing what it is we teach at the high schools will have profound implications on what is taught in the middle schools and in turn in the elementary schools. If we keep the high school on a trajectory of performing arts and liberal arts and science (my own area is physics) then there will be less need for things like coding and robotics and technology in the middle schools. If the trajectory of the high school is changed, altered, augmented to include technology courses, then there is likewise more pressure to teach some of these things in the middle schools and even down into the elementary schools.

When we all sit back and ponder what are the grand purposes of education in the modern world, the one we live in, surely one of the purposes is to create a foundation for our children to be competent in the world they will live in. That is why we do not teach agriculture and care for horses and cattle at Columbia. Since we do live in a world of rapidly changing technology and all of the implications of that technology -- synthetic biology where we can re-program bacteria and other cells, electronics, robotics, coding, the change in the very nature of books, libraries, and even privacy itself -- it might be useful to bring that to the fore and not treat it just as a tool.

A child in kindergarten today in SOMSD will, if schools aren't completely restructured, will graduate from Columbia in 2027. And if colleges still exist as four-year institutions, that child might graduate in 2031.

So...are we as a District from top to bottom on the road to prepare these kids for that world of 2031 when that kindergartner of today walks out into the world of work? Right now, no. We are not prepared. We are not prepared even for the world of 2021 or even 2015. I think there has to be at least some focus on just what it is we should teach, in addition to issues like what schools might need to be paired or unpaired, or the role of special ed. There also has to be some realization that not everyone learns by reading a book. Many of our kids are bored stiff with the academics but do very well when they have a chance to build something or program something.

In my robotics class three girls built a robot that is a "dog" -- it moves along the floor at a small dog's height. They control the motors with a cell phone and they put another cell phone on the dog and now we can see the world -- at least of CHS classrooms -- as a dog would. Videos and time-lapse videos were made. The dog wanders into a classroom and goes under desks and stops to "sniff" the world. The kids who made this never built anything like this before and they were on cloud nine. This stuff taught them in a simple way teamwork, coding, construction, and then integration with cell tech and video.

One of them now wants to look into bio-medical engineering as a career. She can get a glimpse of the world she might live in by actually doing simple engineering now.

Anyway, we can all sit back and think about the world of 2031. What will it be like? Will global warming really have hit us hard? Will cars be autonomous? What happened to privacy? Will libraries and books have vanished? What will replace the mobile phone? Will our kids just be buffeted about by those who do learn tech and be affected by what is simply the fashion of the time? Will they be able to have a career? What are we educating them for??

I would add courses, if I were the new Supt., that focused on problem solving in real life, not just physics or math (but that is a good place to start), on science and society or tech and society (think of designer babies, privacy, alternative energy sources, climate change, etc), lots of tech courses that adjust to the needs of the times, and language courses like Arabic and Chinese for obvious reasons. I think we should aim for that in addition to the core liberal arts, science and performing arts.

Yes, it costs. Any decision that says we can't afford it is simply a decision to maintain the status quo.

I would also say it is time to bite the bullet and figure out how to offer a set of languages that isn't stuck in the 20th, or perhaps 19th, century. It is just not right that our High School only offers Romance languages (Spanish, French, Italian and Latin), although it probably allows hiring of teachers who can cross teach languages.

For me, this isn't as big an issue as the STEM offerings and 21st century vo-tech things that Jude discusses, but I think it is a place where we are lacking.

I also was very depressed to learn that we don't have a full-fledged speech and debate team, since participation in National Forensics League competitions was one of the things that made me who I am today (and certainly helped me get into an excellent college). Public speaking comfort is such a crucial skill.

------
Having said that, I also agree that the selection of a new head of Special Services is a crucial and immediate need. My interactions with the department (as the mother of children on IEPs) has had some very serious bumps, and I think that there is substantial room for improvements that will both save money and improve outcomes for our students.

Jude said:

When we all sit back and ponder what are the grand purposes of education in the modern world, the one we live in, surely one of the purposes is to create a foundation for our children to be competent in the world they will live in.

Jude, I agree with virtually everything you wrote and add that one of the foundational skill for competency in the world is financial literacy and skills.

I see so many young adults(and even ones in their 30s) who are unfamiliar with the basics of a responsible and self-sustaining financial life. This is an essential life skill, especially in our capitalist society and culture that encourages everyone to consume, consume, consume, forcing us to make dozens of financial choices every single day. In addition, our financial lives are becoming increasingly complicated, requiring more sophisticated and informed thinking on our part to navigate through the world.

Starting last year, CHS has required a personal finance class to graduate.

max_weisenfeld said:

Starting last year, CHS has required a personal finance class to graduate.

Isn't this a new state requirement?