GUILDERLAND — The most heated discussion at Tuesday night’s school board meeting was in response to heart-wrenching stories three parents told at the last meeting about their sons’ difficulties learning to read.

Tuesday’s meeting opened with a call for unity and ended with a divided vote.

Chris Claus, president of the teachers’ union, started the session by saying a divided board is not good for kids.
Claus, himself a reading teacher, said that being the teacher of a child who fails to thrive as a reader "is a hard and frustrating job."
"For us," he said, "it is equal to the physician whose patient doesn’t get better. And, an unfortunate reality is, some patients don’t get better."
Claus said further that comments made by some board members at the meeting three weeks ago "sent a chilling message of distrust and has provoked fear in teachers and staff of this district."
Claus continued, "This board seems willing and poised to substitute its judgment of an academic program for that of its professional staff." (He submitted his comments as a letter to the Enterprise editor; they can be read in their entirety on this week’s opinion pages.)
Claus urged the board members to abandon politics and restore trust, concluding, "The almost 500 teachers I represent, who serve the almost 6,000 students who will ultimately carry us all, need this from you."

Four years ago, when parents in a group organized by Melissa Mirabile raised concerns about how the district teaches reading, the board decided the matter should be handled by teachers and administrators. Three weeks ago, several board members wanted to get involved, with one, Hy Dubowsky, adamantly demanding answers.
"A broad view"

Tuesday, Superintendent Gregory Aidala said that, in response to board members’ requests for data on reading scores, there will be a presentation at the next board meeting, on March 13.

Aidala also said that, on the English Language Arts test given in January of 2006 to students in third through eighth grades, 85 percent had scored in the top two of four categories.

Also in 2006, he said, 23 percent of students in kindergarten through fifth grade required academic intervention services (AIS); one-quarter of those students received special-education services.

Every year, The Enterprise writes about state-wide test results compiled in the school’s report card. Last May, the most recent report card was presented by Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Nancy Andress with results taken on tests in the 2004-05 school year.

At the elementary level, the state requires scores to be figured by individual schools. Guilderland has five elementary schools. All of the Guilderland scores were above state averages.

At Altamont and Westmere elementary schools, 8 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, an indication of household income. At Guilderland, Lynnwood, and Pine Bush, the percentage is half that.

In English, fourth-graders who met or exceeded standards were 78 percent at Guilderland Elementary, 79 percent at Westmere, 81 percent at Altamont, 87 percent at Lynnwood, and 88 percent at Pine Bush.
Tests for middle- and elementary-school students are graded at four performance levels. Students at the top level, 4, exceed standards; students at the next level, 3, meet standards; students at Level 2 need extra help; and students at Level 1 are deemed to have "serious academic deficiencies."
Middle school students at Farnsworth went through what Andress termed "the middle-school dip." The phenomenon is state-wide.

In English Language Arts in 2005, for example, 67 percent of Farnsworth eighth-graders scored at levels 3 and 4, meaning about a third did not meet standards.

Andress included a chart that showed, in 2002, sixty-seven percent of Farnsworth eighth-graders also scored at levels 3 and 4. Those same students then took the English Regents exam as high-school juniors and 98 percent of them passed.
"Guilderland takes a broad view," Aidala told The Enterprise yesterday, explaining that, rather than using a "narrow cut-off" it provides additional support, beyond what is required by the state, for students who need it.
He also said that the public had "generalized" the problems expressed by the three parents at the Feb. 6 meeting to "the entire reading program."
"Those were parents of children with disabilities," Aidala said of those who spoke to the board. "They have received a great deal of support"Our heart goes out to them"If we have been previously not effective, we will come up with a better plan."

At the next school board meeting, on March 13, Aidala said, results from state tests, similar to those in the annual report card will be presented. Since the state has not yet come up with comparable data from similar schools, Aidala said, the district has collected its own to present.
"Guilderland Central School District is deeply committed to helping all of its students," Aidala told the school board on Tuesday night.
He also said the district believes that, more than any particular method of teaching reading, what is "critically important" is the quality of teaching. The district has, for that reason, stressed "professional development" or training for its teachers, he said.
"Our teachers expect students to be successful readers," said Aidala, and those who struggle with reading are supported and nurtured.

Different views

Towards the close of the two-hour meeting, as the board prepared to adjourn to an executive session to discuss a half-dozen different topics, members were divided over whether or not to discuss reading.

Administrators had prepared information on the services received by the three students whose parents had complained to the board at its last meeting.
Board member Peter Golden objected, saying that no one on the board was qualified for the talk. Calling it "bizarre," he said, "We’re not going to do it justice."

He proposed amending the motion for executive session to exclude the discussion of the three students. Dubowsky seconded the motion.
"We had three parents raise some specific issues," said board Vice President John Dornbush. "I’m afraid the impression was left that the board doesn’t care, the board doesn’t know, that somehow the district has failed these students."

Dornbush said he wanted to know what the district had provided.
Board member Denise Eisele said her concern all along has been in the overall effects of the reading program, not about just the concerns raised by the three parents. "Is it meeting the needs of the kids" Can we do better"" she asked. "I honestly don’t think I have any business looking at these three students."

Board member Cathy Barber said that the students couldn’t be discussed in public so, if information weren’t shared in executive session, the board wouldn’t have it at all.

Board member Barbara Fraterrigo said she had tried, on her own, to do research on teaching reading. She referred to Claus’s opening comments that none of the board members were experts on reading and said she’d like to postpone the discussion on the students until after the March 13 presentation on reading.
President Richard Weisz said he agreed with Dornbush. "My hope is that parents feel the board cares about the children," he said.
He noted that the three parents had not talked to the board in executive session but had made the "difficult decision" to talk in public.
"I think we owe it to the children to hear what the staff had been doing," said Weisz.
Referring to Steve Hadden, the administrator for special education, Dubowsky said, "You can parade Steve or any expert in front of me...I wouldn’t know what they were telling me."

Like Eisele, he said his interest was general and not in three specific individuals.
"Didn’t you hear the parents say they felt the district failed the children"...Don’t you want to hear what the district did"" asked Weisz.

Dubowsky replied that there should be give and take and the parents should be at the executive session, too, so the board members would be objective listeners.
Dornbush said the bigger issue is evaluation of the reading program, which is "done constantly" and will be done again.

He then went on to explain the process by which an individual education plan is developed for a student. A committee on special education, which includes teachers, experts, parents and a parent advocate, work out a plan for a student to follow. That’s where there is discussion, modification, and give and take, said Dornbush.
"Let’s stick to our work," said Golden, and then called for a vote.
Weisz allowed board member Colleen O’Connell to speak first. She cited one of the parent’s comments that the board had failed his child. She also scolded Dubowsky for using the term "parade" in reference to Hadden, stating that it showed Dubowsky’s lack of civility.
Weisz then called for the vote on Golden’s amendment. Only three of the board members — Golden, Dubowsky, and Fraterrigo — supported it. The other five — Barber, Dornbush, Eisele, O’Connell, and Weisz — opposed it, meaning the three students would be discused in executive session. Board member Thomas Nachod was absent; Weisz had said earlier that he was "stranded in Atlanta."
The board then voted to adjourn to executive session, with only Golden voting "nay."