LETTER TO THE KATY ISD SCHOOL BOARD FROM JERRY KROLL IN 1993:
From: Jerry Kroll, Agent
State Farm Insurance 02/22/93
To: Dr. Hayes and the KISD
Board of Trustees
RE: Taylor H.S. Test Review Policy
I find myself in a very uncomfortable position; appearing before this board as a result of my personal objection to an existing policy. I've always taken exception to people coming to this forum without a positive proposal to present. My goal tonight is to address this issue in the most positive way I can.
My objection is to the policy at Taylor High School of teachers prohibiting their students from taking their tests home in order to review the results with their parents. Parents are only allowed to to [sic] review the tests in the teacher's classroom at the convenience of the teacher. I object to this policy because I feel it needlessly limits, and in many cases, unduly restricts parental involvement in the educational process and thereby impedes the learning opportunities of my children. I feel the district should be promoting policies which increase, expand and support greater parental involvement.
The reasons I've been given for continuation of this policy are:
1. The teacher had not sent tests home in the past and had no intention of doing so in the future.
2. It would be unfair to other students.
3. It would compromise the integrity of the course.
4. Students would simply memorize answers for the exam.
5. Memorizing answers would prevent teachers from evaluating the development of higher level thinking skills.
6. In the past, parents have reproduced tests and saved them for distribution at some later date. By their actions they condoned and were accomplices in widespread cheating.
If there are other reasons they have not been proposed to me, I believe there are compelling yet simple responses to each of these statements. This forum is neither the place nor the time to discuss these issues. I welcome the opportunity to discuss them with you at another time.
There are many parents in our attendance area who not only want to be involved with their children but who also have the education, background and experience to be effective when they are. My proposal does not infer that teacher conferences are unimportant. i speak only to the removal of restrictions imposed on well-meaning parents and the negative impact they have on their children.
In my own case, I'm absolutely convinced that the best place for my daughter and I to discuss her test results was in the non-threatening environment of her room, her normal study place. The best time was an evening when other commitments and distracting events (such as the impending 1st period bell) would not interfere. She was never allowed that opportunity until it was too late.
I understand that when our children are in college our opportunity for involvement on a day to day basis will drop to zero. I fully understand the need to prepare our children for that independence and responsibility. In the majority of cases, the need for intensive parent involvement at the high school level has already diminished. However, there are students who continue to need assistance. There are circumstances where a student who has not needed help in the past suddenly does. (Perhaps a teacher with an effective yet new technique, or perhaps a new drug habit). In those cases where help is needed it makes far more sense to me that it be readily available and encouraged, not limited or restricted.
I strongly encourage you to adopt a district-wide policy which encourages and promotes parental involvement in this important test review process. I'm acutely aware of the "site based management" legislation and how it impacts individual schools. I'm also aware that this restrictive test review policy is not limited to Taylor. As I view this issue from a district-wide perspective, I cannot envision a district-wide policy which would tolerate the limitation of parental involvement when the opportunity to encourage it so obviously exists.
Respectfully submitted,
Jerry Kroll
Parent: Taylor High School
Nottingham Elementary
Mr. Kroll then presented this proposal to the Board:
02/16/93
PROBLEM: Campus policy allowing teachers to prohibit students from taking their tests home.
CONSEQUENCE: Parents who wish to review their children's tests are required to do so at the teacher's convenience in the teacher's classroom. This prevents parents and their children from interacting in a manner, place and time frame most productive to the student and their family.
SOLUTIONS
PROPOSAL #1: Allow all tests (except exams) to be retuned to all students to keep as a reference for as long as they wish.
PROPOSAL #2: Allow students to take home their tests (questions and answers) for a limited period of time (perhaps five school days). Then only as a response to a written request from the student's parent/guardian.
CONSEQUENCE: Negative - Teachers would have to give departmental tests on or very near the same date. Additionally, new semester exams would have to be created which did not repeat the questions on the unit tests. Potentially, semester exams would have to be modified from one year to the next.
Positive - Parents and their students have the opportunity to review student performance at a time and place most conducive to the student and least intrusive to family, work and other time consuming activities. This continues to allow for teacher assistance & input as appropriate.
Jerry Kroll
Parent: Taylor and Nottingham Country
*************************************************************************************************************
There are two interesting sidelights to this matter.
First, Jerry Kroll had been an administrator at the same time as Hugh Hayes (the superintendent at the time) in the Spring Branch ISD several years ago. Mr. Kroll had the good sense to get out of the education business and become an insurance salesman. Over time it became obvious that they were friends. I have to wonder if in this initial (as best I can remember twenty-three years later) appearance before the Board, if Dr. Hayes knew Mr. Kroll were speaking on this matter, as this idea was definitely counter to the policy advocated by Dr. Hayes.
Second, the superintendent, Hugh Hayes, had apparently talked Mr. Kroll into running against me if and when I ran for the Board in 1994, and so Mr. Kroll often came to speak to the Board about this or that. This was the first time that I recall seeing him. Of course I had no idea of the scheme afoot, and I often encouraged Mr. Kroll with his comments as many of them were sane. Who knows if they were real (I hope so) or contrived to make him look good to the public.
Hugh Hayes often worked behind the scenes to help or hinder incumbent board members who ran again for the Board. (And of course that was his right to do.)
Eventually in the May 1994 School Board Election, I defeated Mr. Kroll 1,598 to 1,212.
So much for well laid plans.