I knew I had read it earlier, but this News Tribune article reinforces what I read about our state’s chances for a Race to the Top grant. According to the governor we won’t be in the first round and we must see action by the 2010 legislature to position ourselves for round two. The comments following the article are also very interesting.
Will our legislature, given all the economic issues they face, give this initiative any real consideration? Will they, as the article suggests is needed, stand up to powerful constituent groups meaning WEA. If they do, will it result in change that positions the state for a proposal with some chance of being accepted and funded?
Though I don’t agree with the parameters or process established by this administration, it will be a shame if we do not see any of this revenue support young people and teachers in our state. We should not feel threatened by charters, we should be open to exploring new and creative ways to support teachers, we must find aditional ways to measure progress, we must understand that collaboration will be the only road to successful change that sustains over time, and above all we must find adaptive solutions to the growing list of demands that we face with dwindling resources.
3 comments:
The selection you posted from The News Tribune is not a news 'article', but rather an opinion piece. Sprinkle in the anonymous comments that follow and you have the intellectual equivalent of talk radio. Is this how we should be influenced in education?
When you add to it personal references like "Will they, as the article suggests is needed, stand up to powerful constituent groups meaning WEA" and it seems you have a created a false message, a straw man, if you will, that promotes union bashing, as if WEA somehow controls the state legislature.
I make myself available if you'd like to talk to a WEA member who could express his immense dissatisfaction with the current state government, finding it unresponsive to our union positions.
In the last legislative session WEA was hammered by the passing of HB 2261. In addition, all teachers were given a pay reduction and a suspension of their COLA. The facts of legislative record seems to undermine the opinion of the article as WEA being a powerful constituent group that can dictate educational policy.
Just a thought: if HB 2261 was funded (as WEA recommended), and not just a hollow bill, would we have been in line for the Race to the Top grant?
I look forward to your future blog posts and have enjoyed this 'summer reading'.
:-)
Jonathan,
Good comment, it makes me think.
The legislation that passed late in the session is different than the original legislation I believe partly because some of the components were a stretch for WEA leadership and members. So, I do believe that WEA did have and continues to have influence in Olympia. In a year without significant economic turmoil it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to impact both the cost of living and class size initiatives.
For me, it is not about union bashing or pointing blame. From my posts it should be clear that I am not in agreement with the federal initiative and I struggled with some components of the original reform legislation in Olympia. I don’t appreciate the bashing of public education and I don’t believe the answers to our work will be found in legislation at the state or federal level. It is not about finger pointing and blame for me, it is about identifying what young people need to know and be able to do for options and success in post high school learning and work. Though I don’t appreciate the bashing from public officials, I embrace the feedback as a necessary component of working in our system. Until the system changes, anyone who has attended a public school knows what it should look and sound like and has the right to share their thoughts.
We must all be willing to examine the beliefs that drive our behavior and be open to being influenced as we search for adaptive solutions to the issues we face. This does not happen in the short term and requires much face-to-face conversation, neither of which are available in the Race to the Top initiative. So, no I do not think we would be in the race even if 2261 was funded because the race requires too many nonnegotiables. But, we would be in an even better race, one that didn’t require a one-time infusion of federal funding and one where we could learn how to support and sustain successful change over time.
Mike
Mike-
Thank you for responding to my comment. I do appreciate being able to speak (type?) openly about these issues with you and you make me feel safe to do so. For that I thank you.
Your response is very well articulated and resonates with a deep understanding. I will spend time reflecting on your ideas.
Thanks again for making this forum available.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Post a Comment