The plan includes adopting legislation that would do the following:
*Allow the state to intervene and oversee schools where student achievement is persistently low.
*Revise teacher and principal evaluations to focus on instruction and use multiple measures, including student academic performance.
*Extend probationary period for teachers to 3 years, and allow districts to grant continuing contracts after 2 years.
*Allow non-institutions of higher education to offer teacher and principal preparation programs.
*Encourage increased parent involvement and input.
*Provide for adoption of Common Core Standards.
*Encourage local dollars to be used to close the achievement gap and increase STEM instruction. (e.g. TRI pay, changing the I from Incentives to Innovation).
This certainly answers the question about Common Core Standards; they will be a part of our future. We will need to see what the timing will be and wait for the release to assess the impact on the work we are doing and have planned for the future. Another interesting component is the ability to offer teacher preparation programs by organizations other than colleges. This could prove interesting as I haven’t seen any response from the higher education institutions.
Not being an expert on RttT makes it difficult to determine if these changes will result in a successful grant. I will monitor responses from others and share with you what I learn. Of particular interest in the LEV release were the people present at the press conference. They included the OSPI superintendent, the WEA president, the chair of the State Board of Education, the principal association executive director, and the executive director of the Professional Educator Standards Board. Does this mean that these organizations are supportive of all components of this legislative package and will sign off on the grant? If yes, that could be important in the bigger picture.
What are your thoughts about the components of the proposal and potential support by these organizations?
In my previous post about this legislative package I didn’t highlight the poll that was discussed in the article. The poll asked teachers about their thoughts related to changes to better align with RttT criteria. The article included the following.
The random telephone survey of 500 Washington public school teachers found nearly 70 percent support for paying teachers more for growth in student achievement and for filling shortages in math, science and special education. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
The survey also found most teachers are in favor of higher standards, turning around the lowest performing schools and adopting national education standards, but uncovered a mix of opinions on extending the probationary period for teachers and allowing principals to grant, deny or extend contracts based on evaluations.
I wonder what those responding would see as the process to determine who would receive increased pay for student achievement. Do any of you have ideas on the way to make these decisions? If you were one of the 500 teachers polled how would you have responded to the questions?
2 comments:
Hello there,
I have been reading the last few posts and have been wondering how this is all going to play out. In 3years will it all be over turned again by yet another president? However, I have a few questions about the RTT proposals put forth in the the application. In what way are the prepared to help us solve the persistently low schools? Will they give more time and training and support a specific model like RTI? How will they train us to encourage more parental support? What other ideas can they give us that we have not already tried? Don't we have core standards called the EALRS that alignes the districts with the state? Are they asking for all districts to use the same curriculums, ie basals and such? Is the federal government going to ask districts for their input if curriculums are to be aligned?
I ask these questions because it seems like Olympia is so ready to get their hands on the money, are they ready to support us with funds to acheive these very lofty goals. Again, the question arises is the Federal Gov ready to fund these programs and actually get theri hands dirty and help? It is one thing to have a dream, it is another to have the gumption to actually acheive it. it is a little frustrating and confusing.
Ahhh...your first troll. Mike's blog is growing up...
The plan includes adopting legislation that would do the following:
*Allow the state to intervene and oversee schools where student achievement is persistently low.
And this is different from the (failed) NCLB practice of "labelling" schools as failures b/c ONE of 17 subgroups didn't achieve enough HOW? And what exactly is intervene/oversee? I have a hunch they have price tags attached and that additional money is coming from...a Tim Eyeman initiative?
*Revise teacher and principal evaluations to focus on instruction and use multiple measures, including student academic performance.
This process isn't free either. But don't worry...I can't imagine there'll be any unintended consequences here (like yesterday the counselor stopped in my room to ask if I'd take Student X...a perennial truancy with low academic history that nobody else wanted?) Why SURE!! Bring them right in, I need a cut in pay...in fact give me ALL those kids that are unmotivated, have ZERO support at home, and are trying to cope with multiple LDs b/c I'm AWESOME and they'll be all applying to Ivy League schools within the month!
*Allow non-institutions of higher education to offer teacher and principal preparation programs.
What on earth in a non-institution?
The School of Hardknocks?
TwitterTeacher?
AM/PM? (too much good stuff! including the all new Teacher Certification Program)
*Encourage increased parent involvement and input.
Talk about "low-hanging-fruit"...as Amy and Seth oF SNL fame would say, "...REALLY!?"
*Encourage local dollars to be used to close the achievement gap and increase STEM instruction. (e.g. TRI pay, changing the I from Incentives to Innovation).
What's with the multiple use of the term ENCOURAGE in several of these? Someone says "pretty please?" Threats? Humiliation? Peer pressure? Someone gives your district "the evil eye" every Thursday? And what about this Closing the achievement gap? What do they think I spend the lion's share of my time on NOW?? Finding ways to EXTEND the gap!?
Sorry for the sarcasm but when you spend nearly every waking hour trying to help kids, connect parents, and finding news ways to motivate/innovate so the "gap" closes so "the tide raises all boats" proposals like NCLB and RttT can seriously challenge my penchant for cynicism. ...back to work... (thanks for asking, by the way...I feel it shows you care)
Post a Comment