Christina should find incentives for teachers

Walking away from a fight is seldom a painless venture, and one the Christina School District might or might not realize with its decision to turn down $2.3 million in federal Race to the Top funds.

Let me assure the News Journal that CSD has evaluated all the options available to us.  We fully realize the decision we are making.  We are exiting this listless disaster known at Race to the Top.  We are not forging a new path, we choosing one of the avenues presented to us by the Department of Education.   

The state Department of Education wanted Christina to give $20,000 over two years to only the most elite teachers, while administrators proposed giving much smaller bonuses to more teachers or boosting technology in struggling schools.

Wrong.  The DOE wants CSD to give $20,000 over two years to a handful of "elite" teachers who will earn that status, "highly effective" as a result of their students testing data.  Only, the test measures how well students can express what they have learned and not how well the teachers teaches.  Furthermore, each successful student is a product of multiple influences including the input of parents, specialists, previous teachers, and teachers whose subject matter is not actually tested.  

CSD did propose providing a smaller and more global bonus to teachers who rate "effective." Unlike the state's arbitrary $20,000, our bonuses were targeted in a way that teachers could opt to increase their professional development or invest in resources for their classrooms.  

When CSD volunteered to opt out of the VOLUNTARY Talent Attraction/Retention Initiative, the Sec. Murphy chose to punish CSD for its decision by withdrawing our Year 4 RTTT funding.  Of the five or so district who were offered  an opportunity to participate and volunteered to decline the offer, CSD is the ONLY district being punished.  Arbitrary? Capricious?  Anyone?

Christina officials had signed up for an impartial hearing. But the district withdrew its request Thursday, arguing it didn’t make sense to spend money on legal costs.

The Department of Education had not provided CSD with the regulations regarding the appeals hearing prior to CSD requesting the hearing.  The regulatory guidance set forth a very prescriptive plan for what must occur in order for CSD to actually have a hearing.  Yes, one was scheduled.  However, CSD could not simply present our case on the interpretation of the plans in place to receive an impartial 3rd party opinion.  The guidance revealed to CSD that

• FIRST, we had to allege and prove that the Department of Education had broken a law BEFORE we could present our case.
• If we succeeded in proving that a law was broken, the hearing officer would hear both sides of the story (as expected) and then issue an opinion.  The opinion would not be the final finding.  The Secretary of Education, who in this case had made the original determination to withhold Year 4 would render the final decision in the matter after reviewing the findings of the hearing officer.  

The process would ordain Sec. Murphy as Judge, Jury, and Executioner.  The process was further stacked against the district b/c the hearing officer who had appointed is a repeat contributor to Gov. Markell who also appointed Sec. Murphy.

This fight over use of the federal RTTP funds turned heated when the state Department of Education insisted the district comply with a contract it signed to use the federal money to reward highly effective teachers and tackle the poor academic outcomes of at-risk minority populations.

CSD continues to assert that we have complied with the plans in place, that the DOE is acting arbitrarily, and the effort asserted to coerce the district into submission is burdensome and unequal.  We did align our resources to implement an attraction and retention program.

But really, what one of the state’s largest school districts has done is stake its claim to local control over how it educates some 19,000 students and determine the pay their educators are worthy of.

That’s a bold and brash move on the part of a district that has difficulty turning around its academic performance and attracting and keeping teachers.

Bold and Brash?  I think that in a state where so many behave as cowards in the arena of education,  that I could get used to being called Bold and Brash by the News Journal.  

As to how pay is determined - Our contract with our union and the state's pay scale covers "determination."  We don't have independent taxing authority.  We are subject to the state's rules/laws/regulations/codes for determining and funding pay.  

And since the NJ went there - The reality is that the entire pay scale needs to be re-structured.  Today, teachers enter the professional at a low wage and if they don't burn out, they eventually earn a respectable wage.  This model is a failure b/c it actually drives good teachers out of education, ensuring high attrition rates.  The state needs to implement high wages on the front end with more substantial steps that slowly decrease over an extensive teaching career.  There is balance to be achieved here.  But, the results will be keeping good teachers in the profession. The model is doubly rewarding b/c we know that teachers become more effective with each passing year and each opportunity for meaningful professional development. 

It’s too bad a district proposal to use a portion of the funds to meet that goal won’t include rewarding highly qualified teachers.

I disagree.  It won't.  Our teachers have made it quite clear to us that they don't want blood money.  They want smaller classes, more resources and support, and a better pay structure. 

The district worried about a possible riff among workers not eligible for the pay raises. That’s a legitimate concern,

I disagree with this statement.  I don't actually believe rewarding only a handful of teachers who teach tested subjects in a handful of schools is going to grow a riff in my schools.  I give my teachers far more credit for their professionalism than that. I am much more bothered by the fact that the list of schools the state targeted for eligibility does not align with the list previously identified by the state DOE as high needs.  DOE actually wants me to give $20,000 bonuses to schools that do not have rentention issues and who are making AYP.  That doesn't make sense to me.  In fact, that just sounds to me like a bribe designed to buy some teacher love for the department.

 

but parents of struggling students will likely not consider it as praiseworthy as providing their children’s classrooms with educators skilled to shift them from the status quo of being under performers.

Hello??? Of course those parents who do not understand the issue and who search for facts on the opinion pages will be unhappy.  They are misinformed in part b/c the New Journal has done such a crappy and orchestrated job and blowing common sense to smithereens.  

If I subscribe to the complete bs logic that the editors are pilfering - then my child's entire educational career will be determined by whether or not he/she had 1 teacher who was eligible for a $20,000 bonus once in their lives.

I'm sorry, folks, but it take more than one teacher to raise a child up.  It takes a team - parents, multiple teachers, whole schools, and frequently specialists to create successful learners - and the DAMN TEST DOESN'T MEASURE THAT.

Dear Delaware Legislators, 

Today, 37 of you confirmed that you would follow the Delaware Department of Education off the Delaware Memorial Bridge in a plunge to your death. 

Too melodramatic? 

Well, that is exactly the message you sent to your constituents when you killed two amendments and sent SB 51 free to wreak even more havoc upon our educational system.

Et tu, Earl?

On a slightly more serious note - Thank you to Reps. Baumbach, Potter, and Kowalko for taking on the good fight and trying to inject common sense back into education.  You, gentlemen, are not lemmings, and for that, I am grateful!

The unintended fall-out of SB 51:

Programmatic changes made in Delaware's teacher prep colleges including the potential elimination of some special education studies.  Why? SB 51 will result in the ranking of Delaware's four teacher prep programs based upon component V of DPAS II which is based on the standardized testing of the colleges' graduates students.
Special educators and special parents will be among the first to tell you that many disabilities reflect in standardized testing scores - conditions that teachers have no control over and that even the best modifications cannot remediate.  

Examples of two such programs: The Delaware Autism Program and the Delaware School for the Deaf where students testing scores, alternative included, have precluded these schools from making AYP.  Thus, these teachers who hold specialized certifications and frequently attain a higher level of professional development than their same-experienced general education peers are less likely to receive a positive ranking on Component V.  When component V translates into the ranking of the teachers college, the colleges, rather than be perceived as turning out bad teachers, are then motivated to alter or eliminate such specialized degree programs as those that prepare teachers for working with students with the most severe disabilities. 

You need only imagine this:  The only college in the state that offers the advanced certification required by state law/regulation/code to teach severe disabilities and autism decides upon learning that its graduates - who primarily work in a program that is by definition vocational for students from 18 months to 21- have not spurred academic growth or achievement in their students and thusly failed to achieve high ratings on Component V, deems its severe disabilities and autism teacher prep program a public relations disaster after it drives down the college's overall ranking, even though in reality parents relocate to Delaware for this public school program that provides far more comprehensive services and better prepares its students for life beyond education than other public options offered in the majority of the other 50 states.  What then, I ask you, will be the impact of SB 51?

Disaster is what SB 51 means to countless special educators, their students, and parents.  We predict that SB 51 will ultimately drive a special education teaching shortage especially in those schools that serve our children who are challenged by severe disabilities. 

VOTE NO on SB 51 if you want to ensure that high quality teachers continue to be available to serve our neediest children.  Please don't put us in the position of studying longitudinal data that proves this prophecy correct.  

NO to SB 51 b/c this is the right thing to do for children in classrooms. The special needs community is a bit like an elephant.  We never forget, especially around election time.

From Mind of Mr. Matthews:

HB 23 must immediately be heard by the full House

 Why is this bill being held up, Speaker Schwartzkopf?

 http://mindofmrmatthews.wordpress.com/

 

Congratulations to all of yesterday's successful candidates!  Thank you to those who conducted themselves with decorum while they campaigned at the polls. Finally, an outstanding thank you for all of our poll workers!

Indian River School District to put guards in all schools

Kudos to IR for putting safety first and foremost. Just last month I received a firm reprimand from a CSD constituent because I wanted to extend security to school board meetings in addition to the other school functions that already earn a police presence - uniformed and/or plain clothes. 

My reasoning for extending coverage - CSD school children attend almost every single school board meeting.  Some perform.  Some receive awards.  Their families usually join them, along with our staff.   I think our board and our district should deploy every reasonable resource to protect our children.  Indian River has deemed security at every school a reasonable resource.  

After our board action, one constituent actually told me that adding security would not be beneficial and he/she/it cited the recent courthouse shooting that left two mothers dead. If their lives were so easily taken with Capitol police just steps away, how did I expect security at a board meeting to protect the board?  The reality is that because the capitol police were armed, trained, and ready, the loss of life was reduced to three in a room that contained a significant number of potential victims. The impact of the shooting was diminished tremendously b/c the police were able to quickly regain control of the situation.  

When I look ahead at school safety, I am keenly aware that some of our greatest threats lurk quietly in our mist. I believe that Indian River's board has taken a prudent action in increasing its security presence in its schools.

Good Job, IR!

Very shortly here, the polls across the state will open and Delaware residents age 18 and over will have the opportunity to choose their school board members.  You already know for whom I am voting.  But, my choice of candidate is far less important than the right to vote and utilization of that right.  So, in my most encouraging voice, I implore my fellow Delawareans in every county to VOTE!  Polls open at 10 am and close at 8 pm.  Voters in school board elections do not need to be registered, just bring proof of address and identification. 

Voting locations for every race can be found by clicking through the links available here:  http://electionsncc.delaware.gov/ 

Good Luck to All Candidates!

Elizabeth

Ed. Funders Giving More to Same Few, Studies Show

'System challengers' get growing share

By Sarah D. Sparks

San Francisco

As more and more foundation money floods into K-12 education, it is being channeled to fewer and fewer groups, according to new research presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting here last week.
Researchers also found that foundation money is moving away from traditional public schools and toward "challengers to the system"—primarily charter schools—and that the funders in general are becoming much more active in shaping how those challengers develop.

More Here:   http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/05/08/30aera.h32.html?tkn=SPMFKoMgc9GC8BEMOPMmDvc9kOtW07d%2FobgI&cmp=clp-edweek

This is an excerpt from the state's acceptable use policy regarding the state's email system:

USE OF EMAIL AND THE INTERNET
Inappropriate use of e-mail includes, but is not limited to, sending or forwarding:

*Information related to political materials, activities or causes unless sanctioned or permitted by the State of Delaware.

*Unauthorized or inappropriate mass distribution of communication. 

*Any other materials that would be improper under this policy or other State of Delaware policies.               

http://bidcondocs.delaware.gov/HSS/HSS_11048_Addend1B-AcceptUse.pdf

We'll toss this one scenario out there, just for kicks.

A state employee or contracter with access to the state's email system would be violating the state's acceptable use policy if they spammed my teachers, paras, principals, nurses, secretaries, cafe and maintenance workers using an email list generated by accessing the state's global email settings as provided through their employment with the state.

Well, how the hell would one know for sure how a list was generated?  The state's DTI guy could easily view the sender's activity to determine whether or not he/she/it was misusing the state's system.  Would never happen, right?

Well, just for kicks, what if a candidate did violate the acceptable use policy?

Any inappropriate use of State communications and computer systems may be grounds for discipline up to and including dismissal based on the just cause standard set forth by Merit Rules, or collective bargaining agreement, whichever is applicable to the subject employee.

Exempt employees shall be subject to appropriate discipline without recourse, except as provided by law.http://bidcondocs.delaware.gov/HSS/HSS_11048_Addend1B-AcceptUse.pdf

Acceptable use policy for communications

Page 9 includes directions for clarifications/reporting.

Yep, Rodel's Melissa Hopkins takes aim at  school board members who are not seeking another term this election cycle - apparently 12 of 25 current board members are not seeking to return to their boards - myself included - and through Melissa's eyes that means that we are no longer invested in our districts and communities.

On Tuesday, there are a total of 25 races in the First State to fill these important jobs.  Of the 25 races occurring on May 14th, only 7 races are uncontested.   Multiple races have more than two candidates running for the seat.  This is a great show of engagement on our school boards.  School board members are not compensated for their service, and the work required during their tenure is plentiful.  The extensive number of filed candidates statewide proves that Delawareans are committed to providing a quality public education in our state and that they want to want to be engaged.

New candidates are interested in getting involved, but even more striking is the number of incumbents willing to return to school board service.   There is still work to be done, and it’s a show of commitment that 13 individuals are fighting to continue their work for their district and community.  

So, why do board members exit their boards?  In the last two years, NCCo has seen to board members exit boards early to pursue other political office.  That's admirable. But, why would a board member not run for another term?  Perhaps, it's the changing economy - one in which board members, depending on income, cannot continue to work for free and support their families needs.  Perhaps, some find the commitment overwhelming.  Or, perhaps, some believe that they can continue to advocate for their communities and school children in new capacities.  And, just perhaps, at least a handful are exhausted of fighting with a know-nothing state leader who has sold out traditional public education as a means giving himself the moniker Delaware's Education Governor.  Maybe it's all of these and more.

What strikes me about the undercurrent of Ms. Hopkins' blog post is that she doesn't believe that those exiting service have any fight left in them.  Is that by design?  Was the real purpose behind the Rodel-supported Voices for Delaware Education Voters, the SuperPAC that dumped thousands of $$$$$$$$$$$$$ into trying to unseat incumbents last election cycle?  Especially in the Christina School District? Maybe it didn't matter who really won, as long as the incumbents who were not favorable to Vision were executed?  Fortunately, Delawareans fought back - those who care specifically care about education - with their feet and put a CSD incumbent right back where she belonged - fighting for our children from the dais.

I hate to have to say it, but just b/c a board member leaves the board, doesn't mean any of them will let education deformers off the hook for their chameleon chaos and the havoc they have incurred in our schools.  Voters want reform?  Let's invest in real reform, not this fly-by-night bullshit that Rodel powered by the Governor has spewed into the education-sphere.

Here's an idea:  Why don't we invest in smaller class sizes?  Put 1 year of RTTT $ into engineering smaller classes in high needs schools and three things will happen:

1. Teachers - good teachers who are dedicated to the profession and not the paychecks or bonus - will voluntarily opt into teaching in high needs schools.
2. Discipline issues will be reduced.
3. Test scores will begin to move in target classes.

Of course, one year alone won't do it.  But, the Governor doesn't even want us to try - nor does Rodel or Vision or the Chamber or Leadership Delaware, or any ed-deform-centric agency.  They just want pad their wallets.  Kinda reminds of the News Journal Wilmington Trust story - hiding bad loans and all...

ADVISORY COUNCIL

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper (co-chair)
United States Senator
Tom Carper was elected to the United States Senate in 2000 after serving two terms as Delaware’s Governor, five terms as its Congressman in the U. S. House of Representatives, and six years as State Treasurer. During more than 25 years of public service, Senator Carper has earned the distinction of being an effective and nonpartisan leader skilled in finding practical solutions to real problems. The first bill he signed as Senator, the “Empowering Parents Act,” was signed into law by President George W. Bush as part of the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001.  The centrist Democratic Leadership Council has named him its Chairman for New Democrat Best Practices, and he has been appointed co-chair of the New Democrat Caucus in the Senate.  As Governor of the First State, he gained national recognition for achieving real education reform by creating rigorous public education standards; instituting optional parent training programs; fully funding Head Start and other early intervention projects; demanding accountability from students, parents and teachers; and ending social promotion.  Senator Carper attended Ohio State University as a Navy ROTC midshipman, graduating in 1968 with a bachelor’s degree in economics. He received his MBA from the University of Delaware. He completed five years of service as a Naval flight officer, serving in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, and retired with the rank of Captain after 18 years in the Naval Reserve.

 Bio From - http://www.rodelfoundationde.org/board-advisors/

Christina School District Partners with University of Delaware to offer an 

Ambled over to "the foundation's" website today.

Apparently "Transparency" is not one of the keys to a world-class education...

"The foundation focuses on improving public policy, supporting best practices, and engaging the public. In collaboration with public, private and civic leaders throughout Delaware, Rodel is working to implement Vision 2015, Delaware's acclaimed plan for world-class schools."

Hey, Herdman, engage the public, and support an emerging best practice - recording school board meetings to increase transparency and accessibility. 

Well, they can make them, but I assure you these particular promises will be broken:

1. If you elect me, I will close the charter schools and return the students to (insert name of school district.)
Perhaps I lack creativity, but I cannot find anywhere in the state code/laws/regs that allow traditional school board members the legal authority to strip away the operating rights of charter schools.  Anybody have any ideas?

2. If you elect me, I will shut-down those vocational schools that steal our kids.
Again, traditional school board members have no authority over vocational schools.

3. If you elect me, I will take that Taj Mahal of charter school back from insert name of charter school. 
This is a particularly difficult promise to keep if  insert name of district  never owned  insert name of charter school.

4. I can teach your CFO a thing or two about School Finance as I am the statewide expert. Just elect me. 
Really? If you know more than the CFO, perhaps you should be applying for his job instead of pandering to a decidedly anti-charter audience.

5. I will make insert name of post-secondary institution pay property and school taxes. 
And this one, this is just bullshit. 

Reality Orientation, anyone?

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20130507/NEWS03/305070052/Delaware-State-University-pulling-campus-out-Wilmington