Superintendent Recalls RIFed Teachers
The Superintendent has recalled 57 teachers. From the press release:
Enrollment and program needs at schools result in the following categories of teachers being recalled:
* 28 elementary teachers
* 10 language arts high school teachers to replace a portion of the Pathways teaching positions that were eliminated (Pathways teachers support remedial programs for students not meeting standard on the WASL).
* 8 language arts/social studies middle school and high school teachers
* 4 teachers of elementary gifted education
* 3 bilingual teachers
* 4 science teachers
Comments
Now let's get the rest; there's enough going on without losing these valuable members of the teams.
Is anyone else getting whiplash? Capacity Management? More like Capacity Convulsions. What is up with the p*ss poor planning?
A speaker lectured the board several months ago that their plans do not coincide with the City's Neighborhood Plans. Did that not occur to anyone at SPS when they put forth the closure plans? This is crazy.
Note no CTE teachers are being recalled ... yet.
Steve Codling at WSHS is amazing and he is still RIFed.
Tragic.
This standardization is going to side-track many students from following their very interesting (and sometimes very profitable) dreams.
We can't ALL be engineers, architects, MBAs and doctors, nor do all of us want to be.
That said, I hear people say things like "Can you believe that a student can graduate from high school without meeting the course requirements for entrance to UW?" and I answer "Yes. And I'm totally okay with that."
Hey, folks, if you are focused on getting into the University of Washington, you're going to have to take some steps to make it happen. One of those steps is to find out what classes you need to take in high school and then enroll in those classes. What makes you think that you're going to be able to stumble into it? And why in the world should every student who wants a high school diploma be required to take those courses if that isn't their path? Why is that one path the one that everyone is required to adopt?
The argument goes that students may not think that they want to pursue a university education when they are in high school, but then later in life they might change their mind and want to, so they should have the option open to them. I say that in that case they can take the classes they need at a community college.
1. More kids enrolled in classes they do not want and are ill equipped to be in.
2. Instead of raising the bar, the bar is lowered as the presence of large numbers of unqualified students lowers rigor and the level of performance. More kids may have credit in certain courses but the quality of those courses deteriorated.
More Centraliuzed pushing of the population from above ... thank the current State Board of Education for some of this nonsense.
The logical extension of this plan if fulfilled would be a community with no plumbers, electricians, carpenters, truck drivers, etc. Do you really want an MBA attempting to fix a plumbing leak?
What will the MBA fashionistas do without beauticians? get real.
I also think those skills exercise the mind. Problem solving is what education and life are all about.
It is true I fall heavily in the go-to-college-camp. Five of 6 siblings went to college...but my brother the carpenter is still the smartest one. You see, he did the math and determined that his earning potential as a carpenter over his lifetime was considerably more than that of the average college graduate. And he can still write a letter to the editor and out argue his sister the lawyer. Also, he doesn't have any of those darn student loans. He still had to finish high school like the rest of us. That's how he was able to do the math.
Nobody's saying all kids don't need to know how to write a decent essay (or letter to the editor) or do Algebra, but I'm in Charlie's camp here.
I'd rather see a kid who has no interest in college be able to take classes that will help them determine a career and succeed in life (business math rather than calculus, etc.) and take classes that are meaningful to them rather than forced on them just in case they might want to go to the UW when they're 25 (three years of a language, etc.).
School needs to prepare kids for life. A fulfilling life need not require 4 years at a university—as you noted with your high-paid sibling. What we need is flexibility so students can take the courses that will help them in whatever path they choose and quality guidance in helping them choose that path.
Forcing everyone into the 4-year college track can result in frustration for some with the worst case scenario of dropping out rather than having to sit through an unbearable physics class. And for others, it can result in a classroom where too many of the students don't want to be there, lowering the quality of education for all.
I, myself, have a degree from a technical college. I did not need 4 years of math or science and thus was able to take some very interesting and educationally stimulating electives my senior year (Russian History, African History and Sociology).
The stimulus money came from the federal government under the IDEA, and should really be for students with disabilities. Usually it is illegal for the District to spend it on other students. That was the source of the delay as they got "clarification" on how they could spend the IDEA money. There is potentially more "clarification" coming on how the District can spend Title I money intended to support the education of students living in poverty.
You might think that all of the money is fungible (great word! look it up if you don't know it), but public sector accounting is a creature unto itself and unlike any accounting you ever saw in the private sector. There are people who are .6 FTE paid from source A and .3 FTE paid from source B and .1 FTE paid from source C. All of the money is traced back to its source because it all has strings attached or is for one specific purpose only. Now, it could be that there is some general fund money that is used to support IDEA expenses and this stimulus money replaced that money, but that's not the story they are telling.
The story they are telling is that this money came to them under the IDEA and they were allowed to reallocate it away from students with IEPs.
It may be that the federal government just wanted to put some money into schools and was just using the existing pipelines of IDEA and Title I to deliver it and that this is extra money that was intended to be provided without spending restrictions, but I haven't heard that. Have you?
Washington State does not offer or recognize a gifted education endorsement.
I asked Bob Vaughan about this and he told me that "gifted ed" is among the categories of teachers in the SEA contract. The teachers qualify for the designation by teaching for six months in a Spectrum or APP classroom. It's an acknowledgement that working with this population requires a skill set that is different from or in addition to the regular skill set.
So it is real and it represents a specific need. It just surprised me.
Would like to get more info on this. It doesn't seem right.