Seattle Times editorial on innovation - in a bad way
The Seattle Times ran an editorial today, Foster innovation in the public schools, which was pure bull.
The editorial is in support of three bills in the legislature that will purportedly foster innovation in our schools. Setting aside for the moment the absurdity of legislating innovation, what kind of innovation are these bills looking to foster? Innovative instructional strategies? No. Innovative instructional materials? No. Innovative curricula? No. These bills are designed to allow innovative violations of labor agreements.
No wonder the Seattle Times loves them.
No wonder the Seattle Times doesn't dare to write about them in concrete terms.
The Times says that the bills include "protections for teachers", but why would teachers have to be protected from innovation unless the innovation was harmful to them?
The editorial is in support of three bills in the legislature that will purportedly foster innovation in our schools. Setting aside for the moment the absurdity of legislating innovation, what kind of innovation are these bills looking to foster? Innovative instructional strategies? No. Innovative instructional materials? No. Innovative curricula? No. These bills are designed to allow innovative violations of labor agreements.
No wonder the Seattle Times loves them.
No wonder the Seattle Times doesn't dare to write about them in concrete terms.
The Times says that the bills include "protections for teachers", but why would teachers have to be protected from innovation unless the innovation was harmful to them?
Comments
It’s appears to be a RTTT on the State level. Up to 10 schools will get grants to pilot “innovative” projects in schools. Would this allow charter-like schools, without charter schools? Here are some highlights:
-Schools may be granted waivers of certain state statutes and rules (including length of the school year, student-teacher ratios, and calculations of course credits for high school)
-At the request of the school district, may even petition for waiver of federal regulations
-Allows comingling of funds for the programs (including highly capable and transitional bilingual)
-Allows performance-based system of staff compensation
-Does not expire until June 30, 2020
Google it
Google it
year-round school (probably just for the poor)
increased class size
disregard IDEA and all that federal civil rights crap
use MAP to set teacher salaries
That's not innovation, that's Eli Broad's wet dream.
grumpy
"Current laws that authorize the SBE or the SPI to grant waivers from laws and rules pertaining to Basic Education requirements, student-to-teacher ratios, and length of the school year are amended to include schools under the Program. In addition, Program schools may apply for waivers of laws pertaining to limits on salaries for certificated instructional staff, comingling of state funds for categorical programs, and flexibility in calculating course credits for high school courses."
So schools will be allowed to exceed the student:teacher ratios set in the Basic Education law. How is it innovative to put 40 students in a classroom?
Schools will be allowed to teach a shorter school year or be exempt from the 150 hours of instruction rule for high school credit. How is that any different from what already happens? What's so innovative about having less school?
Innovative schools will be allowed to comingle state funds for categorical programs. Ah! So the money specifically earmarked for ELL students, SpEd students, Highly Capable students or low-income students can be spent on anybody and everybody. Doesn't that already happen?
Finally, and this is the real focus of the bill: the law would allow changes to salaries for certificated instructional staff. Ah! Once again we see that Ed Reformers believe they can do all of their work through the teachers' contract.
Without the teacher salary thing there would be no need for HB 1447 at all. People who wanted to innovate could just form an ALE.
This one is a real stinker. It is, essentially, a charter school bill.
Current laws that authorize the SBE or the SPI to grant waivers from laws and rules pertaining to basic Education requirements, student-to-teacher ratios, and length of the school year are amended to include schools under the Program. Currently 83 school districts have a waiver of the 180-day school year under this law.
So the above is already allowed under current law. What's new about HB 1447 (different from what can be done under existing laws) is this:
In addition, Program schools may apply for waivers of laws pertaining to limits on salaries for certificated instructional staff, comingling of state funds for categorical programs, and flexibility in calculating course credits for high school classes.
Google it
HB 1447, though, sounds like "charter-lite" and a foot in the door without a vote. I saw that "co-mingling" and my radar went up.
1556 is charters without calling it that. I think someone thought he/she was being very clever.
This one is a real stinker. It is, essentially, a charter school bill.
Trish Millines Dziko's reaction, from "Notes from Trish's Desk":
"Two recent developments give me hope. I urge you to pay attention to two moves at the state level that might actually get the job done:
1. Governor Gregoire's decision to consolidate education policy into a single cabinet-level
Department of Education [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=w5yfxubab&et=1104461185636&s=11387&e=001YU1QL4dg1m9nfBicWx8sRfrSr3YcE_rmdgX6UqrVdoNO9oQXvPrnIne8ii_kf1f882AnJGUIeSEI1ua87U6q82ruWpyYDEiHcLbNALWd_z1zynM8sbh91r0fgflxaBffjFEhssRcizZ96iWzYRxsKsRQrbyelSW1UNwEvmT2dr-9kw2xhjOL72t34SHAscBd].
The current education system is too fragmented. There is no clear line of accountability.
As Lisa MacFarlane of the League of Education Voters [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=w5yfxubab&et=1104461185636&s=11387&e=001YU1QL4dg1m-ZL45zoEaNfGBzxZRE51zu-ysO6o2UJ-Tg7-BDOi-jVJzzfBLMhpxjy72lpo7xrffgwEc0XYuzud8pY35vckCNzvsp0JExRANipQQ1Eo40jXY1YuP7zNiR]
says, "Washington has the strongest constitutional language in the country regarding
education; the person running the state should have authority over his or her paramount
duty."
2. House Bill 1546 [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?llr=w5yfxubab&et=1104461185636&s=11387&e=001YU1QL4dg1m_7pJ59KHncQFyhIi7GJ7-Wp1tXMYXzgp2EsBOOpqXLg0Nw1R-HkyN7ugSpC9dmIYoh2wH4HZD1vtyLjgWZ90o4f6DLD9oOOSEFHKw2MEgvALAfyOFIQJoeaisiyRgxWw9vHL40QeO6z7YRKwZBn5FlyQTdXVuskMLMZRYT13wZNw==].
Just this week, I attended a hearing to get more details and offer my input, but I think this is the strongest move yet to inject real innovation into the public school system."
Helen Schinske
Please read The Governor’s Education Restructuring Bill: Bad Idea.
Helen Schinske