Ed Issues This and That
In what is the biggest story for our district (and all districts in this state) is the likely reality of the Legislature going into a Special Session to complete the budget.
The impacts of this delay to our school districts is big and those impacts should have been considered at the start of the session.
At the beginning of the session, I said that job one was McCleary via the budget. (I was not the only person to point this out.) And yet we saw a parade of bills from all directions. Some, like the restraint of Special Education students, were vital to get done. But some were just not needed when so much work needed to get done - and compromise and consensus sought - on the budget.
I can't believe that our state is going to spend upwards of $300K on a Special Session to get a budget. And, if McCleary doesn't look like it got done, what does this say to the Supreme Court?
Legislators should have all pledged, from the start, to get the budget done BEFORE anything else.
Also of interest is an op-ed in the Times that complains about the number of elected state officials (there are nine). I hadn't realized this was an issue but drill down and it becomes all about the state superintendent of public instruction and wouldn't it be a better idea if that office was appointed by the Governor? Apparently former Governor Gregoire had floated this idea in the waning days of her office. She wanted an entire Department of Education created, from early learning to higher education.
We need to not only invest in education, we need to create a seamless, accountable system focused on students and their success.
She goes on to say that an Ed Secretary should have "full authority to oversee the entire Washington state education system with effective evidence-based, student-centered best practices."
One thing that didn't get said is why we have multiple ed agencies in the first place nor why those agencies could not be asked to work together in a more fluid fashion.
Operations Committee Meeting, Thursday from 4:30-6:30 pm. Agenda.
This meeting sees a number of items to cover. I'm not sure exactly how the Committee is to provide oversight this way. Some items, like naming Coe's Library, I don't get if only because the Superintendent himself pulled the naming policy from tonight's Board meeting. If the policy is to be changed, why waste time on discussion now?
Another item is "high poverty schools wireless upgrade via E-rate" (a FCC program to help high poverty schools with technology). The mystery to me is that the Technology department has touted how all buildings are now wireless. Is that not the case and, if it is true, why do schools need an upgrade so soon?
Another interesting item - a donation to the Athletic Program Fund. That sounds promising.
I also will note that the district is now consistently saying that buildings are either being built/renovated to about 25-30 years. This is important because districts used to build to a 40-50 year cycle.
I also saw on the Board meeting agenda tonight, under upcoming meetings is an Operations Committee/Committee of the Whole Meeting on Tuesday, May 5, 4:30-6:30 pm. I have to wonder if the topic of high school capacity might not be the highlight given how urgent the need is to make some decisions on how to solve this problem.
Looking at the district calendar, I see only a couple more director meetings on Saturday before the end of the school year. I have to say that with a couple of burning issues on the table - bell times, high school capacity, social studies middle school adoption - it's sad that directors are not available for parents/community to talk to about these issues.
The impacts of this delay to our school districts is big and those impacts should have been considered at the start of the session.
At the beginning of the session, I said that job one was McCleary via the budget. (I was not the only person to point this out.) And yet we saw a parade of bills from all directions. Some, like the restraint of Special Education students, were vital to get done. But some were just not needed when so much work needed to get done - and compromise and consensus sought - on the budget.
I can't believe that our state is going to spend upwards of $300K on a Special Session to get a budget. And, if McCleary doesn't look like it got done, what does this say to the Supreme Court?
Legislators should have all pledged, from the start, to get the budget done BEFORE anything else.
Also of interest is an op-ed in the Times that complains about the number of elected state officials (there are nine). I hadn't realized this was an issue but drill down and it becomes all about the state superintendent of public instruction and wouldn't it be a better idea if that office was appointed by the Governor? Apparently former Governor Gregoire had floated this idea in the waning days of her office. She wanted an entire Department of Education created, from early learning to higher education.
We need to not only invest in education, we need to create a seamless, accountable system focused on students and their success.
She goes on to say that an Ed Secretary should have "full authority to oversee the entire Washington state education system with effective evidence-based, student-centered best practices."
One thing that didn't get said is why we have multiple ed agencies in the first place nor why those agencies could not be asked to work together in a more fluid fashion.
Operations Committee Meeting, Thursday from 4:30-6:30 pm. Agenda.
This meeting sees a number of items to cover. I'm not sure exactly how the Committee is to provide oversight this way. Some items, like naming Coe's Library, I don't get if only because the Superintendent himself pulled the naming policy from tonight's Board meeting. If the policy is to be changed, why waste time on discussion now?
Another item is "high poverty schools wireless upgrade via E-rate" (a FCC program to help high poverty schools with technology). The mystery to me is that the Technology department has touted how all buildings are now wireless. Is that not the case and, if it is true, why do schools need an upgrade so soon?
Another interesting item - a donation to the Athletic Program Fund. That sounds promising.
I also will note that the district is now consistently saying that buildings are either being built/renovated to about 25-30 years. This is important because districts used to build to a 40-50 year cycle.
I also saw on the Board meeting agenda tonight, under upcoming meetings is an Operations Committee/Committee of the Whole Meeting on Tuesday, May 5, 4:30-6:30 pm. I have to wonder if the topic of high school capacity might not be the highlight given how urgent the need is to make some decisions on how to solve this problem.
Looking at the district calendar, I see only a couple more director meetings on Saturday before the end of the school year. I have to say that with a couple of burning issues on the table - bell times, high school capacity, social studies middle school adoption - it's sad that directors are not available for parents/community to talk to about these issues.
Comments
Gov. Gregoire proposed a cabinet-level Department of Education with a Secretary of Education. This proposal was a non-starter given the constitutional crisis it suggested. A secretary of education could not oversee the entire education system without conflicting with the constitutional authority of the SPI.
--- swk
Also, I find it ironic that the legislature gets paid for not doing its job properly. If they go into special session, doesn't that mean they have not completed their assigned task in the designated time? So why do we reward this behavior? Why are there not high-stakes applied to them? If a special session takes place because the legislature has not completed its work - and in this case its because they wasted a ton of time on worthless ed bills like teacher evals ties to test scores - they should be sanctioned, and lose funds rather than gain funds. Or is accountability only for other people, like teachers?
CT
HP
EdVoter
In my opinion, we (the voters) are getting exactly what we (as a group) voted for. It was obvious from the LAST session that having split chambers leads to deadlock, special sessions, and extra expense -- and then we went out and voted for split chambers again.
Do I like this? No. Well, maybe I should have done more in the last elections to change some close senate seats (can't vote for senators in other districts, but I could have volunteered, helped campaign, etc. -- and I didn't). Maybe others here did, and so have better cause to feel frustrated than I do. But I think that the Senate majority(republican) position of no new taxes, even in the face of the McCleary contempt order was absolutely, 100 percent predictable. And that the House majority (democrat) position that they would not continue in perpetuity to drain every other social saftety net and move funds around in short term bandaids, all to divert funds to McCleary was equally predictable. (Given that the voters set up the marijuana tax usage by initiative, and could clearly have sent that money to fund education if they had wanted to (and didn't) -- I AM surprised that the Republicans so blithely dismantled the will of the voters on that. But in hind sight, I think I was just naive -- and that was predictable as well.)
Jan
I'm thinking the special session would be 5 days tops.
I have friends w/2 kids who relocated there after the husband's job was moved to Provo. Their house in Federal Way had not sold before they moved, and after a couple of months (back when economy was still recovering), they pulled the house off the market, wife and kids moved back up here to continue school in WA and he got an apartment in Provo and flew back every other weekend. They were appalled at the schools - 35-40 kids per classroom, kids much further behind academically, and way more testing than we have (not sure if they were state tests or what - she didn't elaborate). I think the teachers there are even more overworked than ours - I heard stories of them regularly having to cover classes for absent teachers during their planning times (w/out getting paid extra) because the districts try to save money on subs since they are so underfunded. My aunt took early retirement from her district in Salt Lake just days before school started a few years ago because she was set to have 34 1st graders, and the state had just yanked funding for aides for the classrooms. She decided enough was enough.
CT
The problem is too much money, not too little. Don't feed the beast!
Speddie
Just sayin'