So last week I had the opportunity to listen on a conference call from officials in Sacramento to superintendents and others across the state regarding the federal Race To The Top (RTTT) grant. Though the state did not get RTTT funding and is not on the short list (not news). In the call they indicated that we would be applying again (deadline in June 1) and were “fully committed” to the state reforms that had been put in place as a result of RTTT as well as coming federal reforms.
At about the same time, we are notified about the Persistently Low-Achieving Schools (PLAS) list that was adopted by the State Board of Education (and is part of RTTT legislation). This was done after crazy announcements, changes, modifications, and more announcements – so now we know which of us are PLAS and in the lowest 5% of the state schools (kinda').
I am all for reforming our system and making it better – who can argue with that – but I don’t “get it.” One of the key and “persistent” strategies of both RTTT and PLAS (ergo the state) is to reconstitute poor performing schools by replacing the principal and a large portion of the staff – thereby “fixing” our schools. At the same time there is little or no evidence or research to support that proposition/reform.
For an interesting, multi-perspective of California’s RTTT status and future, I would suggest you look at this website. I would hope that both California and the feds rethink their reconstitution strategy / reform.
It is sad that after a Board Meeting in which there was a poignant plea by CSEA for the Cabinet to return their 10% pay raise in 2009 and questions raised about the district's failure to offer a significant early retirement incentive, like those of other districts, while giving RIF notices to more teachers than any of the surrounding districts, the issue raised this morning is about the paradoxical nature of RTTP and PLAS.
ReplyDeleteAre these the transparent issues which are willing to be addressed? The silence on other much more pressing issues speaks clearly. This is the true paradox.
After this latest news about all staff being replaced at underperforming schools it seems that a large percentage of RUSD staff are in danger of losing their jobs and it will have nothing to do with the budget. Would teachers like to give back the raise they received last year? Would Classified? Of course not. That money is spent. We should all be prepared to take pay cuts and stop complaining about what happened in the past or specific groups. Every industry has employees that go above and byond and others that just don't pull their weight. The educational system is no different. I'm tired of hearing that one group needs to give back raises or cut daily work hours. If one group has to sacrifice then all should. Of course there are more layoff notices for teachers than other employees because they outnumber other groups by a large percentage, however school administrators got layoff notices too. I haven't heard anyone mention that. When many school employees are looking for work I would strongly suggest that people avoid applying at underperforming schools because they might lose those jobs too if the state and federal government keep raising their expectations and cutting funds.
ReplyDeleteThe best and brightest teachers (and administrators) need to be working at any district's most challenging schools. Is the district following the research that clearly shows this practice will positively impact student performance?
ReplyDeleteThese challenging times provide great opportunities for school systems that are willing to think differently and restructure themselves. If they don't, how long will it be before parents begin to seek educational opportunities with schools (public, charter, and private) that do?
Over the past several years when the new schools were being built in Orangecrest and Woodcrest area, the teachers recruited to these schools were the best teachers from our existing schools. It was felt because of the area, income and ethenic groups only the best would do, thus leaving underperforming schools with with less experienced teachers or new teacher with no experience. The test scores have proven this. Why do you think parents wanted to transfer their students to those areas? Everyone knew where the district placed the best. Now the district wants to replaced underperforming staff at underperforming schools. The district wouldn't have to do this if, in the beginning, they would have distributed staff equally at all schools and given all schools the same advantage. Just because a student comes from the other side of town doesn't mean that the student is less smarter than a student living in a richer neighborhood. Not all rich kids are smart!! Maybe if those students at an underperforming school were given some of the teachers the district pulled because they felt were some of their best, then maybe those students test scores would improve. In our district, the quality of student education depends upon location. Lets change this so the quality of education is equal at all schools.
ReplyDeleteI am a teacher at one of those schools that you claim does not have quality teachers, and I resent what you are implying. I speak on behalf of myself and the others at my site when I say that we are working with the population that we are working with by CHOICE! We are just as qualified and experienced as the teachers "up on the hill". To imply that our scores are low because we are substandard teachers is ludicrous. Please have your facts straight before you assume that Riverside Unified only provides quality education to certain zip codes within the city!!!
ReplyDeleteSigned,
A Teacher with 20 Years Experience and Happily Working in 92501
I don't see that you will ever have equality in the performance of schools. Performance is based on many factors, not just the teachers. Parent involvement, cultural values, individual student motivation and whether or not a student is proficient in English are among these factors.
ReplyDeleteJust because an area is more or less affluent is not nearly as important as the message being conveyed to kids at a very early age by their parents that education should be valued and is necessary if you ever want to attain a decent standard of living in today's world.
No matter where you live, if you don't value the opportunity, you won't try your best. That is human nature.
Kudos to the great teachers who choose to teach in the most difficult schools with the students who face challenges that extend well beyond the classroom. We need more like you who are seeking out those difficult assignments. You are changing more that scores...you are changing lives.
ReplyDeleteYou can not devalue a teacher based upon if they teach "on the hill" or not. Each school has different factors that makea teachers job different and present different challenges. I have taught "down the hill" and now "on the hill". Each school is unique and good teachers challenge their students regardless of the above mentioned factors. You know the saying, "don't judge a person (in this case teacher) until you've walked a mile in their shoes!!
ReplyDelete92504 now the 92508
Charter schools (and many innovative public schools) are "figuring it out" when it comes to achievement of high poverty students. Will RUSD support significant reform and flexibility in their schools or wait for the charter schools to meet the need?
ReplyDeleteRUSD does not have any PLAS schools.
ReplyDeleteOne of the guidelines on Dr. Miller’s blog is “no personal attacks.” I am appalled by the comment from Anonymous 12:07 who stated, “Over the past several years when the new schools were being built in Orangecrest and Woodcrest area, the teachers recruited to these schools were the best teachers from our existing schools.” Is the public that uninformed that they think teachers are ‘recruited’ to school sites? When a teacher desires to transfer school sites, they complete a transfer form and interview for the position. You will find amazing teachers are every RUSD school.
ReplyDeleteI also feel the need to respond to Anonymous 9:04 a.m. who stated, “Would teachers like to give back the raise they received last year? Would Classified? Of course not.” To be honest we can’t give back the raise we received last year, because we didn’t receive one, only cabinet members did. My salary is $6800 less this year than last year because of the cuts to BTSA and PAR and I am well aware of many other teachers who also have a decrease to their income as a result of other programs and funds cut this current year.
To the non – RUSD employees who are participating in this blog – please take a moment to talk to an employee before you make uninformed comments
It is not surprising that California did not get RTTT funding. The state has a poor track record, and makes promises that it does not have the courage to keep. Likewise, RUSD could make significant changes in its lowest performing schools by honestly assessing the situation and taking advantage of corrective measures: actually replacing principals and staff, taking a hard look at ineffective curriculum, assessing school plans and budgets, and making adjustments. There is no shortage of research and models outside RUSD to emulate. We need the leadership and courage to actually do it.
ReplyDelete