Friday, February 26, 2010
Superintendents: March HAA Meeting Agenda
Click here for a document or here for a pdf of the agenda for the Heartland Administrators Association meeting on Tuesday, March 2. Please remember that we will be spending a portion of the meeting discussing your input about programs and services at Heartland AEA. If you have data you gathered from your administrative teams, please bring it to share during our conversations. We look forward to having your input.
Curriculum Network: March Curriculum Network Meeting Agenda
The March Curriculum Network meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 5 in Rooms 3, 4 & ICN at the Johnston Regional Education Center (6500 Corporate Drive). You can access the agenda and webinar link for the morning sessions at http://curriculumnet.pbworks.com/March-2010-Agenda. The afternoon sessions are more interactive and will not be available by webinar.
Superintendents: Message from the Urban Education Network on 'Race to the Top'
Lew Finch, Executive Director of Urban Education Network (UEN), requested each AEA chief administrator send the following message.
The majority of Urban Education Network (UEN) districts joined other districts in declining to sign a Race To The Top memorandum of understanding due to language embedded in legislation (SF 2033). Concerns focused on the requirement for a district in which a persistently lowest-achieving school is located to implement one of the RTTT models, even without supportive funding, and with the requirement that any plan for addressing persistently lowest-achieving schools must be “negotiated” with the teachers’ association.
In a recent meeting of a House Race To The Top committee, Kevin Fangman, Dept. of Education, disclosed that the process set forth in SF 2033 would also apply to any district application for a federal grant to address low performing schools and students. This includes an application for a School Improvement Grant (SIG). In a subsequent phone conversation with Kevin, he confirmed the position of the department on this issue.
This development confirms a suspicion among UEN superintendents that negotiation with the teachers’ association is likely to be extended to include many other district initiatives to improve the performance of low-performing schools and students, i.e., expand the scope of bargaining. UEN superintendents also contend that this information is unknown to many school board members and superintendents.
Although there are only 20 districts immediately impacted by the RTTT application and legislation, it is inevitable that the number of schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools will increase. And now, with revelation that the process is to be expanded, every Iowa district needs to be cognizant of possible implications since virtually every district has low performing students. Aggressively addressing low performing schools and students transcends any Race To The Top application, and will require a school board and administration to make difficult, bold decisions to implement strategies for “turning around” performance.
The major objection to a requirement to “negotiate” rather than “collaborate” is that efforts of a school board to address the problem of low-performing schools and students will inevitably be diverted to a focus on the welfare of teachers and not students. This assumption is predicated on experience with the negotiation process, and that the teachers’ association is obligated to advocate for those whom they represent, i.e., teachers. There is nothing wrong with efforts of the teachers’ association to advocate for the welfare of those whom they represent, but this is not the appropriate place for such advocacy.
In the event the first application for an RTTT grant is unsuccessful, there will likely be a second application submitted later this spring. The stated goal of Director Jeffrey, the Governor and members of the General Assembly is to encourage all Iowa districts to sign on to the application. Unless the language embedded in SF 2033 requiring negotiation is revised to collaboration, the majority of UEN districts are not likely to change their original decision.
It was suggested to Director Jeffrey that it would be in the best interest of the Department of Education to survey Iowa school boards and superintendents to determine how many would be willing to support a second application without a revision of SF 2033 language, and knowing that the requirement to “negotiate” school improvement plans has now been expanded. Such a revision would have to be enacted before the current session of the General Assembly adjourns, so time is short. Absent any organized survey, please indicate to your legislative delegation how your board may respond to a request for support of a second application under the circumstances.
The ISEA has been successful in convincing many legislators that the process is merely to involve teachers in collaboration in the process of developing school improvement plans. However, there is a distinct difference between “collaboration” and a requirement to “negotiate”. The UEN has developed a position statement and suggested revisions of SF 2033.
The majority of Urban Education Network (UEN) districts joined other districts in declining to sign a Race To The Top memorandum of understanding due to language embedded in legislation (SF 2033). Concerns focused on the requirement for a district in which a persistently lowest-achieving school is located to implement one of the RTTT models, even without supportive funding, and with the requirement that any plan for addressing persistently lowest-achieving schools must be “negotiated” with the teachers’ association.
In a recent meeting of a House Race To The Top committee, Kevin Fangman, Dept. of Education, disclosed that the process set forth in SF 2033 would also apply to any district application for a federal grant to address low performing schools and students. This includes an application for a School Improvement Grant (SIG). In a subsequent phone conversation with Kevin, he confirmed the position of the department on this issue.
This development confirms a suspicion among UEN superintendents that negotiation with the teachers’ association is likely to be extended to include many other district initiatives to improve the performance of low-performing schools and students, i.e., expand the scope of bargaining. UEN superintendents also contend that this information is unknown to many school board members and superintendents.
Although there are only 20 districts immediately impacted by the RTTT application and legislation, it is inevitable that the number of schools identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools will increase. And now, with revelation that the process is to be expanded, every Iowa district needs to be cognizant of possible implications since virtually every district has low performing students. Aggressively addressing low performing schools and students transcends any Race To The Top application, and will require a school board and administration to make difficult, bold decisions to implement strategies for “turning around” performance.
The major objection to a requirement to “negotiate” rather than “collaborate” is that efforts of a school board to address the problem of low-performing schools and students will inevitably be diverted to a focus on the welfare of teachers and not students. This assumption is predicated on experience with the negotiation process, and that the teachers’ association is obligated to advocate for those whom they represent, i.e., teachers. There is nothing wrong with efforts of the teachers’ association to advocate for the welfare of those whom they represent, but this is not the appropriate place for such advocacy.
In the event the first application for an RTTT grant is unsuccessful, there will likely be a second application submitted later this spring. The stated goal of Director Jeffrey, the Governor and members of the General Assembly is to encourage all Iowa districts to sign on to the application. Unless the language embedded in SF 2033 requiring negotiation is revised to collaboration, the majority of UEN districts are not likely to change their original decision.
It was suggested to Director Jeffrey that it would be in the best interest of the Department of Education to survey Iowa school boards and superintendents to determine how many would be willing to support a second application without a revision of SF 2033 language, and knowing that the requirement to “negotiate” school improvement plans has now been expanded. Such a revision would have to be enacted before the current session of the General Assembly adjourns, so time is short. Absent any organized survey, please indicate to your legislative delegation how your board may respond to a request for support of a second application under the circumstances.
The ISEA has been successful in convincing many legislators that the process is merely to involve teachers in collaboration in the process of developing school improvement plans. However, there is a distinct difference between “collaboration” and a requirement to “negotiate”. The UEN has developed a position statement and suggested revisions of SF 2033.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)