Early Learning Advocates…We Need Your Input!
Posted on 20. Oct, 2008 by admin.
Posted by Molly
The achievement gap is probably one of the single most alarming issues facing public schools today. Research shows that closing the achievement gap requires closing the school readiness gap. However, we can’t close the preparation gap – and help all children be successful in school – without better understanding the magnitude and nature of the gap which is why a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment is essential.
The good news is that progress is being made! The Legislature directed the Office of Superintendent (OSPI) to work with the Department of Early Learning (DEL) and Thrive by Five Washington (Thrive) to design and pilot a common statewide approach to assessing entering kindergartners’ skills and knowledge upon entering Kindergarten as a strategic way to address the achievement gap epidemic.
As a part of their overall work, The OSPI, DEL and Thrive created a statewide survey about the kindergarten assessment process in Washington State.
This survey allows you - educators, families and early learning stakeholders – to be involved in the process and make your preferences and opinions for a statewide kindergarten assessment process in Washington State known! I encourage everyone to take some time and fill out the survey. http://www.del.wa.gov/development/kindergarten/readiness_plan.aspx
Continue Reading
LIVE BLOGGING: Basic Education Finance Task Force Meeting
Posted on 20. Oct, 2008 by admin.
Posted by Heather
2:40pm-3:30pm
Washington Learns Update
Judy Hartmann, Governor’s Executive Policy Office
Ms. Hartmann provided a review of the Washington Learns report, including the five principles of change within the report.
The five principles are:
1. Share accountability for continuous improvement
2. Tailor education to fit the needs of individuals
3. Bring creativity into the classroom
4. Engage parents, communities and private partners
5. Commit the necessary human financial resources
Ms. Hartmann ran through the strategies included in the report. She was running through the laundry list of strategies and received a question from Chair Grimm when she got to expanding alternative routes for math and science teachers. Chair Grimm asked for more clarification on the routes, including whether candidates received pedagogical training. Ms. Hartmann gave more information, and candidates in these alternative route programs do receive pedagogical training, typically through an institution of higher education.
We then returned to the laundry list — the good news being that much of this list is in progress, rather than on standby.
Ms. Hartmann said the path forward includes three items:
1. A system of shared accountability that is transparent, incentive-based and built on the principles of shared responsibility and continuous improvement
2. A redefinition of basic education, designing a funding structure to support the new definition, and making a significant down payment toward the goals
3. Design a 10-year implementation strategy
Adjournment at 3:30pm.
Continue Reading
LIVE BLOGGING: Basic Education Finance Task Force Meeting
Posted on 20. Oct, 2008 by admin.
Posted by Heather
1:40pm-2:30pm
State Board of Education
Mary Jean Ryan
Ms. Ryan began by giving a brief presentation on CORE 24, highlighting the flexibility of the framework to accommodate students on all paths. This framework is contingent on funding, and the SBE won’t implement it without those dollars. Ms. Ryan also emphasized the need to students to have adequate time in school to master all requirements. Adequate time may mean more periods in a day or being able to demonstrate proficiency through an assessment of some sort. She then segued into the High School and Beyond Plan, mentioning Navigation 101.
Chair Grimm asked for more information about Navigation 101. Ms. Ryan gave a brief explanation of the program, and Chair Grimm said it sounded like “tracking” students. This caused a small uproar among Task Force members, who clarified the program is about helping students weigh their post-secondary options, rather than set them on a path based on test scores or GPA.
Ms. Ryan said to implement CORE 24 effectively we need to provide enough time, funding, materials and facilities for students. Rep. Priest asked if the SBE has projected the number of math and science teachers needed to support CORE 24. Ms. Ryan said they have not come up with hard numbers; the Professional Educator Standards Board is looking into that very issue.
Supt. Kowalkowski asked about the financial implications of going to a six- or seven-period day. Ms. Ryan responded that they don’t have a financial analyst and haven’t costed it out. Dr. Bergeson added that Ms. Priddy will do that work for the SBE.
Supt. Kowalkowski asked about providing more opportunities for students to earn college credit while in high school. Ms. Ryan said the SBE wants to expand those opportunities to kids, including International Baccalaureate, etc.
Dr. Hyde asked a clarifying question about the CORE 24 implementation timeline, and if it would go into full effect by 2016. Ms. Ryan said CORE 24 would be fully implemented as the graduation requirement framework by 2016, except for certain math components, as long as the funding is there.
Ms. Ryan then transitioned into the accountability work being done by the SBE. She didn’t get too far before Chair Grimm asked how long before ineffective administrators are fired. Ms. Ryan explained struggling schools and districts would have two years after initial identification to improve. If no improvement is made in two years, a peer review team would assess the school or district and make a recommendation to the SBE. The recommendation may or may not include an administrative or staffing change. Ms. Ryan also clarified that this authority is not currently held by the SBE, and would need to be granted. There are also funding implications in this proposal. Ms. Ryan said the SBE is trying to finalize their proposal in time for the Task Force to incorporate into its proposal.
Dr. Hyde asked about the number of schools identified as struggling, especially as compared to those schools identified under No Child Left Behind. Ms. Ryan said the number was small, especially in comparison to the “exploding dog” that is NCLB (no joke, her words).
Chair Grimm raised concern over giving too much time to ineffective administrators, which can make an accountability system seem weak.
Rep. Haigh added that struggling administrators need support, and expressed her doubts that local communities would give up their ability to elect local school boards (part of the SBE’s accountability proposal). Ms. Ryan said the possible action taken by the SBE could be a range and not necessarily a progression. She also hears Chair Grimm’s concerns over too much time passing before action is taken.
Dr. Bergeson brought up that the Legislature put into RCW a restriction prohibiting the superintendent of public instruction from intervening in schools.
Chair Grimm brought up the funding realities the state will be facing in the 2009-11 biennium, and cautioned the SBE to consider this when making their recommendations (especially CORE 24). It might make more sense for the SBE to list priorities in their proposals. Ms. Ryan countered that strong high school preparation requires offering a variety of courses and options, because we have students with a wide variety of needs.
Continue Reading
LIVE BLOGGING: Basic Education Finance Task Force Meeting
Posted on 20. Oct, 2008 by admin.
Posted by Heather
10:30am-12:15pm
Work Session, The Cost of Human Capital: How it Affects K-12 Budgets
Moderator: Stephen Nielsen, Puget Sound ESD
Panel: Lucinda Young, John Morrill, Dr. Bill Blakney, Dr. Ken Hoover, Denny Heck
Warning: This portion was all talk, no visuals, and an information overload.
We first heard about statutes governing collective bargaining, including salaries and benefits, and laws in other states.
Mr. Nielsen gave a brief introduction to the panel and Ms. Young, of the WEA, gave the first presentation. Ms. Young spoke about her background as a teacher and union representative in Nebraska, self-described union “goon” in Colorado, and lobbyist for the WEA. She summarized the differences she sees between bargaining in Nebraska, Colorado and Washington, and gave a lengthy description of the bargaining process in Washington (which she likened to “problem solving”).
Chair Grimm asked the presenters think about the advantages and disadvantages of the current system, and any implications to the current system. Rep. Haigh asked about contracts bargained on a three-year basis when the state is on a two-year budget cycle. Ms. Young said they are aware of this issue and often bargain accordingly, leaving room to accommodate for changes in funding.
Dr. Blakney spoke about his experience with bargaining in his roles in Vancouver, Bainbridge Island, Seattle, and Mercer Island. Chair Grimm asked if the current system worked for him, and Dr. Blakney answered it did because he knows the current systems.
Next was Dr. Hoover, superintendent of the Monroe School District. In addition to negotiating salaries and benefits, Dr. Hoover sees bargaining as providing a place for employees to be heard. He also spoke to programs bearing the brunt of fiscal cuts. Chair Grimm asked if “programs” was a euphemism for “staff,” to which Dr. Hoover responded, not really. By programs he means offerings or spaces available for students. Because of staffing ratio minimums, districts can only cut so many staff and often couldn’t cut enough staff to close any budget holes. Rep. Haigh asked about bargaining things like extended sick leave, and Dr. Hoover said they budget for averages and can sit down with the union if those averages are exceeded.
Mr. Morrill spoke about his experience as a UniServ director. He said parties at the bargaining table are aware of districts’ financial situations and work with what they have. He also said he likes the current bargaining system and thinks it should be protected. Mr. Morrill threw in that schools are underfunded, and adequately funding schools will help with bargaining. Districts offer TRI pay because it is a way to make-up for the underfunding by the state. Rep. Priest asked if TRI pay is actually for additional time, responsibility and incentive. From Mr. Morrill’s experience, he said it was true TRI — previously in the form of extra days and now more in the form of extra responsibilities.
Dr. Hyde commented that she, too, wants teachers to earn higher salaries and is sensitive to the problem solving aspects. What concerns her most, however, is the equity in bargaining.
Supt. Kowalkowski said he sees a role for the WEA in bargaining, but can’t help but feel the union’s single goal is additional compensation. Mr. Morrill said the unions aren’t just motivated by compensation.
Supt. Kowalkowski then asked about situations like in Seattle, where they can’t afford building maintenance because of compensation expenditures — and made it clear he was not blaming the unions. Ms. Young said she agrees districts shouldn’t have to make the choice between maintenance and employee compensation and put it down to underfunding of schools.
Chair Grimm asked about data on teacher attrition due to compensation (no one knew of any) and data on salaries of careers comparable to teaching. Mr. Morrill says they have done some analysis but doesn’t have it on hand. He said they usually look at engineers, architects, and the like (which is different from the jobs usually referenced — nurses, social workers, etc).
Chair Grimm also asked if management representatives (i.e. superintendents) work together on bargaining. Dr. Hoover said they do talk to one another but it is difficult to coordinate one plan due to variances between districts.
Then, Chair Grimm asked if any districts bargain contracts that allow for higher pay for shortage areas (e.g. math and science teachers). Dr. Hoover said he knew of none in Washington, but in Colorado, his district would grant years of experience to teachers who taught in hard to fill positions.
Rep. Priest asked about the teaching calendar and the supposed three months off in the summer. In the 1960s, we know they had those 3 months. Do teachers still have that much time today? Mr. Morrill said the summer is usually 10-11 weeks now, and many teachers spend those weeks earning required credits or attending trainings. He added that teachers should be valued because of the work they do.
Supt. Kowalkowski added that districts can use Title II funds to supplement the salaries of math and science teachers, or offer other incentives (ex. Technology). He also said many teachers do not take summers off, and even so, summer is another incentive to draw people into teaching.
Mr. Nielsen brought up the issue of sustainability of the system, and how the current system doesn’t appear sustainable (per the presentations of Ms. Pennucci and Ms. Priddy). Dr. Hoover added the need to consider what happens when contract negotiations reach an impasse (and create a solution that prevents disruptions to the school year).
Continue Reading
LIVE BLOGGING: Basic Education Finance Task Force Meeting
Posted on 20. Oct, 2008 by admin.
Posted by Heather
9:20am-10:15am
TRI Survey Update and Costs of Local Salaries, Benefits and COLAs
Jennifer Priddy, OSPI
Annie Pennucci, WSIPP
Ms. Pennucci began with an overview of TRI (Time, Responsibility, Incentive) pay in the state, and included an update with data from 2007-08. Of the reporting districts, 16 percent offer no TRI pay. The remaining 84 percent of districts offer TRI pay ranging from $276 to $12,539, with a weighted average of $5,581. Factors affecting TRI pay include size of the district (in students), wealth (levy valuation), levy passage amount, and geography.
Ms. Pennucci then provided follow-up data requested at September’s Task Force meeting. It appears higher TRI pay is related to labor market conditions, where areas with tighter labor markets have higher TRI pay.
We then looked at what TRI pay goes toward, there was great variety between districts. In some districts, most TRI pay goes toward Incentive supplements, while in others more TRI pay goes toward Responsibility supplements.
Superintendent Kowalkowski asked about the districts that reported no TRI pay (guessing they were mostly small), and would like the names and sizes of the districts.
Dr. Bergeson asked about which districts not offering TRI pay also do not have levies. Chair Grimm asked a follow-up about the number of districts in the state that do not have levies.
Ms. Priddy’s presentation sought to answer questions posed by Chair Grimm. She began with compensation. Total compensation makes up 82-84 percent of total expenditures by districts (65 percent for salaries, 9 percent for pensions, 11 percent for health insurance). School districts spend $1 billion on health, life and disability insurance for all employees. Districts spend about 8 to 9 percent more per teacher than what the state allocates (typically made up by levy funds).
Ms. Priddy also spoke to supplemental pay. Supplemental pay increases by about 6 percent annually for full-time certificated staff (including extracurricular coaching). Increases in supplemental pay come from COLAs applied to TRI pay, COLAs above the state COLA, increase in extra duties, new incentives, and higher or more frequent class size overload. Chair Grimm clarified that these were all districts’ decisions and not imposed on districts by the state. Ms. Priddy answered, generally yes. Dr. Hyde clarified that sometimes COLAs and increases in benefits can feel like a mandate. Ms. Priddy added that the state does not require COLAs to be applied to supplemental pay, districts make that choice.
Looking at COLAs in 12 large districts, there is large variation in the amount of additional COLAs staff receive. In the 2008-09 school year, teachers in Seattle Public Schools will receive a 5+ percent COLA above the state COLA of 4.4-5.1 percent.
Ms. Priddy closed with the fact that compensation expenditures outpace local, state and federal revenue. In the 2009-10 school year, districts are projected to spend $127-$134 per student on I-732 COLA increases ($28-$35 on COLA increases for all teachers and $99 on COLA on local funds). This is compared to the typical levy growth of $60-100 per student, leaving districts short $27-$94.
