School-of-Thought

After a year and a half of work, our school district’s teacher evaluation and professional growth tool is ready for primetime. It will be presented to the school board for review at our upcoming meeting on Monday.  In reviewing the pre-meeting material, I’m pretty excited about what I see. Developed from scratch through a collaborative effort between our teacher’s union and administration, the tool lays out clear and demanding standards for our teachers – and establishes a process for professional growth and development unlike anything we’ve ever had before.

According to Education Secretary Duncan, teacher evaluations are something that’s broken in our country:

“The truth is that students and teachers don’t live in mythic Lake Wobegon, where According toeveryone is above average. Yet we have an evaluation system today that pretends otherwise. As a result, great teachers don’t get recognized, don’t get rewarded, and don’t help their peers grow. The teachers in the middle of the skills spectrum don’t get the support they need to improve. And the teachers at the bottom don’t get the support they need either, and if they do and still don’t improve, they need to be counseled out of the profession.”

It seems to me our new instrument will go along way in addressing his concerns, and will help us continue to strive toward our ultimate goal of improving student achievement. 

The tool establishes a “professional growth rubric” based upon seven area of a teacher’s job performance. These seven areas are:

• Planning and preparing for learning
• Delivery of instruction
• Building relationships with students
• Classroom management
• Monitoring, assessment and follow-up
• Family and community outreach
• Professional responsibilities

The rubrics are designed to give teachers an assessment of where they stand in all performance areas along with detailed guidance on what’s expected to improve. To have enough knowledge to make decisions about the rubric areas, principals will observe teachers in their classrooms frequently throughout the school year – up to 10-12 times per year!

The intent is to establish a four-year staggered evaluation cycle, with about one-quarter of the teachers starting into the cycle during any given year. Year one calls for ten to twelve walk-through visits by the principal with feedback provided through reflection questioning. The teachers will also respond to the questions. The second year is goal setting for the teacher. The third year will have the teacher select two of the seven components of the rubric to have the principal review during the walk-through visits (five to seven). The fourth year is another year of goal setting for the teacher.

The rubric classifies teachers in each of the seven areas of evaluation as:

(1) Distinguished – “reserved for truly outstanding teachers as described by the demanding criteria of the area;”

(2) Proficient – describing “solid professional performance;”

(3) Professional Support Needed – indicating that “performance has deficiencies” that must be corrected; and

(4) Does Not Meet Standard – an “unacceptable level of performance that must be remediated immediately.”

If the assessment finds areas of ineffective teaching practice, the plans calls for the teacher to be put on a plan of improvement with specific goals and resources provided the teacher to remediate the problem. Once remediation occurs, the plan calls for the teacher to be returned to the normal evaluation cycle. If the problem is not remediated, the plan calls for teacher termination.

What excites me about the plan is that it establishes a system to provide real opportunities for teachers to improve their performance, but also weeds out those who ultimately can’t meet the district’s standards.

There’s no question in my mind that good teachers know what it takes to be highly professional and effective in the classroom. This tool sets out a process to help them get even better.  And that’s good news.

Thoughts?

At a recent school board conference, two of the guys sitting at my table were talking about how ugly teacher contract negotiations had become at their schools.  I couldn’t help but shake my head as I thought to myself how sad that description was.  My experience has been that contract negotiations were sometimes challenging, sometimes pointed, but always fair and professional — never “ugly.” 

Later, during a time set aside for dialog and discussion, I asked the group:

“How do you reduce acrimony between the teachers union and your school board during contract negotiations?”  I got a few soft whispers and hushed moans as an immediate response, but that was followed by good, positive dialog.

 Some of the answers were:

• Make all conversations open and honest.
• Be transparent in everything. 
• Be fair.
• Understand that everyone has a role.  Don’t stray from that role, and don’t take anything personally.

What do you think?  If you were in the room participating in contract negotiations, what suggestions would you have to improve the process?

This is a great video to challenge teachers and help all of us understand the difference between a teacher and an educator (the video is a good investment in 3 minutes, trust me).  Are our children’s teachers fire extinguishers, or the igniter of flames?

A few days ago I wrote about a question posed by Scott Mcleod. He asked if “smart people are leaving teaching.” Based on his data, it would sure seem like they are. Here are my thoughts:

First, if a smart person values money more than they value the sense of purpose, passion and pride they receive from being a teacher, they would have to be a pretty dumb person to stay in teaching. Fortunately, most teachers in my experience go into the profession because of their love of teaching and making a difference in the world. That being said, love of teaching doesn’t pay the bills . . .

The critics say teachers make enough, especially for only working 9 months a year. But the trends of our best and brightest teachers leaving the profession, and the less-than-stellar academic achievements of our young people compared to other countries in the world, makes me think that as a society we need to re-evaluate the inherent value these people bring to the table and pay them what they are worth.

In our school district about 85-86% of the money we receive goes to pay teacher salaries. We run a lean ship. Each year the legislature evaluates the amount of money school districts in our state will receive. If the legislature provides us with a 3% increase, essentially that’s the maximum we can pass along to our teachers. If we provided them more than we received, for example a 4% increase, it wouldn’t be too long before we were broke.

How do we keep smart teachers teaching? Hell, pay ‘em more, respect ‘em more, show our appreciation more . . . but also, keep ‘em accountable. Hire teachers with potential – spend money on grooming and developing and training them to simply be the best. Set the bar high and demand excellence.

Our goal as a society should be to create a working force of highly motivated and appropriately compensated professional educators that will transform our country’s educational system to second-to-none in the world.

Agree or disagree, let me know!

I received an email today that asked, in part, “What can we do in South Dakota to improve the quality of our teachers?”

My first thought was that this question is so important that South Dakotans should be debating it with the same intensity as we debate the question what can we do to increase educational funding?

Sufficient funding is vital for a district or state to operate an educational system. But so is educational organization and educational intensity — in other words, our leadership, our alignment of educational processes, and the sense of urgency we create for our students and teachers to achieve at a higher level.

My second thought drifted to a blog I read by Scott Mcleod, a prof and k-12 academic expert, titled “Low abilty teachers, low ability students?”

Scott asks the question: Are smart people leaving teaching?

He then provides this chart:

I’ve got a few thoughts about how teacher quality can be improved, but rather than share them now, I’d rather ask of anyone would care to share their ideas first. Read Scott’s blog, and then respond below. Let’s have a conversation. This is a very, very important question.

Take a look at this: Teacher Suspended for Refusing to Give Test, by the Associated Press. Thoughts, anyone?

Great Power Point on
“Why Teachers Matter,” by the National School boards Association.

Presented at last month’s national conference, the evidence-based presentation describes the impact of effective versus ineffective teachers on students’ academic achievement.

One slide in particular hit me over the head: when a child is exposed to three consecutive effective teachers, research shows 83 points in student gains. When exposed to three consecutive ineffective teachers, academic gains are reduced to 29 points (or 54 points less).

Click here for “Because Teachers Matter: Effective Strategies for Strengthening Teacher Quality.”

High fives for Watertown educator Casey Feininger and his high school electronic publishing class for producing an amazing video for teacher recruitment.

During last summer’s school board retreat session, teacher recruitment and retention was identified as one of the district’s priority goals. As a result, Superintendent Hanson started the wheels in motion to develop a student production showcasing our school district and community. And believe me, this is no ordinary high school production! Be prepared to be impressed.

The video provides information about our the Watertown School District, some of our programs, including our six year 1:1 laptop initiative, details about the community, athletic programs, fine art programs, and employee benefits.

Here is the link: Watertown Teacher Recruitment Video. Turn up the video, click on the links, and like I said, be prepared to be impressed!

During last night’s Watertown School Board meeting an unprecidented three-year teacher contract was Ok’d. What follows are some of my personal notes from the meeting. These are notes I either took in preparation for the meeting, during, or after the meeting. These are not the district’s notes, nor are they the notes from any other board member. They are not anything official. I provide them here simply to provide more information and to encourage feedback or questions.

For the first time in the history of our community (or as far as anyone can remember), the contracts have expanded to cover three school years: 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. Personally, I believe the expansion and content of the contracts are a direct reflection of the trust and positive working relationship that exist between the Board and the WEA, as well as a positive district culture that’s been established by our new superintendent, Dr. Hanson.

In addition to salary changes, the language in the new Certified Contract was expanded to include teacher assistants, nurses, social workers and occupational therapists. The new salaries for employees covered under the Certified Contract will be:

• 2008-09: Increase of $2,200, which is equal to an average increase of 5.57%. The base salary increases by $1,750 to $29,250.
• 2009-10: Increase of $1,755, which is equal to an average increase of 4.19%. The base salary increases by $1,500 to $30,750.
• 2010-11: Increase of $2,000, which is equal to an average increase of 4.55%. The base salary increases by $1,250 to $32,000.

This is also the first year the WEA represented classified groups. The salaries of classified employees will increase 6.09% in 2008-9, 5% in 2009-10, and 4.55% in 2010-11.

A last thought: one of the criticisms heard from the Governor this year has been that school districts were hoarding money in reserves, instead of providing raises to teachers. Together with planned efficiencies by the school district over the next three years, we estimate a reduction in the reserve fund of approximately 5%, leaving us a projected reserve balance of about 16%.

 I received an interesting question about random drug testing for teachers.  In response, I’ll share my opinion, but understand like everything else I express here, these are solely my thoughts.

Often times when a school board has a question like this that needs to be answered in real-life, the board consults with an attorney that’s specially trained in education law.  I imagine state or federal law probably addresses this question since it deals with competing issues of teacher privacy versus public safety for the students.  I’ll give you my honest answer, but understand my what I say here would change if our education lawyer told me my opinion was contrary to law.

That being said, I have no problem requiring public educators to: (1) submit to pre-employment examinations that include drug testing; and (2) submit to post-employment drug testing if there is some degree of reasonable suspicion that a particular teacher is using illegal drugs.  I believe it’s vitally important to protect our children, and school boards should do everything possible to do that.  Within reason, I believe the security of our children trumps the privacy of our teachers.  However, in regard to random drug testing for teachers, unless required by law, I would not support that policy.  Random post-employment testing, without reasonable suspicion, crosses the line, in my opinion. 

I hope that answers one reader’s question.

Though I’m not a big fan of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Sunday’s front page story on South Dakota teacher salaries by journalist Terry Woster provides a great understanding of the difficult funding issues facing education in our state.

I’m sure I heard it a thousand times during session that legislators were sick-and-tired of hearing how South Dakota ranks last in the country in teacher pay.  There’s no question in my mind that both parties came to Pierre this year intent on changing that — but the reality is – good intentions only go so far.     

As a starting point for comparison, Woster provides teacher salary numbers from the 2005-6 school year.  In South Dakota, the average teacher salary that year was $34,709. 

That’s $3,064 less than neighboring North Dakota at $37,773, Continue reading “State Priority #1: Attract and Retain Quality Teachers”

Talk about provocative!  This quote is from an educator’s blog:  

We must reject the ideology of the “achievement gap” that absolves adults of their responsibility and implies student culpability in continued under-performance. The student achievement gap is merely the effect of a much larger and more debilitating chasm: The Educator Achievement Gap. We must erase the distance between the type of teachers we are, and the type of teachers they need us to be.

Any thoughts?  Click here for the site.