Overall, the questions from the board members dealt with the effectiveness of the DIFI plan as set forth by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI). The superintendent assured the board that DPI will not withhold funds from the district as long as MPS continues to follow the DIFI guidelines. They do have the authority of withhold resources from MPS, but not funds. (I'm not as all sure of what he means by resources, . . . but from my point of view as a teacher from Audubon Middle School, we are not getting many resources from DPI to implement the DIFI strategies. We are not a SIFI school, so maybe that's why we are not getting any resources. I would love to hear comments from other MPS teachers as to whether they have had other experiences regarding DPI resources!)
Another concern was about schools that are successful and how these DIFI guidelines may tie their hands. The response to this concern was to assure the board that goal is for successful schools to follow their Educational Plans that should be targeting the achievement gaps in their own settings. So, for schools that are successful, they should continue to implement their Ed Plans. SIFI schools, on the other hand, must implement the mandates and implement all the recommendations given the Ed Plan review board.
Another specific concern was the burden on Special Ed teachers regarding the abundance of compliance documentation. The administration agreed that there is a huge struggle to balance between teaching and learning for Special Ed students and the enormous compliance demands of Special Ed teachers. This will be brought up again at the Special Education Committee meeting.
A teacher from MEC spoke about her issues with the DIFI/SIFI requirements. Her homebase students are identified as Read 180 students, so they get an extra block of reading for Read 180, and therefore have no FAVES and no recess. Also, t 1he Read 180 computers at her school have not worked since the beginning of the school year (for 7 weeks - so this must be a year-round school??). She also mentioned that the DIFI supervisor has not been available to help the school. There was discussion about these issues and promises that the issues will be investigated.
Director Morales expressed on behalf of the board her frustrations around the importance of one test score in determining whether or not our schools are successful. It was a heartfelt statement and certainly resonated with this blogger's personal feelings on the subject!
The second item was the Teach Across America program. The speaker presented a PowerPoint on the program. (There is a copy of the PowerPoint on the link provided in the previous blog.) Some questions I have are:
- Who is paying the Teach for America teachers' salaries?
- Will they be members of the MTEA?
- How highly qualified will these "non-certified" teachers be?
2 comments:
Donna, about $500k per year of the cost of the TFA program will come from MPS. The remainder--about $1.5m annually--is supposed to come from outside resources like the Kern Foundation.
TFA hires fresh-outta-college people with no experience in the classroom, places them for two years, and then expects them to move on to other careers (though some do stay). They will be treated, I imagine, like MTEC teachers, with some benefits of union membership.
I don't think this is the best use of funds, from taxpayers or donated, as I elaborate here. I would rather see the funds support novice (licensed) teachers, or programs like MTEC that encourage teachers to take this on as a career.
Thanks for going to the meetings when the rest of us can't--
I'm a bit suspicious of the Teach for America program myself. I think new teachers are great, don't get me wrong, but we KNOW that it takes between three and six years for a teacher to find that groove. Just when TFA teachers would get close....out they go. I know it's cheaper, but I agree with Jay Bullock that we could invest in people who are actually invested in teaching for life. It seems kind of obvious that we would put our money in a place that would give us a return (basic economics).
Post a Comment