The Echo

ttp://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2010/04/diane_ravitch_isnt_the_only.html
Harvard Scholar Makes a Turnaround on Choice


By Debra Viadero on April 13, 2010 4:09 PM

Diane Ravitch isn't the only education scholar undergoing something of an ideological transformation these days. Harvard academic Paul E. Peterson comes to a similar conversion in his new book, Saving Our Schools, which is being published this month by the Harvard University Press.

Peterson is best known for his advocacy of school choice programs in the 1990s. Now, however, he says he has come to recognize that the school choice movement, which never produced the achievement gains its advocates had hoped for, may never be politically viable. He chalks it up, along with the accountability movement, progressivism, teacher unionization, desegregation, and court-ordered school finance reforms. as just another movement in education that failed to ensure that all children receive a challenging education, regardless of where they live.

"Both Diane and I have an unhappy view of where we are today," Peterson said in an interview here at Education Week yesterday. "But where her dissatisfaction goes back to the last 10 years, mine goes back much farther. ... The reforms of the last 50 to 60 years haven't been able to shake the education system out of its stagnant condition."

So, in his new book, which traces the history of American education from Horace Mann to Bill Bennett and beyond, Peterson is placing his next bet on virtual schooling, which he hopes will eventually customize learning for every child. To illustrate his faith in the medium's potential, he relates the story of the Florida Virtual School, which began in 1997 in Orlando and is now the country's largest state-run online school.

"Virtual schooling is still in its infancy," he said, "but it certainly has transformative capacities that none of these other things have."

As for charter schools, which Peterson has also championed, he expresses a more agnostic view. While the growth of this new breed of public schools has outstripped that of privately funded choice programs, he says, charters still have a long way to go to transform schooling nationwide. "Their promise may be in that they become a vehicle for virtual schools," he said.

You can hear Peterson discuss his new views today at a panel discussion at the Brookings Institution. Eduwonk also features a debate between Peterson and Ravitch, who favors a return to neighborhood schools and a faith in teacher professionalism as a means of improving schooling. The next print edition of Education Week (cover date: April 21) will also feature a back-page Commentary by Peterson.

In contrast to recent events in Rhode Island, the LA school board voted last night to turn over management of 30 schools to non-profit education groups, including some that are comprised of parents, teachers, and administrators already in place.  Of note, the school board was instrumental in creating a mechanism by which communities could propose plans for the operation of their schools.  And the board resoundingly, with the superintendents recommendation, reaffirmed many of those plans. In a small number of cases, the board chose operaters other than those recommended by administration.

 Here's the latest: from http://www.dailybreeze.com/.  Click on the story to link back.

The Los Angeles school board on Tuesday approved a plan to turn over the operation of 30 campuses to nonprofit educational groups, but most of the groups are led by teachers and administrators already in place.



After a 4 1/2-hour meeting that featured nearly 50 speakers, the board approved most of Superintendent Ramon Cortines' recommendations for 12 of the district's most problematic schools and 18 new ones for the 2010-11 academic year.


The vote represented the first round of Cortines' plan to turn over about a third of the district's schools to nonprofit groups with the goal of boosting student achievement.


The groups were selected from among 85 proposals submitted to the district under the Public School Choice Program adopted last year.


"Today we launch a new era at LAUSD of quality, of leadership and accountability - something that this board had the courage to elevate and make real," said board member Yolie Flores Aguilar, who last year introduced the School Choice Program resolution.


"Today we are no longer the insular institution we once were," she said. "But more important, what today represents is that mediocrity is not OK, and that we place high value first and foremost on quality education for all students."

In most cases, members backed Cortines' recommendations, but at some schools - such as Barack Obama Global Preparatory Academy, Esteban Torres High School and Griffith-Joyner Elementary School - the board selected different operators.


"We need to act now for all our students to succeed," Cortines said at the start of the meeting. "We must ensure our students are successful from pre-K to adult schools."


After several weeks of review, Cortines last week made his recommendations for each of the affected campuses - with the proposed operators including charter school companies; collaborations of parents, teacher and local district administrators; and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's Partnership for Los Angeles Schools.


"This has been a process of inclusion, collaboration, transparency and transformation at all levels - within the staff rooms, community centers and living rooms of everyone involved," Cortines said.


The plan to allow outside groups to govern individual campuses angered some education advocates, including the teachers union, United Teachers Los Angeles. On Tuesday, about 200 teachers and parents protested outside the board meeting.


But given the board's approval of the process, UTLA helped some groups of teachers and local school administrators submit management proposals, and those groups make up the bulk of Cortines' recommendations.


UTLA President A.J. Duffy said last week he was pleased that Cortines had recommended that the parent/teacher/administrator teams operate more than three-quarters of the schools up for bid. But he called on the school board to reject the superintendent's recommendation that outside operators, such as charter school companies, be given control of some campuses.


"We want the school board members to review all the teacher/parent plans the superintendent did not recommend," Duffy said. "Local communities wrote plans. Parents made their choice. Both of these should be respected."

The board's vote was preceded by dozens of speakers lobbying for their own particular group. Most were supportive of the concept of allowing different groups to operate schools in hopes of bringing new ideas into the district.


"I always hoped this day would come," teacher Roberta Benjamin told board members.


The school choice program "is the first step to breaking down the wall between charter public schools and non-charter public schools," she said.


Former teacher Yvette King-Berg said that no matter which side you were on, "the bar is being set higher" by allowing outside groups to manage certain campuses.


Former U.S. Rep. Esteban E. Torres, whose name graces an East Los Angeles high school, said the principal goal of the Public School Choice program is to develop the kind of schools "the community wants."


Although there was disagreement among some groups over the operators of particular schools, board member Steven Zimmer said he was impressed with all the proposals that were submitted.


"This is not about politics," he said. "It's not about pressure. It's not about power. It's not about land. It's not about facilities. It's about our children and our families and this could be about hope. Because there was hope in the living rooms and classrooms and community rooms where these plans were being written."

Last Wednesday, Dr. Lowery noted that the DOE has recently engaged with Mass Insight to assist in some of the many reforms that Delaware is undertaking, regardless of whether we receive RttT funding or not.

In referring to Markell's Blueprint for Education, published while he was still candidate Markell and not the Gov., Dr. Lowery stated, "if we don't get RttT, this is going to fall apart, but we are doing this" as she stood before a large screen projection of "Exhibit 1" of the State's application.

Then, tonight, I'm trolling Mass Insight's website and stumble upon this little nugget of information:

STG's (SCHOOL TURNAROUND GROUP)continued work produces organizational strategies, work plans, and manuals for states, large urban districts, and outside funding partners to turn around low-performing schools through a new system of turnaround zones with improved operating conditions, Lead Partners, and other supports. The "Partnership Zone Initiative," which has received startup funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, with matching support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will establish turnaround zones”in up to three states in 2009-2013 to serve as proof-points for these school turnaround and district redesign strategies.

And I can't help but ask, "Why am I spending time looking for the peer-reviewed model, when it appears that is the role that Delaware will play for the nation?"

Which would be fine and dandy, if there was proof that it worked.  And if we knew for certain that any district could opt-out of the MOU at any point without penalty?  Right now, the Fed language is "mutually agreeable."  And if DEDOE would put it in writing that if a district fails to succeed in meeting AYP or mutually opts-out that said district would only have to return the unspent portions of the sum and will not be responsible for repaying spent funds.

And I did ask for that in writing last Wednesday? You bet, but it was laughed off.  Only, I must have a longer memory than most b/c not too long ago we were settling lawsuits out of court that we incurred b/c we didn't have to funds to pay for the contract we engaged upon ...

And the moral of the yet-unwritten story is this:  If Delaware is the MODEL, DOE will never mutually agree for a district to opt-out nor will any be permitted to fail and thus, we could in fact see local control thoroughly eroded ...

Time to teach the Board Member:

Would you please share with me your experiences of a "48 Hour Meeting?" You can do so anonymously using the comment link at the bottom of this post.

Your time and effort is always appreciated,
Elizabeth Scheinberg

From Teacher Magazine at http://www.teachermagazine.org/tm/articles/2009/09/02/rtt_explained.html?tkn=YNTF9IX1JRMrm4etRAgFOPrwpkMiLw8HmXZS

Published: September 2, 2009

What Teachers Need to Know About Race to the Top

As states continue the scramble for education dollars this year, teachers may hear frequent references to a federal grant program called “Race to the Top.” What exactly does it mean for classroom educators?

The Race to the Top Fund, part of the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package, is a $4.35 billion competitive grant program for states, administered by the U.S. Department of Education. It is designed to encourage states to make coordinated, large-scale education improvement efforts across a number of policy areas that the Education Department sees as key.

The Criteria
According to draft plans outlined by the department in July, there are 19 proposed criteria that states’ will be judged on when submitting reform plans for Race to the Top money. Central among them is the state’s use of student-achievement data for evaluating teachers and principals. Under the guidelines, if a state bars the use of student-achievement data in teacher-evaluation decisions—as California and New York currently do—the state would automatically be disqualified from the grant process.

On the whole, the list of criteria revolves around the four central reform areas: States must adopt internationally benchmarked standards; improve the recruitment, retention, and rewarding of educators; improve data collection; and turn around the lowest-performing schools.
Under the proposed guidelines, the Education Department would give extra weight to grant proposals that focus on science, technology, engineering, and math, known as the STEM subjects.
States with alternative-certification routes for teachers and principals, and merit-pay plans for educators, would also be given preference.

States would also be judged on whether they have statewide backing for their reform plan, including from teachers’ unions. A letter of endorsement from the state union would be considered evidence of such support.

Under the current schedule, proposed guidelines for the program would be finalized in October, and applications from states would be due in December. Awards would be made to successful states in March 2010, with a second wave of grants scheduled for the following September.

Defining Teacher Quality
As is clear from the criteria for approval, teachers in states that ultimately receive Race to the Top grants could see significant changes in their practic, ranging from curriculum reforms to new ways of using student data to plan instruction. But the biggest changes for teachers are expected to come from the program’s emphasis on revamping teacher-quality systems (via recruiting, retention, and compensation strategies) by integrating them, at least in part, with student-achievement data.

“Successful state proposals will plan to strengthen the entire ‘talent chain’—recruitment, preparation and credentialing, placement, induction, professional development, evaluation, advancement, and retention,” wrote Joanne Weiss, the Education Department’s director of Race to the Top, in a recent Education Week Commentary. “In particular, we want schools and districts to know which teachers are effective (as measured in significant measure by how their students are improving academically), and to ensure that local decision makers use this information to inform key decisions. …”

As Education Week Staff Writer Stephen Sawchuk reported in his analysis of the proposed guidelines, states “must commit to using their teacher-effectiveness data for everything from evaluating teachers to determining the type of professional development they get to making decisions about granting tenure and pursuing dismissals.”

Those reforms, however, have encountered opposition from teachers' unions, which have traditionally been leary of linking teacher evaluation to student-achievement data. The unions harbor particular concerns about the technical quality of the student tests that would be used to judge their members’ performance. They have also expressed concern about the validity of the value-added methodologies—systems that seek to determine the extent to which individual teachers are contributing to students’ academic performance. Both the National Educators Association and the American Federation of Teachers, as well as many state unions, have submitted comments on the Race to the Top guidelines to the Education Department.

How well the unions succeed in changing the Education Department’s position will be determined when the final guidelines are released in October.

Later this year, CSD will enter into contract negotiations with its own teachers.

Will Christina take the "radical" approach? Or will it be business as usual? I don't know the answer to that question and with our own new Superintendent at the helm, the only response I can offer is time will tell.

From Education Week - A look into the plans of Philadephia's one year young Superintendent, Arlene C. Ackerman.

Leader in Philly Seeks Change in Teacher Rules

Arlene C. Ackerman, who took the helm of Philadelphia’s public schools a little more than a year ago, is pushing for changes that would upend how teachers are paid and assigned to schools.

The veteran urban superintendent is battling tradition in the 167,000-student system, but insists that increasing the effectiveness of the city’s nearly 10,700 teachers is a central goal of her leadership. Her administration is currently negotiating a new, multiyear contract with the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

“The kinds of things I am talking about are radical,” Ms. Ackerman said. “I want teachers who will come to Philadelphia and work in our neediest schools, and who see themselves as experts at educating children in the most challenging communities.”

While the changes would be major for Philadelphia, most have been put in place in other large districts, including New York and Chicago. Ms. Ackerman’s decision to tackle the touchy issue underscores the prominence of teacher effectiveness on the national school reform agenda.

President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have made teacher policy a centerpiece of the Race to the Top competition, the $4.35 billion grant program that is part of the federal stimulus package pledged for public schools.

More than 20 advocacy groups in Philadelphia also have rallied around teacher quality and are calling for many of the same policy changes Ms. Ackerman is seeking. Their campaign is called “Effective Teaching for All Children: What It Will Take.” And a recent settlement of Philadelphia’s 40-year-old desegregation case requires the district to take steps to ensure the neediest schools are staffed with more experienced teachers.

In fact, the settlement agreement gives Ms. Ackerman the authority to impose many of the changes she is seeking in 85 of the city’s neediest schools, but she said she prefers to collaborate with the union. The School Reform Commission, which has governed the district since a state takeover in 2002, also has the authority to impose such provisions, but has never opted to do so.

“We have the hammer, but I’d much rather work with them than ram this down their throats,” Ms. Ackerman said of members of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

The superintendent has substantial political capital and legal backing to push the PFT to agree to measures the union has previously rejected, said one education scholar who has done research on the city’s teaching corps.

“There’s a convergence of many important factors here that give the superintendent tremendous backup,” said Betsey Useem, a researcher for the Philadelphia-based Research for Action. “She also benefits from just a torrent of national research now on the whole issue of teacher quality and student learning gains. This is really in the water supply now of education reform.”

New Evaluation System?
The school district is seeking to assign teachers with track records of raising achievement to the city’s hardest-to-staff schools and to offer incentives—both monetary and nonmonetary—to keep them there for at least five years. Also on the agenda are scrapping all seniority-based transfer rights and giving principals and school hiring teams the authority to hire every teacher for their campuses, and raising teachers’ base salaries and using a tiered system to pay those with certain areas of expertise and proven results even more.

One major obstacle, Ms. Useem pointed out, is the unresolved Pennsylvania state budget, which so far has kept the district and union from being able to hash out any final agreements on salaries and benefits.

A one-year contract between the district and the PFT was set to expire Aug. 31, but district and union leaders, who have been meeting twice a week for much of the summer, agreed to extend it to Oct. 31 in the hope that the state budget will be final by then.

Jerry T. Jordan, the president of the 16,000-member PFT, declined to comment on the superintendent’s goal of improving teacher quality. He emphasized that the union is focused on its long-standing priorities: safe and orderly classrooms, reduced class sizes, and more resources and supplies in classrooms.

“Having good working conditions for teachers will make the biggest impact on our students,” Mr. Jordan said.

To make her case for an overhaul of the contract, Ms. Ackerman points to several things.

One is the district’s evaluation system for teachers, which rates them as either satisfactory or unsatisfactory based on a single observation each year by a principal for a tenured teacher, and two observations for those with less than three years’ experience.

“Before this last year, we only had 13 teachers who were rated as unsatisfactory, and only five lost their jobs because they failed to perform,” Ms. Ackerman said. “That says a lot.”

The superintendent said she wants to set a series of specific standards for principals to use to evaluate teachers. She also plans to create a professional-development program to train teachers to meet and maintain those standards.

Using student-achievement data as part of evaluations is “something that is important and should be part of the evaluation,” Ms. Ackerman said, but is not something she is pushing for in this contract.

Mr. Jordan said nothing in previous contracts has precluded principals from writing more-nuanced evaluations of teachers and suggesting ways for them to improve. But he said the union is “open to talking about changes to the current system.”

‘Strategic Compensation’
While Ms. Ackerman declined to share details in a recent interview, she is also advocating what she calls “strategic compensation” that would pay teachers who have specialized training and credentials in high-need areas more money. If those same teachers agree to work in a high-need school, they should receive even more, she said.

To tackle the difficult problem of attracting the strongest teachers to the weakest schools and keeping them there, Ms. Ackerman also wants to offer nonmonetary incentives. One approach she wants to try—at the suggestion of several teachers she has met with—is placing cohorts of five or six teachers in the toughest schools so they “don’t have to go alone” and may find it more palatable to stay.

Another top priority for Ms. Ackerman—and a major sticking point for the union—is eliminating the role of seniority when teachers transfer schools and empowering principals and school-based hiring committees to select all teachers. In Philadelphia, principals now are able to fill only half their teaching vacancies with hires that they choose; the other half are reserved for seniority transfers.

The city’s advocacy groups fought hard for such a provision in the 2004 contract, and were disappointed when the district and the union struck the deal to keep some teaching vacancies subject to seniority.

“We know that full site selection in and of itself is not a panacea,” said Brian Armstead, the director of civic engagement for the Philadelphia Education Fund, one of the groups behind the effective-teaching campaign. “But the teachers’ union response to doing this has been an automatic rejection.

“What we are saying is that it has to be done in a way where teachers feel empowered,” he said, “and where the committees aren’t stacked with people who always agree with the principal.”

Establishing site-based hiring that includes decisionmakers other than the principal is a “really sound proposal,” said Sandi Jacobs, the vice president for policy at the National Council on Teacher Quality, a Washington-based research and advocacy organization for improvement of the teaching profession.

"We think that mutual-consent hiring practices are one of the most important things districts can do," Ms. Jacobs said. "It means that a teacher doesn't end up in a position that he or she doesn't want, and principals don't end up with teachers he or she doesn't want."

Coverage of leadership is supported in part by a grant from the Wallace Foundation.

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
http://www.philly.com/philly/education/48695437.html?page=1&c=y

Sources tell me it's alive and well in Delaware, too.

What do you think?

More News from PA:

Administration Shelves Pa. Graduation Exam Plan
By The Associated Press via Education Week

Harrisburg, Pa.
The Rendell administration Monday temporarily shelved plans to develop graduation competency exams for Pennsylvania high school students in hopes of making peace with legislative critics who felt the administration was moving too fast.

Read the article here:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/06/22/283357pgraduationexams_ap.html

When Teacher's Unite:
Last night, Keene Elementary School's Educators showed out in force for their school counselor who learned earlier in the week that she was among CSD personnel to be RIF'd (layed-off by Reduction In Force) come the completion of her contract in June.

For more than an hour they presented statements from parents, students, and school and district staff in support of keeping stand-out employee. They left victorious, managing to defer the vote to next month's Board Meeting. But, this fight is far from over and while the Keene Supporters are trying to keep Dawn Hagan, there are 10 other names (or rather numbers) on the list for terminations.

Where to Start? I have far more questions than answers on this one:

1) When 10% of the school population, 100 students, at Shue-Medill is absent daily, how can we as district justify laying off guidance counselors?

2) When both Shue and Kirk have failed to make Academic Yearly Progress, AYP, and both schools have disproportionately high rates of out-of-school suspensions, how can we even consider RIFing counseling staff?

3) When our guidance staff members play integral roles, serving as their school's steward, in the Response to Intervention Program, RIT, the model currently being utilized by CSD to match student need with resources, how can we even contemplate cutting this staff?

4) With our high school students bring guns to school and our drop-out rate through the roof, how will we even begin to reach these students with limited to no access to mental health professionals.

Our school psychologists cannot be in the schools every hour, nor every day. It is our counselors who are in the battle field, dealing with children of divorce, abuse, neglect, homelessness, children who are bullies and those tormented by them, they reach out during tragedies such as house fires and deaths of family and friends, national moments of sadness such as 9/11 and Columbine. They teach our children the right way to respond to stresses, reaffirm identity and teach self-esteem.

I could go on and on about the value of counselors, but I shouldn't have to.

When a teacher who's never attended one of these meetings and facing an 8-10% pay cut stands before your school board and says both my wife and I educators in the CSD and we will gladly take an additional pay cut to keep this school counselor you have to take notice.

In this day, when we as a business community outsource so many functions, we are all aware that that you can seldom outsource caring with success. When your counselor is employed by your school, your district, they have a vested interest in your community. When they are outside contractors visiting your building for a couple hours a week, you are just one portion of their caseload. Our children are students, not cases. Our counselors are a part of our district family, valued, needed. They are not disposable.

Our educators have my vote! Do they have yours? Take a stand for yoru teacher and let your board members know that it is unacceptable to RIF these important members of our school communities! http://www.christina.k12.de.us/SchoolBoard/Members.htm

Question: Why didn't we do this sooner???

From the Department of Education:

Markell signs bill to help attract more quality teachers to Delaware’s schools
Release Date: Apr 20, 2009 2:10 PM

House Bill 102 enables state to participate in Teach for America program

WILMINGTON – Joined by leading legislators and education advocates, Gov. Jack Markell on Monday signed House Bill 102 into law, which makes important changes to the state’s education system that will enable Delaware to qualify for the prestigious Teach for American program.

“We will not be able to grow our economy and create jobs without a top-level school system that graduates students ready to compete in the modern job market,” Markell said. “Signing this legislation demonstrates that we are willing to transform our education system by changing the underlying policies and practices that will make the greatest difference in how we educate our children.”

A former elementary school teacher and former school board member, Rep. Teresa L. Schooley said that the Teach for America program will help place dedicated teachers in the classrooms throughout Delaware that need help the most.

“Thousands of teachers – including several who were educated here in Delaware – have been placed in schools throughout the country in low-income areas and have produced some really positive results,” said Rep. Schooley, D-Newark, the chair of the House Education Committee and the sponsor of HB 102. “We feel that bringing this program to Delaware and bringing those dedicated teachers to Delaware classrooms will only help with improving the quality of our education and will help bring about positive change in schools that need it most.”

Sen. David Sokola, D-Newark, the chair of the Senate Education Committee, added: “Teach for America gives us an opportunity to expand the pool of our best and brightest young leaders where they're needed most -- guiding our children on a path to success in life. And, the structure of this legislation includes sufficient monitoring to ensure confidence in this program prior to expanding it statewide. I do believe this program will provide quality teachers for our kids.”

145th General AssemblyHouse Bill # 119

Primary Sponsor: Schooley
Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Sokola

CoSponsors:
Reps. Bennett, Brady, Q. Johnson, Keeley, Longhurst, Manolakos, M. Marshall, Mitchell, Mulrooney, Plant, Scott, Viola, Walls; Sens. Blevins, Bushweller, Cloutier, Hall-Long, Henry, Katz, Peterson, Simpson, Sorenson, Venables

Introduced on : 04/08/2009

Long Title:
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 14 OF THE DELAWARE CODE WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC EDUCATION.

Synopsis:
This Bill takes several steps targeted at allowing local schools and districts to make better decisions at the local level to educate students. Its provisions include:(a) Permitting local districts substantially more discretion with respect to expenditure of state education funds than they have under existing law. However, the bill also establishes a number of safeguards to ensure that those funds are spent in a responsible manner that enhances student achievement, including state approval of local district budgets, a requirement of full transparency for local district expenditures, and the establishment of citizen financial oversight committees for each district. (b) Creation of a process for local schools and districts to seek relief from rules and procedures that impede their ability to properly educate students.(c) Changing of the “unit count date” to a date much earlier in the year that will allow local districts to make earlier job offers to teachers and help them recruit and retain the best teachers in our region.(d) Eliminating caps on the resources that districts can dedicate to some students with disabilities allowing districts to tailor programs for those students, with appropriate state oversight.

Current Status: House Education Committee On 04/08/09
Fiscal Note: F/N
Full text of Legislation: (in HTML format)
Legis.html

Email this Bill to a friend
Full text of Legislation:(in MS Word format)

Legis.Doc (You need Microsoft Word to see this document.)

Actions History:
Apr 08, 2009 - Introduced and Assigned to Education Committee in House

Christina district revises plan to appoint new head
The News Journal • April 16, 2009

The timeline for appointing a new superintendent in the Christina School District has been revised because of scheduling of site visits for each of the remaining two candidates.

Those two finalists are Marcia V. Lyles, deputy chancellor for Teaching and Learning in the New York City, Department of Education, and Freeman Williams, the interim superintendent in Christina.
It was announced initially that a decision on a new superintendent would be made on or before Tuesday. But the district's school board now plans a site visit in the Christina School District April 24 and a visit of the New York City Public School system April 27.

The board now plans to appoint a new superintendent on or before May 19.

Former Superintendent Lillian Lowery left to become Gov. Jack Markell's Education Secretary.

What do you see as the role and purpose of the Christina Education Association and the other local unions in the district?

I believe the role and purpose of the CEA, and others like it, is to present a uniform voice for its members. It should challenge unfair policies and poor decisions, advocate for best practices, and represent the interests of its members in all public and private forums.

The CEA and other local unions present the district with a system of checks and balances, a watchdog organization that, in its purest function, advocates for the educators and students of the district and should always be acknowledged and treated as the valuable stakeholder that it is.

What do you see as the priorities and/or concerns for the Christina School District?

1. Empowerment of Teachers through access to emerging best practices. Educators need the freedom and support to employ a variety of methodologies, professional development that goes beyond the “train the trainer” model, and procedures and policies that make materials and supplies readily accessible.

2. A Free and Appropriate Education for All Children, not just those who are part of the special education/populations. We need to identify and adapt to our students individual learning needs, providing extra support where necessary while challenging our best and brightest. As evidenced by the proliferation and exodus of students to local private and charter schools, our current public school system is short-changing students on every educational level.

We also need to perform an independent evaluation of whether our District is unilaterally providing FAPE to special needs students in regards to IDEA and its provisions. We need to ensure that our educators are receiving the most up-to-date training and are being encouraged to think creatively. We need to ask and answer: Are our students being limited by preconceived notions?

3. Our district needs to rethink its approach to curriculum. We need to develop a progressive, more realistic view toward relevant curriculum with Delaware Contents Standards regarded as our baseline or minimum criteria – not the goal.