http://biggovernment.com/bmattox/2011/03/29/will-public-schools-co-opt-digital-education/#more-244744
Something that every school board member/trustee/teacher/superintendent/principal/parent should consider when re-vamping education to include technological advances. It doesn't make sense to fit a square peg into a round hole.
On one hand, I can see the need for some kind of deadline. After all, you're looking at (well, just reading) a gal who just got an incomplete on her landscaping course. Actually, maybe that proves the other point--I did have a deadline, I just didn't have time to accommodate the homework. I have kept the reading material, and I WILL learn something about landscaping, but my records are tarnished with an "I".
On the other hand, which turns out to be the same hand after all, as a (former) private violin instructor, I saw first-hand the beauty of "independent" study. Each child can learn the violin, whether or not they are "gifted" or "talented." Some will learn more quickly than others, and the end results will not be the same, but each child can learn to be proficient at anything.
Maybe the one concern that we need to address is motivation and discipline. I was obviously not motivated or disciplined enough to complete my landscaping course in a timely manner. And I have had students who made little progress in spite of their potential because they didn't practice. So, how do we help our kids stay motivated, if they aren't internally motivated?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
I don't get it
KTVB on the passing of 2 out of 3 Luna bills
from the article:"This is the pay for performance bill. More specifically, this is the bill that gives teachers bonuses when their students do well on tests."
Why are teachers protesting a bill which would reward them when they do a good job? This bill says nothing about punishing teachers whose students don't do a good job.
I understand teachers feeling a little angst about the first bill passed, which perhaps does punish teachers by: not allowing teachers who have received court orders to stay away from minors to get paid, giving more control to local school officers, allowing a teensy-tiny bit more parent input in teacher evaluation, and limiting tenure. It means that they have less job security. But it's no worse than the job security of anyone else who has to maintain a level of performance that justifies the paycheck they receive.
S1113 (Modernization & Reform) increases the student-teacher divisor to pay for a 1:1 ratio of computers to high school students while requiring four on-line classes during high school. Expressed public sentiment was overwhelmingly against this proposal as written. More public and stakeholder consultation and collaboration are necessary so that an improved plan can be crafted and consensus reached.
• Principal has discretion in new hires;
• Parents have some input for performance evaluations (could be as little as 1%);
• Employees ordered by court to stay away from minors put on unpaid leave. This protects kids and frees up more money for education;
• During reductions in force, needs of the students take priority over seniority;
• Courts will review school board action for propriety, but will not hear cases from scratch. Less court costs mean more money for education.
• Master contract limitations of one year allow school board to respond to citizens rather than having their hands tied by past boards that are no longer in office;
• Public negotiations and open records ensure transparency and a more accountable government.
I hope that the information above is helpful to you. If my reply to your message was not immediate, I apologize. I read every message as it arrived and considered its contents carefully. The proposed changes to education have resulted in a flood of correspondence that I have tended to personally with the help of one part-time volunteer. Your message helped shaped my opinion of these proposals. I will keep your message and this reply on file for future reference.
Kindly,
Senator Mitch Toryanski
from the article:"This is the pay for performance bill. More specifically, this is the bill that gives teachers bonuses when their students do well on tests."
Why are teachers protesting a bill which would reward them when they do a good job? This bill says nothing about punishing teachers whose students don't do a good job.
I understand teachers feeling a little angst about the first bill passed, which perhaps does punish teachers by: not allowing teachers who have received court orders to stay away from minors to get paid, giving more control to local school officers, allowing a teensy-tiny bit more parent input in teacher evaluation, and limiting tenure. It means that they have less job security. But it's no worse than the job security of anyone else who has to maintain a level of performance that justifies the paycheck they receive.
UPDATE: This article just appeared in Fox news. Note the last line which reads:
"The biggest piece of Luna's reform package remains stalled in the Senate. That legislation would boost technology in the classroom, require online courses and increase the minimum teacher pay from $29,655 to $30,000..."
Again, I don't understand--griping about an increase of minimum wage? OK, to be fair, the bill also included increasing class size.
I know a lot of great teachers, and I had a lot of great teachers. My guess is that those great teachers' jobs won't be on the chopping block if cuts need to be made.
p.s. A few weeks ago, I wrote to my state senator, and he wrote the following explanation of the bills that are in question:
S1113 (Modernization & Reform) increases the student-teacher divisor to pay for a 1:1 ratio of computers to high school students while requiring four on-line classes during high school. Expressed public sentiment was overwhelmingly against this proposal as written. More public and stakeholder consultation and collaboration are necessary so that an improved plan can be crafted and consensus reached.
• Principal has discretion in new hires;
• Parents have some input for performance evaluations (could be as little as 1%);
• Employees ordered by court to stay away from minors put on unpaid leave. This protects kids and frees up more money for education;
• During reductions in force, needs of the students take priority over seniority;
• Courts will review school board action for propriety, but will not hear cases from scratch. Less court costs mean more money for education.
• Master contract limitations of one year allow school board to respond to citizens rather than having their hands tied by past boards that are no longer in office;
• Public negotiations and open records ensure transparency and a more accountable government.
I hope that the information above is helpful to you. If my reply to your message was not immediate, I apologize. I read every message as it arrived and considered its contents carefully. The proposed changes to education have resulted in a flood of correspondence that I have tended to personally with the help of one part-time volunteer. Your message helped shaped my opinion of these proposals. I will keep your message and this reply on file for future reference.
Kindly,
Senator Mitch Toryanski
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)