State lawmakers have introduced a bill that would drastically change how teachers in Illinois get tenure, can strike and be dismissed.
Under the proposal, which comes on the heels of teacher unions being decertified in Ohio and Wisconsin, Illinois teachers still have the right to strike but must negotiate longer and make their positions public before a strike can occur. And teachers need a specific rating to earn tenure, rather than it being automatic after a certain number of years.
Is this encouraging? Are the kids the real winner as some would suggest? Is this a good first step toward school reform? See this having an effect locally?
School reform 'a done deal?'
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blogs.suburbanchicagonews.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/8507
-1,
I would hope that like private sector jobs the school districts would be forced to continually raise the bar AND create a ratings distribution that at least begins to resemble a STD bell curve.
The last time I heard of the ratings in 203, as an example, there was a huge skewing into the area termed "excellent" in the private sector.
I also wonder why no one on the board supports a % solution, such as a strategic statement that, say, 65or 75% of all expenses must be put directly into the classroom.
Whoa...I just noted some discrepancies between the 10-11 prediction approved last year and the 10-11 actual this year...Yes, I am taking into account Reid numbers.
-1
First the legislation.
I suspect D203 and D204 do a reasonably good job of getting qualified candidates for the job and will feel free to dump bad apples before 4 years. How many teachers right now do not get “proficient” or “excellent” teacher evaluations? And of those how many get kept beyond 3 years? I'd guess close to zero get kept. Maybe someone can post the % "proficient" and % "excellent" in D203 and D204.
When staffing cuts are needed, the nebulous "job performance" will be invoked and rating teachers on student performance is the detail which needs to be worked out.
I am a bit concerned about the transferable tenure. That really screws over a district which gets a teacher who does not fit into the system, despite all signs that they might.
And how do we determine "tenure" for these non-classroom teachers and other certified staff? And why is it given?
.
.
.
Now about D203 and staff cuts:
D203 staffing plan
What concerns me is that for the 2nd year in a row, there has been a decrease in the number of classroom teachers which has not been accompanied by a cut in non-classroom staff in the grade schools.
For example, there is a planned decrease of 7.50FTE grade school classroom staff. This is accompanied by a .75FTE increase in other staff. Of note is that 1.90 FTE of AMPE are being added next year, so "other staff" is being cut by about 1.15. Something about these ratios is wrong.
Last year, the same problem played out. 4.50 FTE classroom teachers were cut, 3.65FTE AMPE teachers were cut, but there was increase of approx 2.0FTE of other staff.
At some point these other staff members are not really working "full time". Can they be shared? Can't some of the coordinators work across schools? This is truly the shortcoming of decreasing enrollment at some of the feeder grade schools -- too many support certified staff for the number of students.
And by cutting these non-classroom certified staff, can't money be freed up for more programs?
(And yes, I did look at ELL and Bilingual)
-1