Monday
Dec222008
« Gwinnett schools seek leniency from state mandates »
Monday, December 22, 2008 at 1:12PM
About a week and a half ago, I received an email from a friend who is a Gwinnett teacher asking me if I had been paying attention to the school board's recent "IE2" discussion. I told this person I knew something was brewing over there but I was knee deep in Gwinnett's garbage controversy and had not had time to look into it. This individual gave me the rundown of what was under consideration. I agreed to catch up on the news articles about it and blog about it soon. I did just that in recent days and the thing I came away with, more so than a strong opinion on the plan, was how the board went about adopting a draft proposal to free Gwinnett schools from some state education mandates.
As a single man who does not have kids, school issues are a little lower on my personal priority list than planning and zoning, property rights and other County commission activities. This is not to say these issues are unimportant because the strength of the local school system impacts all of us. We all benefit from an educated populace and our property values are impacted by school quality. Unfortunately, my commentary on this issue comes after the board has voted to approve its proposal. Thus, I am guilty of the same "too little, too late" response that I have highlighted in association with socialized garbage. However, the implications of this "flexibility contract" are potentially momentous enough that they merit even tardy comment. This post will focus on the content of the proposal, at least as much as possible given the paucity of detail on how Gwinnett school officials hope to achieve their goals. Watch for a follow-up post that addresses the poor management of the adoption process of this proposal, an aspect of this story that, at this stage, I find much more troubling.
The purpose of the flexibility contract is to empower Gwinnett County Public Schools with the ability to use creative means to close "the achievement gap between white, black and Hispanic students by [one] percent annually" and to "increase the number of students enrolling in post-secondary education." The trade-off for this flexibility is the school system's acceptance of greater responsibility should these plan goals not be met. I think this is a reasonable swap. This type of thinking outside the box is a trait that should be celebrated and the school should be commended for doing just this. However, as with so many endeavors, the details are what makes or breaks an effort. Unfortunately, details are sorely lacking at this point. Reports indicate that Gwinnett would gain flexibility in the following general areas:
Flexible teacher pay - I have long been an advocate of a merit-based pay system. Industry uses them extensively, so why do educators protest these so much? I had several excellent teachers when I was a Gwinnett student and I had a handful that probably shouldn't have been in a classroom. Why should they all get paid the same? Another aspect of the proposal would be to pay more to teachers in the high-demand disciplines of math, science and special education. Barbara Wilson, co-president of the Gwinnett County Association of Educators, argues a proposal to pay more to potential teachers drawn from the business world would keep other teachers from coming to Gwinnett:
I do not accept this argument so long as Gwinnett teachers are compensated, in general, more than other nearby districts. From what I understand, Gwinnett is still considered one of the most attractive school systems in Georgia by teachers and that Gwinnett's compensation is generally well regarded. While someone may not like that the experienced industry mathematician is getting paid more (though he or she is likely to be far more skilled in math than the many other faculty members), is that individual going to turn their back on the benefits of working Gwinnett on that principle alone?
Larger class sizes - I generally do not see what this is a big issue. Teacher friends tell me it does make a difference, but the expertise underlying their opinion has to be considered alongside their natural inclination to look out for their own self-interest. According to newspaper reports, one way in which this change could manifest itself is in the hiring of "more support staff such as social workers instead of more certified teachers when enrollment swells." I am not sure why the school system needs more social workers than teachers. In my opinion, schools need to be focused on educating students in the core subjects - that means teachers - than holding kids' hands and worrying about all the non-academic issues about which we often hear anecdotes - the latter seems to be more the domain of school social workers. However, echoing the previous refrain, the key here is that details regarding the implementation are required to form a fully educated opinion.
Educational programs funding - Funding flexibility could be used to offer more services for gifted students. I generally like this idea, but, to be forthright, I participated in the gifted program as a Gwinnett student, so I am not entirely objective on this point. A parallel proposal with which I take substantial issue, however, is to tailor programs "to meet the specific needs of immigrant students still struggling to learn English." My biggest complaint concerning immigration are people who do not learn English nor seem to have any desire to learn our language. Thus, the practical part of me recognizes that immigrants who cannot speak English are part of our community and our society benefits if they learn English. The only way to counter our slide toward a bilingual America is to ensure that immigrants learn the language. This proposal would further that goal. Simultaneously, I question why I, as a Gwinnett taxpayer, have to foot the bill for people who chose to come to the United States. So long as they have come legally, I do not take issue with them coming to America, but I do think immigrants should be self-sufficient which includes minimizing or eliminating the burden they place on our existing infrastructure and organizations. Having to fund programs to teach immigrants English flies in the face of this. Of course, reality is that this issue goes far beyond Gwinnett County and is heavily influenced by policies of government entities far higher up the food chain than the Gwinnett County school board. Thus, I must concede the board is trying to effectively deal with the hand it has been dealt.
Teacher certification - Gwinnett would like to be able to use teachers credentialed in one area "to teach other subjects on occasion." Again - details, details, details. In general, though, this seems like a reasonable proposition. Another proposal is one that really resonates with me and is another example of thinking outside the box:
This concept makes efficient use of faculty and embraces modern technological capabilities. The reality is that the school likely won't be able to hire as many "certified experts" as they require for a school system as large as Gwinnett. Thus, by employing technology, the school system can effectively utilize those experts they do have on staff. While, there are some federal laws requiring the presence of certified teachers in a classroom which could pose a stumbling block, the board again gets credit for innovative thinking. However, Barbara Wilson of GCAE raises some concerns:
Wilson raises a valid point if there is, indeed, more work with equivalent pay. However, this may not be the case, especially with aforementioned proposals for flexible teacher pay. Also, as she notes, "video teachers" would not be able to conduct individualized classroom instruction. Wouldn't this reduce the workload on the "video teacher," which would, in turn, balance any increased workload in planning and grading? I stress again, it's all in the details. Without that information, it is not possible to fairly evaluate this and other proposals.
The above is not a complete list of proposals but this touches on some initiatives that could produce significant changes in the day-to-day efforts of the Gwinnett County schools to educate Gwinnett's children. With the school board having accepted the draft proposal last week, Gwinnett parents and interested property owners should pay close attention to the development of the detailed school plans. According to Gwinnett County Public Schools Superitendent, J. Alvin Wilbanks, "there will be plenty of time for public comment during the contract implementation process." Hopefully this will be the case, but there has not been a lot of input in the adoption of the overarching draft proposal. We shall see how things go when individual schools start hammering out their own plans.
References:
As a single man who does not have kids, school issues are a little lower on my personal priority list than planning and zoning, property rights and other County commission activities. This is not to say these issues are unimportant because the strength of the local school system impacts all of us. We all benefit from an educated populace and our property values are impacted by school quality. Unfortunately, my commentary on this issue comes after the board has voted to approve its proposal. Thus, I am guilty of the same "too little, too late" response that I have highlighted in association with socialized garbage. However, the implications of this "flexibility contract" are potentially momentous enough that they merit even tardy comment. This post will focus on the content of the proposal, at least as much as possible given the paucity of detail on how Gwinnett school officials hope to achieve their goals. Watch for a follow-up post that addresses the poor management of the adoption process of this proposal, an aspect of this story that, at this stage, I find much more troubling.
The purpose of the flexibility contract is to empower Gwinnett County Public Schools with the ability to use creative means to close "the achievement gap between white, black and Hispanic students by [one] percent annually" and to "increase the number of students enrolling in post-secondary education." The trade-off for this flexibility is the school system's acceptance of greater responsibility should these plan goals not be met. I think this is a reasonable swap. This type of thinking outside the box is a trait that should be celebrated and the school should be commended for doing just this. However, as with so many endeavors, the details are what makes or breaks an effort. Unfortunately, details are sorely lacking at this point. Reports indicate that Gwinnett would gain flexibility in the following general areas:
Flexible teacher pay - I have long been an advocate of a merit-based pay system. Industry uses them extensively, so why do educators protest these so much? I had several excellent teachers when I was a Gwinnett student and I had a handful that probably shouldn't have been in a classroom. Why should they all get paid the same? Another aspect of the proposal would be to pay more to teachers in the high-demand disciplines of math, science and special education. Barbara Wilson, co-president of the Gwinnett County Association of Educators, argues a proposal to pay more to potential teachers drawn from the business world would keep other teachers from coming to Gwinnett:
“Would you come to Gwinnett County as a new teacher if you find out the person next door to you is coming from business and is making twice as much as a new teacher with certification?” Wilson said.
I do not accept this argument so long as Gwinnett teachers are compensated, in general, more than other nearby districts. From what I understand, Gwinnett is still considered one of the most attractive school systems in Georgia by teachers and that Gwinnett's compensation is generally well regarded. While someone may not like that the experienced industry mathematician is getting paid more (though he or she is likely to be far more skilled in math than the many other faculty members), is that individual going to turn their back on the benefits of working Gwinnett on that principle alone?
Larger class sizes - I generally do not see what this is a big issue. Teacher friends tell me it does make a difference, but the expertise underlying their opinion has to be considered alongside their natural inclination to look out for their own self-interest. According to newspaper reports, one way in which this change could manifest itself is in the hiring of "more support staff such as social workers instead of more certified teachers when enrollment swells." I am not sure why the school system needs more social workers than teachers. In my opinion, schools need to be focused on educating students in the core subjects - that means teachers - than holding kids' hands and worrying about all the non-academic issues about which we often hear anecdotes - the latter seems to be more the domain of school social workers. However, echoing the previous refrain, the key here is that details regarding the implementation are required to form a fully educated opinion.
Educational programs funding - Funding flexibility could be used to offer more services for gifted students. I generally like this idea, but, to be forthright, I participated in the gifted program as a Gwinnett student, so I am not entirely objective on this point. A parallel proposal with which I take substantial issue, however, is to tailor programs "to meet the specific needs of immigrant students still struggling to learn English." My biggest complaint concerning immigration are people who do not learn English nor seem to have any desire to learn our language. Thus, the practical part of me recognizes that immigrants who cannot speak English are part of our community and our society benefits if they learn English. The only way to counter our slide toward a bilingual America is to ensure that immigrants learn the language. This proposal would further that goal. Simultaneously, I question why I, as a Gwinnett taxpayer, have to foot the bill for people who chose to come to the United States. So long as they have come legally, I do not take issue with them coming to America, but I do think immigrants should be self-sufficient which includes minimizing or eliminating the burden they place on our existing infrastructure and organizations. Having to fund programs to teach immigrants English flies in the face of this. Of course, reality is that this issue goes far beyond Gwinnett County and is heavily influenced by policies of government entities far higher up the food chain than the Gwinnett County school board. Thus, I must concede the board is trying to effectively deal with the hand it has been dealt.
Teacher certification - Gwinnett would like to be able to use teachers credentialed in one area "to teach other subjects on occasion." Again - details, details, details. In general, though, this seems like a reasonable proposition. Another proposal is one that really resonates with me and is another example of thinking outside the box:
The school system also is considering allowing several classes to share one certified expert teacher who provides lessons broadcast through a monitor while a teacher’s aide would supervise classrooms and help students with work.
This concept makes efficient use of faculty and embraces modern technological capabilities. The reality is that the school likely won't be able to hire as many "certified experts" as they require for a school system as large as Gwinnett. Thus, by employing technology, the school system can effectively utilize those experts they do have on staff. While, there are some federal laws requiring the presence of certified teachers in a classroom which could pose a stumbling block, the board again gets credit for innovative thinking. However, Barbara Wilson of GCAE raises some concerns:
“What would happen to individualized instruction?” asked Barbara Wilson, GCAE co-president. “How would you keep up with the grading, the planning … It’s going to be more work with the same pay.”
Wilson raises a valid point if there is, indeed, more work with equivalent pay. However, this may not be the case, especially with aforementioned proposals for flexible teacher pay. Also, as she notes, "video teachers" would not be able to conduct individualized classroom instruction. Wouldn't this reduce the workload on the "video teacher," which would, in turn, balance any increased workload in planning and grading? I stress again, it's all in the details. Without that information, it is not possible to fairly evaluate this and other proposals.
The above is not a complete list of proposals but this touches on some initiatives that could produce significant changes in the day-to-day efforts of the Gwinnett County schools to educate Gwinnett's children. With the school board having accepted the draft proposal last week, Gwinnett parents and interested property owners should pay close attention to the development of the detailed school plans. According to Gwinnett County Public Schools Superitendent, J. Alvin Wilbanks, "there will be plenty of time for public comment during the contract implementation process." Hopefully this will be the case, but there has not been a lot of input in the adoption of the overarching draft proposal. We shall see how things go when individual schools start hammering out their own plans.
References:
Categories: Gwinnett County Public Schools Tags: Alvin Wilbanks, Barbara Wilson, English language, Gwinnett County Association of Educators, Gwinnett County Commission, Gwinnett County Public Schools, Gwinnett County School Board, IE2, Immigration, class size, education, gifted education, mandates, merit pay, public schools, teacher pay, teachers
Gwinnett County Public Schools Tags: Alvin Wilbanks, Barbara Wilson, English language, Gwinnett County Association of Educators, Gwinnett County Commission, Gwinnett County Public Schools, Gwinnett County School Board, IE2, Immigration, class size, education, gifted education, mandates, merit pay, public schools, teacher pay, teachers
Reader Comments