During the contract discussions last spring, some folks suggested I was out of touch with the realities for public employees. They said I lacked an understanding of that environment, particularly when I compare public and private employment. That's why I found Gov. Schwarzenegger's editorial so compelling. He makes the clear comparison between the job impact in the private sector and the public sector. He also explains how the public employee contracts in the state of California are affecting *all* of us. The liabilities are beyond frightening.
link to the article
Take a read. I think the content speaks for itself.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
LA Times and Posts Teacher Evaluations
The LA Times recently published their own ranking of all 6000 teachers in the LA Unified School District. The scores were based on a "value add" concept- basically, if Johnny came in reading at 83% of the standard, and left reading at 90% of the standard, they attribute the gain to the teacher. Likewise, if Johnny's score drops, they assume that was the teacher as well.
I like the value add approach to evaluations. It's fair- it looks at where someone started, and assess the impact of the teacher. Unions often object that a principal can load a class with below average students, thus hurting the teacher's evaluation. Value Add means that we measure the teacher's achievements given where they started- who were the kids that were in the classroom.
During the campaign last fall, I spoke out in favor of this approach, and I still believe it would be a great way to identify our best teachers. There are details to work out of course, but I believe it's worth discussing and implementing. I would advocate for using this type of data to identify our top performers, and I would actually support some sort of merit-based bonus for the very best of our staff. We have some *fabulous* teachers in our district. Even amongst the great staff that we have, there are some true standouts. I'd be in favor of recognizing those who are so talented at inspiring our kids.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of what the LA Times did. Imagine if, at your place of work, every employee evaluation was posted on the wall. Imagine further, that the evaluation didn't necessarily conform to what you'd been told you'd be evaluated on. It's pretty easy to see this wouldn't go down well. Evaluations are confidential. When we assign an engineer to a project, the client doesn't get to look over their performance reviews.
I understand the spirit of the LA Times- they're trying to create an active debate about an important topic. I hope that folks see past the tactic and focus on the content- that it's important to evaluate teachers at least in part on how well their students learn.
I like the value add approach to evaluations. It's fair- it looks at where someone started, and assess the impact of the teacher. Unions often object that a principal can load a class with below average students, thus hurting the teacher's evaluation. Value Add means that we measure the teacher's achievements given where they started- who were the kids that were in the classroom.
During the campaign last fall, I spoke out in favor of this approach, and I still believe it would be a great way to identify our best teachers. There are details to work out of course, but I believe it's worth discussing and implementing. I would advocate for using this type of data to identify our top performers, and I would actually support some sort of merit-based bonus for the very best of our staff. We have some *fabulous* teachers in our district. Even amongst the great staff that we have, there are some true standouts. I'd be in favor of recognizing those who are so talented at inspiring our kids.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of what the LA Times did. Imagine if, at your place of work, every employee evaluation was posted on the wall. Imagine further, that the evaluation didn't necessarily conform to what you'd been told you'd be evaluated on. It's pretty easy to see this wouldn't go down well. Evaluations are confidential. When we assign an engineer to a project, the client doesn't get to look over their performance reviews.
I understand the spirit of the LA Times- they're trying to create an active debate about an important topic. I hope that folks see past the tactic and focus on the content- that it's important to evaluate teachers at least in part on how well their students learn.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
A small step forward with BCS?
At the Aug 16 Board Meeting, we began considering a resolution that would represent a tiny thaw in relations with BCS. I've been pushing for this resolution, though i know that some may not share my enthusiasm.
The Background
LASD offers facilities to BCS based on our class loading on April 1 each year. Then in May, the state finalizes the budget, and we adjust our class loading. Historically, if our loading got better, we improved the offer to BCS. We weren't compelled to do so, but we have done it every year. The catch was that if the budget was bad news, there's no mechanism to adjust the BCS offer downward.
What Does The Resolution Do?
The resolution is actually pretty simple. It provides that the distinct "shall" adjust the BCS facilities offer in June, and that the BCS board "shall" accept such a revision. In practice, we're obligating the LASD board to do something that we have done every year for the past 7 years. The quid pro quo is that the BCS board is compelled to accept a decrease that they would never have considered previously.
Why should we do this?
This is admittedly not a huge shift. We agree to do something we've been doing every year for 7 years They agree that if something really unusual happens, they'd accept a change. The real win here is that we are considering an agreement that hasn't been compelled by a court. This is a small step forward, but a major shift in mindset.
But aren't they still suing us?
Yes, the existing litigation with BCS is still underway. The appeal will be heard this fall. Still, I believe that if we wait for the ideal moment to take a small step closer, we'll be standing far apart for a long, long time.
Will this resolution actually pass?
This resolution didn't come out of thin air. This is the product of a series of meetings with a subset of the BCS Board. While they weren't crazy about the proposal initially, the BCS board members I have discussed this with were willing to support it. Hopefully their full board will also agree.
From the LASD Board, I am hopeful that we're willing to pass it also. I believe the "costs" of this gesture are minimal, and the upside of making even small progress are worth it.
Win or lose, I'd like to thank the members of the BCS board who worked with us on preparing this proposal. Negotiating is a two-way street. Hopefully both sides of this negotiation will feel the results are worth passing in a formal vote.
Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts on this. It's a complex issue, and this would only be a first step. New ideas are always helpful.
The Background
LASD offers facilities to BCS based on our class loading on April 1 each year. Then in May, the state finalizes the budget, and we adjust our class loading. Historically, if our loading got better, we improved the offer to BCS. We weren't compelled to do so, but we have done it every year. The catch was that if the budget was bad news, there's no mechanism to adjust the BCS offer downward.
What Does The Resolution Do?
The resolution is actually pretty simple. It provides that the distinct "shall" adjust the BCS facilities offer in June, and that the BCS board "shall" accept such a revision. In practice, we're obligating the LASD board to do something that we have done every year for the past 7 years. The quid pro quo is that the BCS board is compelled to accept a decrease that they would never have considered previously.
Why should we do this?
This is admittedly not a huge shift. We agree to do something we've been doing every year for 7 years They agree that if something really unusual happens, they'd accept a change. The real win here is that we are considering an agreement that hasn't been compelled by a court. This is a small step forward, but a major shift in mindset.
But aren't they still suing us?
Yes, the existing litigation with BCS is still underway. The appeal will be heard this fall. Still, I believe that if we wait for the ideal moment to take a small step closer, we'll be standing far apart for a long, long time.
Will this resolution actually pass?
This resolution didn't come out of thin air. This is the product of a series of meetings with a subset of the BCS Board. While they weren't crazy about the proposal initially, the BCS board members I have discussed this with were willing to support it. Hopefully their full board will also agree.
From the LASD Board, I am hopeful that we're willing to pass it also. I believe the "costs" of this gesture are minimal, and the upside of making even small progress are worth it.
Win or lose, I'd like to thank the members of the BCS board who worked with us on preparing this proposal. Negotiating is a two-way street. Hopefully both sides of this negotiation will feel the results are worth passing in a formal vote.
Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts on this. It's a complex issue, and this would only be a first step. New ideas are always helpful.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Welcome Back
Just a quick note to say welcome back to school. Many thanks to those who worked through the summer to make our Back to School day a big success. Teachers have beenworking hard to ensure that the classrooms are ready. Our staff has done an incredible job in cleaning up the campuses. Our administrators have been planning for the new year too.
Special thanks need to go out to everyone who is working hard to make this school year special despite teh budget cuts and challenges we've seen. Many thanks to LAEF for their increased commitment this year. Thanks, too, to our PTA's for stepping up. Our kids will all benefit from the hard work of these parent leaders. Of course they're all depending on us to do our part, so if you haven't yet made a commitment to the LAEF, or written a check to your PTA, please support them as they ensure your child has a spectacular school year.
Best wishes,
DJS
Special thanks need to go out to everyone who is working hard to make this school year special despite teh budget cuts and challenges we've seen. Many thanks to LAEF for their increased commitment this year. Thanks, too, to our PTA's for stepping up. Our kids will all benefit from the hard work of these parent leaders. Of course they're all depending on us to do our part, so if you haven't yet made a commitment to the LAEF, or written a check to your PTA, please support them as they ensure your child has a spectacular school year.
Best wishes,
DJS
Monday, July 5, 2010
Grand Jury push for District Consolidation
The Santa Clara Count Grand Jury recently released a report urging consolidation of a number of local school districts, including LASD. (Article here, Grand Jury report here)
I have been asked about this by a few folks, particularly during the budget discussions. There's a general thinking that says "businesses consolidate to save money, why shouldn't school districts?"
I am not in favor of merging, either with Mountain View-Whisman, or with the MVLA High School District.
First, our district is already extremely efficient. Thanks in no small part to Randy Kenyon, our Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs, we run one of the leanest operations in the State of California. We have received an award from the State for the past six years for our exceptionally low overhead. (Roughly speaking, LASD spends just under 9% of our budget on administration. The State average is substantially higher.) Businesses that merge and achieve greater efficiencies do so by cutting overhead. Since we're already lean, there's little to be gained in this regard.
The other big reason to remain independent is to retain local control. LASD has achieved exceptionally strong results academically. Our tight-knit community is very active in the education of our students. I am not convinced that we would retain the same great engagement if our district size suddenly increased to 3x our current size. We hire for different skills, and we serve different needs. By remaining separate, we are able to continue to provide the best possible education to our students-- and do it in a financially responsible manner.
There are some that would argue that we could improve continuity with our high school if we were of the same district. I'll never rule out activities which improve our program. I will point out, though, that our administration and faculty meet with their counterparts in the High School District to constantly examine what we're doing and how we can better prepare our students for the next step in their educational journey. Individual student tracking has shown that our kids are doing a great job when they reach high school, whether they attend MVLA or one of the many local private high schools. (See results sheet here)
I'm always willing to learn new information that may change my opinion, but for now, I'm convinced that remaining separate is in the best interests of our students.
I have been asked about this by a few folks, particularly during the budget discussions. There's a general thinking that says "businesses consolidate to save money, why shouldn't school districts?"
I am not in favor of merging, either with Mountain View-Whisman, or with the MVLA High School District.
First, our district is already extremely efficient. Thanks in no small part to Randy Kenyon, our Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs, we run one of the leanest operations in the State of California. We have received an award from the State for the past six years for our exceptionally low overhead. (Roughly speaking, LASD spends just under 9% of our budget on administration. The State average is substantially higher.) Businesses that merge and achieve greater efficiencies do so by cutting overhead. Since we're already lean, there's little to be gained in this regard.
The other big reason to remain independent is to retain local control. LASD has achieved exceptionally strong results academically. Our tight-knit community is very active in the education of our students. I am not convinced that we would retain the same great engagement if our district size suddenly increased to 3x our current size. We hire for different skills, and we serve different needs. By remaining separate, we are able to continue to provide the best possible education to our students-- and do it in a financially responsible manner.
There are some that would argue that we could improve continuity with our high school if we were of the same district. I'll never rule out activities which improve our program. I will point out, though, that our administration and faculty meet with their counterparts in the High School District to constantly examine what we're doing and how we can better prepare our students for the next step in their educational journey. Individual student tracking has shown that our kids are doing a great job when they reach high school, whether they attend MVLA or one of the many local private high schools. (See results sheet here)
I'm always willing to learn new information that may change my opinion, but for now, I'm convinced that remaining separate is in the best interests of our students.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
