Jim Shella posted an entry about Gov. Daniel’s veto threat over any bill that reduces instructional time for public school students.
This has to do with Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Bennett’s recent decree that “starting in 2009-10, he would not approve waivers that allowed schools to fall short of 180 full days of classes. . . . Many districts fall short with days in which students attend for a half-day and then leave while teachers attend training sessions or hold parent-teacher conferences.”
Bennett’s decree means that teachers will receive less training, school districts (a/k/a ‘taxpayers’) will have to come up with more money, or teachers will be obligated to commit more time to their job for the same amount of pay.
More school isn’t necessarily a bad idea, but the mandate should probably come with some provision for funding it.
Update More on Gov. Daniels’ veto threat and the Democratic amendment to HB 126 that prompted it. Specifically, the Democratic amendment allows for up to 10 hours of parent-teacher conference time for grades 1 to 6 and up to 12 for grades 7 through 12. It also allows for up to six half days per year for teacher training.
The Governor and Bennett issued statements about the importance of more time in the classroom for students, but say nothing about paying for it.
The 180 days of classroom instruction has been the law for sometime. It’s the 180 day instruction time that has been encroached upon, at the expense of the kids, for non-instructional purposes such as parent/teacher conferences, teacher workshops etc. Passing this bill will change the law to provide/require less time for classroom instruction, a move that is completely contrary towards improving public education.
That assumes that the kids benefit more from those hours in the class room than they benefit from teachers conferring with parents and/or teachers receiving additional training.
Anecdotally, the teacher in-service training generally seems to be a joke that teachers hate and don’t find very helpful professionally.
On the other hand, I think parent-teacher conferences is time well-spent and worth the trade-off in instructional time for the kids. (Ideally, whatever time is lost in the class room will be more than made up by involved parents when the kids are at home.)
Finally, if teachers are being asked to commit more hours to their job, they should be paid more. It’s not like they get these tremendous salaries or managerial flexibility in performing their jobs that justify additional hours simply as a matter of course.
I do assume and expect that kids do benefit from P/T conferences, additional training for teachers and most definitely the required 180 class room instructional days. I don’t think it should be, or was intended to be, a matter of sacrificing one for the other; taxpayers pay for a minimum of 180 days of class room instruction and that’s what should be delivered.
Teacher compensation is a seperate issue.
I don’t think teacher compensation is a separate issue. I think the issues are linked inextricably. We want their time, we should pay for their time.
Yes, they should be paid for their time; but, not at the expense instructional time.
How are the issues inextricably linked? Isn’t one a contractual issue (teacher compensation) while the other is about complying with the law.
The problem, Katie, is that most teacher contracts were negotiated with the prior understanding, and those contracts provide for a specific number of work days. Either 1) parent-teacher conferences and in-service training will be eliminated; 2) teachers will be paid more because they will have to work more days; or 3) teachers will work more for the same pay, an effective hourly pay cut. I’m sure Mitch would prefer #3, but the problem with that (aside from obvious issues of fair play) is that teachers have certain contractual rights that schools can’t and shouldn’t breach. Accordingly, someone is going to have to come up with money, or parent-teacher conferences and in-service training will go by the wayside. Right now, the taxpayers aren’t paying for 180 full instructional days.
“…but the problem with that (aside from obvious issues of fair play) is that teachers have certain contractual rights that schools can’t and shouldn’t breach.”
And if the contracts were written in violation of the law; are the contracts yet lawful?
(Other options are being suggested: in-service and p/t conference intact, classroom time continued with substitutes, is one.)
In what way would the contracts be unlawful?
I have heard the idea you mention floated, but of course, substitutes cost money, and particularly in more specialized middle school and high school classes, often aren’t qualified to teach the class. The solution you propose would be a more expensive equivalent to what we have now: pay a bunch of substitutes to babysit instead of sending kids home for the afternoon.
“In what way would the contracts be unlawful?”
Right, my bad, I forgot that a half day of school already counts as a full day of school as do missed school days for bad weather… so why are we wasting time and money on that silly amendment?
Now if I could just remember who is being served with that sort of logic it’d all be good.
The only logic I’m concerned with is your position that collectively bargained teacher contracts are somehow unenforceable. We can debate whether a half day should ever be counted as a “school day,” but the notion that half a day of teaching and half a day of in-service training counts as a full “work day” seems fairly unassailable. On very short notice, schools have to either come up with more money, eliminate programs or features, or find a way to pay teachers less (or the same amount for more work).
It’s not my position, John, that collectively bargained teacher contracts are unenforceable.
I’ll repeat my position: The 180 days of classroom instruction has been the law for sometime. It’s the 180 day instruction time that has been encroached upon, at the expense of the kids, for non instructional purposes such as parent/teacher conferences, teacher workshops etc. Passing this bill will change the law to provide/require less time for classroom instruction, a move that is completely contrary to what is needed to improve public education.
Katie is right — in 1987, Gov Orr’s A+ program expanded the state’s school year to 180 days (from 175) and required schools to make up snow days. What has happened since that time has been an erosion of the school year by the state board of education by allowing half days for professional time, etc. The law requires 180 full instructional days and Tony Bennett is only going back to the original intent of state law.
Joe is only telling half the story. It is important to note that much of the professional development that occurs during half days is required by Public Law 221. The “erosion” of the 180 day school year, has occurred as a way to help school districts deal with this unfunded mandate.
Bennett and Daniels are churning out the spin about this being in the best interest of kids, but it is all just propaganda for the uninformed. They’ve passed the buck to local superintendents and school boards, most of whom would love to have 180 full days of instruction but know there are only two ways they can do it without additional funding. 1) Ask teachers to work additional days without pay, which is tough to do both contractually and morally or 2) Cut teachers or programs to pay for the extra days, which means larger class sizes or the elimination of programs, neither of which are good for children.
During my years in the corporate world and later in the nonprofit sector, I was never asked attend professional development or other training that was required by my employer on my own time. Why do we think it is OK to do this to teachers? Many teachers volunteer to spend additional hours working with children without pay, spend their summers continuing their education and planning for the next school and grade papers on evenings and weekends while many of us watch TV or enjoy time with our own children. That is their choice and a testament to the true spirit of putting children first. However, nobody should be REQUIRED to work for free. Not even teachers.
OK, so most everyone (IDOE, school superintendents, school boards, teachers, legislators, taxpayers) agrees that providing more instructional days for kids is in their best interest. Nonetheless, you would have (me) understand that when Bennett and Daniels make a stand to enforce the 180 days of instruction requirement—pointing out that it’s in the best interests of kids—that they are simply “churning spin for the uninformedâ€. Just to be clear, it makes no difference to me (as a parent, grandparent, taxpayer, union supporter and lifelong registered Democrat) who supports more instructional days for kids or what their motivation may be, it only matters to me that they give priority to providing kids the highest quantity and quality of education possible.
That said, as one with an ordinary acceptance and understanding of the problems caused by underfunded mandates—such as NCLB—I am not persuaded with the argument that dipping from the pot of the most needy and vulnerable is ever an acceptable solution. Anymore than it would ever be acceptable to expect teachers to work for free — which fortunately has never been the case.
(Speaking of which—being required to work overtime hours without pay—did you know there are in fact tens of thousands of highly educated/skilled workers, earning average incomes, that are required by law to work without ANY overtime compensation… and those OT hours aren’t just a few days here or there? Again, fortunately teachers have not had to suffered that requirement!)