Too much top down management of our schools!

The following is some email communications that started with State Senator Bair and ended up with the department of educations communications director. It all started with an editorial I wrote for the paper titled the same as above. In it I expressed my concerns about the online requirements we will be faced with starting next year, and a couple other things that have bothered me. A couple days after that I read an editorial that Senator Bair wrote and asked for input about the extra money they had and wanted input as to where to spend it. So I decided to reply and said a little about my concerns about these new requirements. I had sighned it as a Firth school board member. The next day I got an email response from Senator Bair, where he expressed concern that I didn't like these requirements. I had talked to him a couple weeks before at a dairy meeting in Boise and had met him before. Since he asked me more about my concerns I decided to email him a longer list of questions. A couple days later I got another email from him with a response from the comunications director. Her response was very long and didn't really answer my questions. At the end of her email she asked if I had any more questions to let her know. Since I didn't like her answers I tried again restating many of the same things in a little more direct way, which are at the bottom of my post. It took awhile but her answeres with her summary of my questions are just below. I didn't address all the same questions or show the first email I recieved from Senator Bair, but I think if you want to read it all it explains itself pretty well. If anyone would like all the other emails I would be happy to send them to you. As you will be able to tell comunication directors are good at political speech. Mostly talking around issues without really answering the questions directly. Which I might add I have delt with on the other boards I serve on and very much dislike. What I mostly get out of this is regardless of what concerns you might have, or problems this creates we know what's best for you so be live with it and be happy, aren't we just wonderful for caring so much about your students future. I think you will see what I mean after reading what she says. Thanks, as always if you have any comments or questions let me know. Brian





Dear Mr. Esplin,
Thank you for the additional questions. I apologize for the delay in responding. I was out of town for a few days and am catching up on e-mails. Here are responses to your concerns.
 
Do you really believe it was more important to force these online requirements on the districts, than maintain teacher funding, forcing schools to cut teacher and paraprofessional positions? Are you really saying online education is more important than having a teacher, teaching the same thing in person in the classroom? You don't explain how with less staffing we are supposed to provide help for the students taking these classes? You seem to think taking online classes is the same thing as learning how to use a computer. You can teach computer business classes in school to all those wishing to learn these skills without forcing online classes.
 
The state believes it is critical for digital learning to be a graduation requirement for all students to ensure every student gains these skills before they leave high school and go on to postsecondary education or the workforce. These skills are not just important for a few students, but for all students, not matter which career path they choose after high school. In the 21st Century, they will encounter some form of online learning in the future. Superintendent Luna and Governor Otter truly believe the teacher is the most important factor in a child’s academic success while they are in school. That is why the state has invested $4 million a year in professional development for classroom teachers and $38 million a year in pay-for-performance bonuses to recognize and reward teachers. Online learning does not remove the teacher from the learning experience. Every online course is still taught by an Idaho-certified teacher and must meet Idaho content standards. These courses are just delivered in a different learning environment, an environment that students will face once they go on to postsecondary education or the workplace after high school.
 
Under Students Come First, districts do not have to make a choice between funding teachers and offering online courses. Funding was not reduced to fund online courses. In fact, the Legislature has increased state funding for Idaho’s public schools this year by 4.6 percent next year. Districts will have local control to determine the best way to deliver digital learning to the students in their community to meet this graduation requirement. This could include taking courses via the Idaho Education Network from another school district. Or if you have the staff available in your district now to accommodate this learning, you can develop a blended model in which students utilize digital learning a portion of the time and work teachers in your districts in person the rest of the time.
 
You didn't address how this might affect the AYP scores, which in turn can affect the pay for performance  money for teachers. Like I said we had good students taking eleven online classes last semester and only five passed. What will happen when what you might call the more average students take these classes? Who gets the blame for students getting poor grades or failing online classes the provider or the local school district?
I would reiterate the local school district has the local control to choose the best way to deliver digital learning to students to meet the graduation requirement. Your local school board should work to find an online course through IDLA, the IEN, a private provider, or a locally developed blended model that increases student achievement. The goal of the online course requirement is to help increase student achievement and make sure every student graduates from high school prepared to go on to postsecondary education or the workforce without the need for remediation. We know there are successful online courses available. More than 15,000 students across Idaho are taking online courses in Idaho right now, and at least one Idaho district requires its students to take online courses in order to graduate. Therefore, we know all students can be successful in these courses and have given every local district the flexibility to find the best delivery model.
 

I still believe there would be more opportunities to cheat in an online class. If the student has online coursework that needs completed, couldn't the student, or whoever log on to the program at home if they have a home computer and create the possibility of cheating at home? How does an online teacher that doesn't know the student personally, know who does the course work?
For the purposes of the graduation requirement, online courses will be completed at school during school hours. This is important because we know not all students will have equal access at home, but all students will have equal access at school.

My understanding, this year you only increased the net general funding for schools .4% that much won't even come close to covering our increased costs, most likely forcing us to lay off even more teachers. How can we feel good about this knowing much of our reduced funds goes to pay for the online program?
The state general fund increase for public schools is 4.6% in FY2013. The total increase including federal funding is 0.4% because the federal Education Jobs Fund, which was one-time funding, is going away in FY2013. The majority of the 4.6% increase is going to funding growth in student enrollment and toward additional funding for Idaho teachers and other school staff. The funding will not go toward online learning, unless your local school district determines it should. Here are the highlights of the FY2013 public schools budget:
·         Average teacher pay in Idaho will go up by over $2,000 this year, because of the following changes:
o   No reduction in funding for teacher or administrator salaries: The state will fully fund current movement on the salary grid for teachers who gain years of experience and more education. At least 21% of Idaho teachers will see salary increases for gaining additional years of experience as they move through the grid next year.
o   Pay-for-performance: Idaho is funding an estimated $39 million to implement a statewide pay-for-performance plan that recognizes and rewards great classroom teachers. Awards will be based on student academic growth and will be awarded by school. At least 85% of teachers will earn some form of a performance bonus next year.
o   Increase in minimum salary: The minimum salary for beginning teachers will increase to $30,500. This will affect 31% of Idaho teachers.
·         $4 million in ongoing professional development to help teachers integrate technology in the classroom.
·         $2.5 million in additional funding for IT professionals in schools and districts.
·         $4 million to fund growth in student enrollment, including additional teaching positions in growing districts.
·         $842,400 for the Dual Credit for Early Completers Program, which allows seniors to take up to 36 dual credit courses paid for by the state if they meet high school graduation requirements early.
·         $9.4 million in continued funding for the Idaho Reading Initiative, Idaho Math Initiative, and ISAT Remediation.
·         $9 million in advanced classroom technology for all grades.
·         $2.5 million to begin implementing the one-to-one initiative in high schools by providing a laptop device to every high school teacher, principal, and other certified staff.
·         $5 million for Idaho Digital Learning Academy as it transitions to a self-funded agency.
 
I asked about piloting this program and you stated you couldn't do that. I know in other areas pilot tests have been done. I think the law was just not set up for this to be an option. I think there could and should have been a way to do this. You could have identified problems that occur and addressed them at much less expense and in a much easier way with it being on a small scale.
I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. We do not believe this should have been a pilot for two reasons. First and foremost, we believe we must have a uniform and thorough system of public education in which all students have equal access to the best educational opportunities before they graduate from high school, including digital learning opportunities. The second reason is that Idaho has been a leader in online learning for more than a decade, creating pilots in local school districts across the state. We have drawn on these successes and the lessons these districts have learned in order to implement online learning statewide.
 
My reference to the task force recommendations wasn't about worrying if they would get implemented. I was pointing out how long the list was and the work and time it would take to implement all these recommendations within the school, and who was going to have the time to do it. Our Superintendent is also our Elementary Principal. Our high school principal is also the Athletic Director. How can you keep requiring more out of our schools, but in turn provide us with less?
The goal of Students Come First is to build an education system that can educate more students at a higher level with the state’s current resources. This does require us to do things differently at all levels of education. At the State Department of Education, we have completely reorganized our internal structure to better meet the needs of the customers of education. Change is never easy. We understand it will not be easy for local school districts or schools to transition to the new education reform laws, but we believe it is necessary to ensure our students succeed in the 21st Century.

Thanks,
Melissa 
 
Melissa McGrath
Communications Director
Idaho State Department of Education
(208) 332-6818
mrmcgrath@sde.idaho.gov
 
Follow Superintendent Luna on Facebook at www.facebook.com/superintendentluna or on Twitter @tomluna.
 


More online concerns
Do you really believe it was more important to force these online requirements on the districts, than maintain teacher funding, forcing schools to cut teacher and paraprofessional positions?

Are you really saying online education is more important than having a teacher, teaching the same thing in person in the classroom?

You don't explain how with less staffing we are supposed to provide help for the students taking these classes?

You seem to think taking online classes is the same thing as learning how to use a computer . You can teach computer business classes in school to all those wishing to learn these skills without forcing online classes.

You didn't address how this might affect the AYP scores, which in turn can affect the pay for performance  money for teachers. Like I said we had good students taking  eleven online classes last semester and only five passed. What will happen when what you might call the more average students take these classes?

Who gets the blame for students getting poor grades or failing online classes the provider or the local school district?

I still believe there would be more opportunities to cheat in an online class. If the student has online coursework that needs completed, couldn't the student, or whoever log on to the program at home if they have a home computer and create the possibility of cheating at home? How does an online teacher that doesn't know the student personally, know who does the course work?

My understanding, this year you only increased the net general funding for schools .4% that much won't even come close to covering our increased costs, most likely forcing us to lay off even more teachers. How can we feel good about this knowing much of our reduced funds goes to pay for the online program?

I asked about piloting this program and you stated you couldn't do that. I know in other areas pilot tests have been done. I think the law was just not set up for this to be an option. I think there could and should  have been a way to do this. You could have identified problems that occur and addressed them at much less expense and in a much easier way with it being on a small scale.

My reference to the task force recommendations wasn't about  worrying if they would get implemented. I was pointing out how long the list was and the work and time it would take to implement all these recommendations within the school, and who was going to have the time to do it. Our Superintendent is also our Elementary Principal . Our high school principal is also the Athletic Director. How can you keep requiring more out of our schools, but in turn provide us with less?

Bottom line as I wrote in an editorial for the newspapers recently. There is way too much top down management of our schools!!

Thank you, Brian Esplin Firth school board member