WEA MIA? Nope. Just Busy Grading Papers.

You might want to take a look at the letters sent to all representatives (and, I assume, senators) from the “uniserv” councils. These letters, and the enclosed resolution(s), left no doubt: anyone who supports any bill, any action, any budget item … any anything … that is not supported by the teachers’ union can expect to be opposed by the union in the next election.

What’s kind of sad about this situation is that the message isn’t particularly different than what prompted the shelving of the workers’ privacy bill last month. And the uniserv letters went to all legislators, I understand, not just the few working on the bill.

There are days where the drama in Olympia outstrips the reason. But, in most cases, reason prevails.

You will note, I said MOST CASES, not all. Watch for more drama. I’m hoping we hang tough and get the stronger House bill passed by the Senate.

You might want to take a look at the letters sent to all representatives (and, I assume, senators) from the “uniserv” councils. These letters, and the enclosed resolution(s), left no doubt: anyone who supports any bill, any action, any budget item … any anything … that is not supported by the teachers’ union can expect to be opposed by the union in the next election.

What’s kind of sad about this situation is that the message isn’t particularly different than what prompted the shelving of the workers’ privacy bill last month. And the uniserv letters went to all legislators, I understand, not just the few working on the bill.

There are days where the drama in Olympia outstrips the reason. But, in most cases, reason prevails.

You will note, I said MOST CASES, not all. Watch for more drama. I’m hoping we hang tough and get the stronger House bill passed by the Senate.

It’s sad that Rep. Eddy would put this sort of untruth on such a public forum.

1) The idea that “all” representatives received these letters is ludicrous.

2) “I understand” is a very, very thin justification for ripping the teacher’s union. Given how far off-base she is here, that level of understanding is more than open to question.

3) The WEA has been very consistent on what the good parts in the bill are: prototype schools and making libraries and gifted education a part of the definition of basic education, for two. The trouble with the bills is that they also add more layers to the already ridiculous certification system, change the salary schedule to require National Certification (would you want your salary decided by someone on the other side of the country?), take away levy equalization without saying how it will be replaced, which would be absolutely fatal to many of the small and rural school districts….and on, and on, and on.

4) Finally, while I can appreciate the House protecting Levy Equalization and not cutting I-728 to the extent the Senate did, there is absolutely no justification for appropriating $3,000,000 for more education commissions to study how to implement HB2261 when at the same time we’re talking about laying off thousands of teachers. That $3 million could save almost 38 jobs, and isn’t that what’s important right now?

It’s sad that Rep. Eddy would put this sort of untruth on such a public forum.

1) The idea that “all” representatives received these letters is ludicrous.

2) “I understand” is a very, very thin justification for ripping the teacher’s union. Given how far off-base she is here, that level of understanding is more than open to question.

3) The WEA has been very consistent on what the good parts in the bill are: prototype schools and making libraries and gifted education a part of the definition of basic education, for two. The trouble with the bills is that they also add more layers to the already ridiculous certification system, change the salary schedule to require National Certification (would you want your salary decided by someone on the other side of the country?), take away levy equalization without saying how it will be replaced, which would be absolutely fatal to many of the small and rural school districts….and on, and on, and on.

4) Finally, while I can appreciate the House protecting Levy Equalization and not cutting I-728 to the extent the Senate did, there is absolutely no justification for appropriating $3,000,000 for more education commissions to study how to implement HB2261 when at the same time we’re talking about laying off thousands of teachers. That $3 million could save almost 38 jobs, and isn’t that what’s important right now?

Ryan, whoever, good obfuscation. So the letters went to MANY legislators, want to check it out and report the score? The point is that the WEA has resorted to thug tactics and gross misrepresentation of the education reform legislation to chase a few dollars for teachers at the expense of doing what is best for all children to increase funding for better student achievement.

None of the items you state in your number 3 are accurate, and the WEA knows it. Just scare tactics.

Yes, protecting jobs right now is important, but what is more important is moving us to higher student learning and better long run pay and accountability for teachers and administrators. If I-728 had been already placed in the definition of basic education, as the Basic Ed Task Force proposed, there would be no teacher cuts. ESHB 2261 protects levy equalization and I-728 jobs and does so much more for all parts of education, the kids, teachers and administrators. We need to get in enacted, now.

WEA, please stop coming across as negative, me first, disrespectful of parents, taxpayers, voters and legislators and work with the rest of the education community to make good things happen for all kids now and in the future. Higher student success is what is important, the kids count on us to make it work for them. Just doing what works for the WEA control is not what is best for all children. We can do it, yes we can, if we actually worked together.

Ryan, whoever, good obfuscation. So the letters went to MANY legislators, want to check it out and report the score? The point is that the WEA has resorted to thug tactics and gross misrepresentation of the education reform legislation to chase a few dollars for teachers at the expense of doing what is best for all children to increase funding for better student achievement.

None of the items you state in your number 3 are accurate, and the WEA knows it. Just scare tactics.

Yes, protecting jobs right now is important, but what is more important is moving us to higher student learning and better long run pay and accountability for teachers and administrators. If I-728 had been already placed in the definition of basic education, as the Basic Ed Task Force proposed, there would be no teacher cuts. ESHB 2261 protects levy equalization and I-728 jobs and does so much more for all parts of education, the kids, teachers and administrators. We need to get in enacted, now.

WEA, please stop coming across as negative, me first, disrespectful of parents, taxpayers, voters and legislators and work with the rest of the education community to make good things happen for all kids now and in the future. Higher student success is what is important, the kids count on us to make it work for them. Just doing what works for the WEA control is not what is best for all children. We can do it, yes we can, if we actually worked together.

John: You’re either lying or misinformed. Neither is attractive.

Here’s the source document that I’m working off of:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2261-S.E.pdf

The piece about eliminating levy equalization is on page 27, beginning on line 24.

The piece about changing certification (again–how old is ProCert? 7 years?) is in section 202 on page 29.

The piece about requiring National Board certification is cleverly hidden on page 27 line 13 where they talk about mirroring what the PESB decides for certification; go to the original bill (1410) for the real story:

The professional educator standards board shall establish minimum levels of performance on the evaluation under this section for a residency teaching certificate, a professional teaching certificate,and continuing professional certification. The professional educator standards board shall adopt a definition of master teacher that requires certification from the national board for professional teaching standards.

You can call it scare tactics if you’d like, but I’d offer that calling something what it actually is could be considered honesty. Those who continue to promote 6048 and 2261 as having absolutely no downsides are not being honest.

Shame on you, John.

John: You’re either lying or misinformed. Neither is attractive.

Here’s the source document that I’m working off of:

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2261-S.E.pdf

The piece about eliminating levy equalization is on page 27, beginning on line 24.

The piece about changing certification (again–how old is ProCert? 7 years?) is in section 202 on page 29.

The piece about requiring National Board certification is cleverly hidden on page 27 line 13 where they talk about mirroring what the PESB decides for certification; go to the original bill (1410) for the real story:

The professional educator standards board shall establish minimum levels of performance on the evaluation under this section for a residency teaching certificate, a professional teaching certificate,and continuing professional certification. The professional educator standards board shall adopt a definition of master teacher that requires certification from the national board for professional teaching standards.

You can call it scare tactics if you’d like, but I’d offer that calling something what it actually is could be considered honesty. Those who continue to promote 6048 and 2261 as having absolutely no downsides are not being honest.

Shame on you, John.

Ryan – As a taxpayer, I want MORE accountability, from MY government and MY school district. Don’t forget who pays the for all salaries, inc teachers.

As a parent and former teacher, I need to ask – Why is the WEA against the trend here? The Dept of Education, the National Education Association, and many National Teachers of the Year all understand that there are great teachers and not-so-great teachers out there. In other professions, the great employees get paid more for their great performance, not just because they have been there longer. What is wrong with asking teachers to acheive the highest level of training (National Certification) in order to reach the highest end of the pay scale?

Who wins with the status quo? Not our kids!

Ryan – As a taxpayer, I want MORE accountability, from MY government and MY school district. Don’t forget who pays the for all salaries, inc teachers.

As a parent and former teacher, I need to ask – Why is the WEA against the trend here? The Dept of Education, the National Education Association, and many National Teachers of the Year all understand that there are great teachers and not-so-great teachers out there. In other professions, the great employees get paid more for their great performance, not just because they have been there longer. What is wrong with asking teachers to acheive the highest level of training (National Certification) in order to reach the highest end of the pay scale?

Who wins with the status quo? Not our kids!

As a parent, my question is, why do teachers have a problem with Nat’l Certification? It only applies to those new to the profession, it is shown to benefit students, and will ultimately result in higher pay. The union’s position is projecting the appearance that they are willing to throw out everything that benefits students in this bill, because there is fear of stricter criteria for being a teacher. The truth is, most teachers I know will easily manage a higher professional standard. A few won’t — and it’s past time to find a way out for such teachers. As a parent, I’m too familiar with the harm that a lack of ability does.

As far as salaries being decided by someone on the other side of the country, those of us whose income comes from any national company already live with that. And most small companies use nationally normed wage scales to determine salaries. I have no desire to start an argument here, but it does seem at times that the union expects teachers to have more job security than the rest of us have, more guaranteed raises. In the business world, the knowledge that you have to show performance results every year in order to get that raise, keeps you innovating. Sometimes you have a lousy year — no raise, no bonus (not everybody works for a bank). How many teachers, edging toward retirement, dig into the old bag of tricks year after year, not wanting to change it up?

Too, what’s wrong with eliminating levy equalization? I don’t exactly live in Bellevue, but if the state keeps its constitutional promise and pays for Basic Ed as defined by 2261 (I wish it were 1410), levy equalization will be a lot less critical than it is now.

I’m afraid, from my perspective as a parent, I just don’t understand the problem the union has with this legislation. Since this legislation will benefit so many children, ultimately the union is driving a wedge between teachers and parents.

As a parent, my question is, why do teachers have a problem with Nat’l Certification? It only applies to those new to the profession, it is shown to benefit students, and will ultimately result in higher pay. The union’s position is projecting the appearance that they are willing to throw out everything that benefits students in this bill, because there is fear of stricter criteria for being a teacher. The truth is, most teachers I know will easily manage a higher professional standard. A few won’t — and it’s past time to find a way out for such teachers. As a parent, I’m too familiar with the harm that a lack of ability does.

As far as salaries being decided by someone on the other side of the country, those of us whose income comes from any national company already live with that. And most small companies use nationally normed wage scales to determine salaries. I have no desire to start an argument here, but it does seem at times that the union expects teachers to have more job security than the rest of us have, more guaranteed raises. In the business world, the knowledge that you have to show performance results every year in order to get that raise, keeps you innovating. Sometimes you have a lousy year — no raise, no bonus (not everybody works for a bank). How many teachers, edging toward retirement, dig into the old bag of tricks year after year, not wanting to change it up?

Too, what’s wrong with eliminating levy equalization? I don’t exactly live in Bellevue, but if the state keeps its constitutional promise and pays for Basic Ed as defined by 2261 (I wish it were 1410), levy equalization will be a lot less critical than it is now.

I’m afraid, from my perspective as a parent, I just don’t understand the problem the union has with this legislation. Since this legislation will benefit so many children, ultimately the union is driving a wedge between teachers and parents.

The truth is…Change is scary, and change is not always easy. The truth is the schools in Washington state are falling further and further behind each year (if not each day) The truth is our kids need more, they need the best from ever single class and every single teacher that they sit in front of. So how do we get our kids what they need? Do we just give more money, change nothing and wait to see if that changes the trend?? Or do we make real change? It seems to me the easy way to go the cop out way is just giving more dollars. So if you want to cop out then sure more money, status quo, so those who can’t handle change feel safe cozy and warm. But that will not help our kids. We need to be brave embrace the change that needs to take place, step up to the plate and DO WHATS BEST FOR KIDS! Washington state needs to go ALL IN, now today this Session and lead the way all this backroom talk and drams needs to end.

The truth is…Change is scary, and change is not always easy. The truth is the schools in Washington state are falling further and further behind each year (if not each day) The truth is our kids need more, they need the best from ever single class and every single teacher that they sit in front of. So how do we get our kids what they need? Do we just give more money, change nothing and wait to see if that changes the trend?? Or do we make real change? It seems to me the easy way to go the cop out way is just giving more dollars. So if you want to cop out then sure more money, status quo, so those who can’t handle change feel safe cozy and warm. But that will not help our kids. We need to be brave embrace the change that needs to take place, step up to the plate and DO WHATS BEST FOR KIDS! Washington state needs to go ALL IN, now today this Session and lead the way all this backroom talk and drams needs to end.

Ryan,
Maybe you should try reading the bill more carefully, before resorting to name calling. Taking your points in order:
1. NO, IT DOES NOT “DO AWAY WITH LEVY EQUALIZATION”. The topic is addressed in 2 sections of the bill (Sect.112/Finance & Comp. Working Group/p.27, lines 24-31; Sect.401/ New Levy-LEA System/p.39). In fact, the second and final subsection of Sect. 401 speaks entirely to the need to RETAIN equalization.
The point of this feature is that if levies no longer have to be used to fund some portion of the state’s obligation as they do now,, but rather are solely for enhancements, then a committee needs to study what limitations would govern their use in such a role.
2. NO, THE SALARY SCHEDULE WOULD NOT REQUIRE NATIONAL CERTIFICATION. Here, you look to Sect. 112 again, and Sect. 202(Certification). You quoted from a BILL THAT DIED ALREADY, largely because of controversy re: whether Nat’l Bd. Certification was the proper standard for achieving status as a “Master Teacher” under that bill. The CURRENT bill has no such reference. There’s no “clever hiding” on p.27. Instead, it makes the straghtforward point that recommndations from the Compensation Working Group better be aligned with the Certification Standards that come out of PESB. When you look at Sect. 202 to see what PESB is supposed to do, it is: “ADOPT A SET OF TEACHER KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING THAT ARE DOCUMENTED IN HIGH-QUALITY RESEARCH AS BEING ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVED STUDENT LEARNING AND ARTICULATED ON A CAREER CONTINUUM.” So, is that what you’re really afraid of?

Ryan,
Maybe you should try reading the bill more carefully, before resorting to name calling. Taking your points in order:
1. NO, IT DOES NOT “DO AWAY WITH LEVY EQUALIZATION”. The topic is addressed in 2 sections of the bill (Sect.112/Finance & Comp. Working Group/p.27, lines 24-31; Sect.401/ New Levy-LEA System/p.39). In fact, the second and final subsection of Sect. 401 speaks entirely to the need to RETAIN equalization.
The point of this feature is that if levies no longer have to be used to fund some portion of the state’s obligation as they do now,, but rather are solely for enhancements, then a committee needs to study what limitations would govern their use in such a role.
2. NO, THE SALARY SCHEDULE WOULD NOT REQUIRE NATIONAL CERTIFICATION. Here, you look to Sect. 112 again, and Sect. 202(Certification). You quoted from a BILL THAT DIED ALREADY, largely because of controversy re: whether Nat’l Bd. Certification was the proper standard for achieving status as a “Master Teacher” under that bill. The CURRENT bill has no such reference. There’s no “clever hiding” on p.27. Instead, it makes the straghtforward point that recommndations from the Compensation Working Group better be aligned with the Certification Standards that come out of PESB. When you look at Sect. 202 to see what PESB is supposed to do, it is: “ADOPT A SET OF TEACHER KNOWLEDGE, SKILL, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING THAT ARE DOCUMENTED IN HIGH-QUALITY RESEARCH AS BEING ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVED STUDENT LEARNING AND ARTICULATED ON A CAREER CONTINUUM.” So, is that what you’re really afraid of?

Let’s talk about National Certification first, looking at what school reformer Michelle Rhee is doing in the Washington, D.C. public schools:

At the same time, Rhee has dropped the school system’s direct support for instructors seeking certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a rigorous one- to three-year teacher development program, citing a lack of evidence that the training improves student achievement.

Or consider this from Education Week a couple of years ago:

In their paper, researchers Helen F. Ladd, Charles Clotfelter, and Jacob L. Vigdor, looking at 10 years of North Carolina data on students in grades 3, 4, and 5, found that students in classes taught by nationally certified teachers learned significantly more over the course of a school year than students of teachers without that distinction.

But Tim R. Sass and Douglas N. Harris, in a separate study of Florida students in grades 3-10, concluded that teachers with the credential seemed to be more effective only in some grades, some subjects, or some tests.

My point is that the research base on National Boards isn’t conclusive. Are NBCT usually dedicated professionals who care about kids, absolutely. But on one hand we have a belief that paying additional money for Masters degrees and credits earned is a waste of money, while on the other we’re setting ourselves up to pour tens of millions of dollars into promoting National Certification when the research base is just as mixed.

I come at this too from a “Once bitten, twice shy” basis; Professional Certification was supposed to be the cure-all that made beginning teachers better. What it’s been is a giant headache where the demands from the state change on an almost yearly basis and our very newest teachers–those who need to be thinking about the craft and what’s best for kids–are instead spending limited time and money on jumping through state hoops.

That’s no good for the kids.

I also worry about the National Boards evolving in a way that Advanced Placement has, where there’s been a not-so-subtle change from “Only the best” to “Everyone should be able to do this.” When you take a step like tying National Certification to the salary schedule, that’s the message sent.

Let’s talk about National Certification first, looking at what school reformer Michelle Rhee is doing in the Washington, D.C. public schools:

At the same time, Rhee has dropped the school system’s direct support for instructors seeking certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, a rigorous one- to three-year teacher development program, citing a lack of evidence that the training improves student achievement.

Or consider this from Education Week a couple of years ago:

In their paper, researchers Helen F. Ladd, Charles Clotfelter, and Jacob L. Vigdor, looking at 10 years of North Carolina data on students in grades 3, 4, and 5, found that students in classes taught by nationally certified teachers learned significantly more over the course of a school year than students of teachers without that distinction.

But Tim R. Sass and Douglas N. Harris, in a separate study of Florida students in grades 3-10, concluded that teachers with the credential seemed to be more effective only in some grades, some subjects, or some tests.

My point is that the research base on National Boards isn’t conclusive. Are NBCT usually dedicated professionals who care about kids, absolutely. But on one hand we have a belief that paying additional money for Masters degrees and credits earned is a waste of money, while on the other we’re setting ourselves up to pour tens of millions of dollars into promoting National Certification when the research base is just as mixed.

I come at this too from a “Once bitten, twice shy” basis; Professional Certification was supposed to be the cure-all that made beginning teachers better. What it’s been is a giant headache where the demands from the state change on an almost yearly basis and our very newest teachers–those who need to be thinking about the craft and what’s best for kids–are instead spending limited time and money on jumping through state hoops.

That’s no good for the kids.

I also worry about the National Boards evolving in a way that Advanced Placement has, where there’s been a not-so-subtle change from “Only the best” to “Everyone should be able to do this.” When you take a step like tying National Certification to the salary schedule, that’s the message sent.

And now, “no raise, no bonus.”

If the state eliminates the Learning Improvement Days that’s a 1.1% pay cut for most teachers in the state, 2 days out of 182.

If the state further takes the step of raising the out-of-pocket for health insurance, that’s another step backwards.

If the state gets around to eliminating TRI pay for teachers, the way that Sen. Jarrett talked about openly during the Basic Ed Finance Task Force hearings, that would be yet another cut for teachers.

The meme a couple of years ago was “0-0-4-0-3-0″, which was the raises that teachers got over a 6-year span.

There are no guarantees.

And now, “no raise, no bonus.”

If the state eliminates the Learning Improvement Days that’s a 1.1% pay cut for most teachers in the state, 2 days out of 182.

If the state further takes the step of raising the out-of-pocket for health insurance, that’s another step backwards.

If the state gets around to eliminating TRI pay for teachers, the way that Sen. Jarrett talked about openly during the Basic Ed Finance Task Force hearings, that would be yet another cut for teachers.

The meme a couple of years ago was “0-0-4-0-3-0″, which was the raises that teachers got over a 6-year span.

There are no guarantees.

Levy equalization:

I’ve heard it expressed by many during the financial downturn that “If only the state had a broader definition of basic education, then schools would be immune from the current crisis!”

Consider what that would mean for the state *right now* if levy equalization and I-728 were basic ed: a billion dollars more in cuts out of DSHS, universities, prisons, GA-U, and a variety of other necessary, important programs.

For the schools, hooray!

For everyone else, not so much.

Carry that over, then, to levy equalization. Sure, it’d be nice if per pupil funding was high enough that the Stehekins and Onion Creeks of the world didn’t need LEA, but my considered opinion is that the money to make LEA be “basic ed” isn’t going to be there any time soon, which is why I worry–when the state talks about phasing out LEA without having a solid, established mechanism to restore that money through the Basic Ed funding, I think our small/rural districts are being set up.

Levy equalization:

I’ve heard it expressed by many during the financial downturn that “If only the state had a broader definition of basic education, then schools would be immune from the current crisis!”

Consider what that would mean for the state *right now* if levy equalization and I-728 were basic ed: a billion dollars more in cuts out of DSHS, universities, prisons, GA-U, and a variety of other necessary, important programs.

For the schools, hooray!

For everyone else, not so much.

Carry that over, then, to levy equalization. Sure, it’d be nice if per pupil funding was high enough that the Stehekins and Onion Creeks of the world didn’t need LEA, but my considered opinion is that the money to make LEA be “basic ed” isn’t going to be there any time soon, which is why I worry–when the state talks about phasing out LEA without having a solid, established mechanism to restore that money through the Basic Ed funding, I think our small/rural districts are being set up.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Bob Douthitt of the Spokane School Board. He surely has more faith in the power of legislative committees than I do. From the secton that you cite, Bob:

Develop options for a new system of supplemental school funding through local school levies and local effort assistance. The working group shall take into consideration the impact on overall school district revenues of the new funding formulas established under RCW 28A.150.260 and recommend a phase-in plan that reduces reliance on local school levies concurrently with increased state funding and assures that no district suffers a decrease in overall funding from one school year to the next due to implementation of the new systems.

Assure makes an ass out of you and re. Or something.

We were assured that GCERF in the early ’90s would take care of things.
We were assured that Washington Learns would take care of things.
We were assured that the stipends for National Board certified teachers were codified into law and would never go away, and now there’s a bill out there (2343) that would do just that.
We were assured that ProCert would make teaching better.
We were assured that the money spent on alternate pathways would solve the teaching shortage.

I don’t like the conversation about LEA, period. Being Spokane, who receives more levy equalization than any other district in the state, you see that better than most. You’ve apparently got the confidence that the state will make up that chunk of money, which pays for about 140 teachers. I’m more of a cynic.

As to requiring National Certification to get to the top of the pay scale, you’re right, I did quote the original bill, and I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear in my earlier post. That said, Rep. Hunter has made absolutely no bones about wanting the original bill back:

Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, Clyde Hill), a strong supporter of the original bill, smiled as he delivered a harsh F.U. to Rep. Don Cox (R-9, Pullman, LaCrosse)—who had just finished noting that the bill needed more details to safeguard small schools. Rep. Hunter sneered: “If you’d like more details, we can go back the original bill … and just pass that.”

…..and the current bill does say this:

Within the definition established by the board, individuals certified through the national board for professional teaching standards shall be considered to have achieved master-level certification.

You ask what I’m afraid of. I’m afraid of teaching being made a more unattractive profession by setting barriers in place (like National Certification) that make it impossible to get to a decent salary. I’m afraid that the half-baked accountability system from the State Board of Education will result only in more FTEs for OSPI so that they can hire consultants to do drive-by evaluations of school districts. I’m afraid of a certification system that requires teachers new to the profession to start shoveling money out to colleges and universities so that they can enroll in ProCert courses, when the state would be better off actually funding mentoring.

And frankly, Bob, I’m afraid of people like you who like to use this bill as a wedge to beat up on the people who actually deliver education. It’s very easy to say that the WEA has been divisive and unworkable, but there’s plenty of that to go around.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Bob Douthitt of the Spokane School Board. He surely has more faith in the power of legislative committees than I do. From the secton that you cite, Bob:

Develop options for a new system of supplemental school funding through local school levies and local effort assistance. The working group shall take into consideration the impact on overall school district revenues of the new funding formulas established under RCW 28A.150.260 and recommend a phase-in plan that reduces reliance on local school levies concurrently with increased state funding and assures that no district suffers a decrease in overall funding from one school year to the next due to implementation of the new systems.

Assure makes an ass out of you and re. Or something.

We were assured that GCERF in the early ’90s would take care of things.
We were assured that Washington Learns would take care of things.
We were assured that the stipends for National Board certified teachers were codified into law and would never go away, and now there’s a bill out there (2343) that would do just that.
We were assured that ProCert would make teaching better.
We were assured that the money spent on alternate pathways would solve the teaching shortage.

I don’t like the conversation about LEA, period. Being Spokane, who receives more levy equalization than any other district in the state, you see that better than most. You’ve apparently got the confidence that the state will make up that chunk of money, which pays for about 140 teachers. I’m more of a cynic.

As to requiring National Certification to get to the top of the pay scale, you’re right, I did quote the original bill, and I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clear in my earlier post. That said, Rep. Hunter has made absolutely no bones about wanting the original bill back:

Rep. Ross Hunter (D-48, Redmond, Bellevue, Kirkland, Clyde Hill), a strong supporter of the original bill, smiled as he delivered a harsh F.U. to Rep. Don Cox (R-9, Pullman, LaCrosse)—who had just finished noting that the bill needed more details to safeguard small schools. Rep. Hunter sneered: “If you’d like more details, we can go back the original bill … and just pass that.”

…..and the current bill does say this:

Within the definition established by the board, individuals certified through the national board for professional teaching standards shall be considered to have achieved master-level certification.

You ask what I’m afraid of. I’m afraid of teaching being made a more unattractive profession by setting barriers in place (like National Certification) that make it impossible to get to a decent salary. I’m afraid that the half-baked accountability system from the State Board of Education will result only in more FTEs for OSPI so that they can hire consultants to do drive-by evaluations of school districts. I’m afraid of a certification system that requires teachers new to the profession to start shoveling money out to colleges and universities so that they can enroll in ProCert courses, when the state would be better off actually funding mentoring.

And frankly, Bob, I’m afraid of people like you who like to use this bill as a wedge to beat up on the people who actually deliver education. It’s very easy to say that the WEA has been divisive and unworkable, but there’s plenty of that to go around.

Paying more for targeted useful credits and Masters are not a waste of money, however many programs out there have become “easy” and have no accountability, hardly worth the money they cost. Additional Credits and higher degrees aren’t meant to bump teachers up on the pay scale, they are meant to make them Better more Effective teachers. Anything real and long lasting in this world takes HARD WORK. There shouldn’t be a short cut to better pay, I have personally seen some put more effort into trying to work the system than into actually becoming a better more effective teacher. This type of activity and lackluster degrees Hurts the students in Washington state. It needs to end. NOW.

Paying more for targeted useful credits and Masters are not a waste of money, however many programs out there have become “easy” and have no accountability, hardly worth the money they cost. Additional Credits and higher degrees aren’t meant to bump teachers up on the pay scale, they are meant to make them Better more Effective teachers. Anything real and long lasting in this world takes HARD WORK. There shouldn’t be a short cut to better pay, I have personally seen some put more effort into trying to work the system than into actually becoming a better more effective teacher. This type of activity and lackluster degrees Hurts the students in Washington state. It needs to end. NOW.

Ryan~

I really don’t want people who are so fearful~Teaching my kids. Maybe we should pass all of this ASAP so that those of you who are so afraid, can try a new career something not so scary for you.

Ryan~

I really don’t want people who are so fearful~Teaching my kids. Maybe we should pass all of this ASAP so that those of you who are so afraid, can try a new career something not so scary for you.

Thank you Rep. Eddy for your courage.
Thank you John Stokes for your rebuttal in support.
Thank you Dr. Chamberlain for your view as a former teacher.
Thank you Brooke for pointing out that it takes courage to change.
Thank you Public School Parent for involving yourself in this ongoing debate.
Thank you Mr. Douthitt for your courage also and working hard (voluntarily) on behalf of our kids.

Thank you Rep. Eddy for your courage.
Thank you John Stokes for your rebuttal in support.
Thank you Dr. Chamberlain for your view as a former teacher.
Thank you Brooke for pointing out that it takes courage to change.
Thank you Public School Parent for involving yourself in this ongoing debate.
Thank you Mr. Douthitt for your courage also and working hard (voluntarily) on behalf of our kids.

The negative post from the union rep clearly show that teachers are about themselves and what dollars are needed to line their pockets. The education reform bills are about kids and about the future of those kids. It is time we stop selling our kids short when we all know you can’t build a future on what is now considered basic education. The only way to do that would be to throw out all technology, all gains made in science, and anything other progress that has been made since the 70″s and teach to those skills. Our kids deserve better and to compete with their peers we need accountable teachers and a new definition of basic ed.

I thank the legislators for the work they have done to move the kids into the 21st century.

The negative post from the union rep clearly show that teachers are about themselves and what dollars are needed to line their pockets. The education reform bills are about kids and about the future of those kids. It is time we stop selling our kids short when we all know you can’t build a future on what is now considered basic education. The only way to do that would be to throw out all technology, all gains made in science, and anything other progress that has been made since the 70″s and teach to those skills. Our kids deserve better and to compete with their peers we need accountable teachers and a new definition of basic ed.

I thank the legislators for the work they have done to move the kids into the 21st century.

After spending years listening to teachers (and the teacher’s union) in my district extolling the benefits of National Board Certification and pleading for parents to raise the money to pay for that education and to pay them more for having completed it, my reaction to the current claims that NB certification means little, is more than disappointing and frustrating. I want my money back!

After spending years listening to teachers (and the teacher’s union) in my district extolling the benefits of National Board Certification and pleading for parents to raise the money to pay for that education and to pay them more for having completed it, my reaction to the current claims that NB certification means little, is more than disappointing and frustrating. I want my money back!