Shown below is the Letter to the Editor that I submitted to the Record & Landmark regarding the IFs. It was printed in today's edition of the paper. I am including it here for those of you who do not subscribe to the paper. If you compare the letter below to the one printed in the paper you will see they only made a few minor changes. The paper did add the headline included below in green.
Iredell-Statesville Schools cannot afford to keep non-teaching teachers in the district's payroll
To the Editor:
A recent Record and Landmark article detailed the cuts in the proposed 2010 – 11 state budget as regards to education and the response of the Iredell-Statesville School administration to those cuts. As part of his response Superintendent Brady Johnson is quoted as saying that about 50 I-SS employees will retire at the end of the current school year and that the district will fill the 25 most critical vacancies and absorb the rest through attrition. This is supposed to save the district one million dollars.
The May I-SS Personnel Report recently approved by the School Board states that the two current Instructional Facilitator (IF) coaches are being promoted from interim status to permanent status. This indicates that I-SS is going to continue with the IF program. This is a program that has questionable value. The recent teacher survey indicated that many teachers do not find the IF program beneficial.
There are about 35 Instructional Facilitators currently employed by the district. These IFs should be moved back into the classroom to replace teachers who are retiring or resigning. This could save the school system another million dollars in salaries and benefits. If these IFs are truly exemplary teachers let their classrooms serve as models for other teachers. This would be a much better utilization for these individuals. As it is now, the IFs spend much of their time in meetings. They should be in classrooms instructing the students. I-SS can no longer afford to pay 35 teachers not to teach.
The argument is that they provide some service to the teachers. This is a service the teachers do not want. We are quite capable of sitting down with our colleagues and collaborating without a person there to "facilitate" in a PLC. Plenty of teachers and schools around the country have PLC meetings without a third party there to supervise. Teachers will sacrafice this much more readily than 2% of their suppliment. As much as we love kids, we'll give this up before wanting overcrowded classrooms.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, IFS are paid (at least in part) from professional development money. As far as providing professional development, there's other ways to do that too. The district has a teacher representative from each school getting paid a small stipend (as they should) to learn RTI. These teachers then present the training to the staff. Providing a small stipend to 35 teachers to learn something new and bring it back to the staff is a whole lot more efficient than paying salary and benefits for 11 months. This could easily be done with other district intiatives or PD.
There are plenty of teachers taking the lead in our schools with diferent iniatives even without a stipend attached to it. As it is, there are teachers that voluntatily go to trainings with the IFs or participated in the Showcase earlier this year. There is not a shortage of teachers in ISS that would take over the duties of the IF. With the new teacher evaluation in NC, more and more teachers are looking for leadership and professional development oppurtunities. Teachers have an incentive through the new evaluation to do these things. NC is rating us on it.
The cost of the IF position is much higher to the students who are in overcrowded classrooms with little technology and other resources (TAs, textbooks, etc) to lead them into the 21st century.
I see we are back to the IFs. Who will it be next month?
ReplyDeleteJust think of the staff development opportunities that would be made available with the money that is spent on IF salaries and staff training. You might just have the opportunity to go to outside training in math, reading, writing, classroom management. Imagine that!!!! Why would a classroom teacher want to take a workshop in one of those areas when they can sit thru another one about assessment and classroom evaluation. Teachers should once again be given the privilege of choosing their own staff development based on individual school needs and not the system as a whole. According to the state staff development person that I spoke with, staff development should be based on teacher evaluation results. I find it amazing that every school in the district has the same evaluation needs.
ReplyDeleteI'm disgusted by what passes as logical argument here.
ReplyDeleteYou should say this is a service that SOME teachers don't want, or most of the teachers at your school don't want, because I know of plenty at my school and others who do. I'm glad my IF facilitates our PLC's because let's be honest, there are very few teams who are as high-functioning as the one you describe. We are improving, but we certaintly aren't there yet.
If my IF became a classroom teacher, that would take about 4-5 kids out of classrooms in one grade level, about 20-24 kids total. What about the other 28 classrooms in the other grade levels? My IF works closely with our grade level and others to support our work with students who are struggling, about 150 students in all. She even comes in to work one-on-one with kids(gasp!)and helps with K-2 and other assessments. IFs are now evaluated by the principal, and have an evaluation rubric of their own similar to teachers. Have you seen their rubric? Ours showed it to us and asked for feedback. Your whole problem could be your principal.
As for our RTI "liason", she has done nothing except let the IF do all the work. They didn't even tell her what she would be doing when she volunteered. Why did she volunteer? Because no one else wanted to. So where are these other willing folks going to come from to present district initiatives and PD? Again, that might be the case at your school, not ours. The RTI liason has been out of the classroom once a month for "training" but then reports that she didn't understand anything. Now that would be high quality PD if she was one of those people who would "take over the duties of the IF" wouldn't it?(sarcasm).
Speaking for myself, I don't want to go attend some workshop and then find out that it is not what the description said it was. I've sat through too many boring ones in Charlotte, Raleigh, and Wilkesboro. Usually it ends up being a sales pitch. Back in the old days the "train the trainer" model was a disaster. We had to decide in advance what workshops we wanted, fill out paperwork, wait for approval, find and plan for a sub, go by ourselves, and then come back and present to the staff after school when no one wanted to be there, even us! We couldn't just go learn on our own what we wanted.
I like it that our IF presents the best practice strategies, we have a work time with our team to discuss and plan for our specific students' and school's needs, we give feedback about how the session could be made better, and changes are made for the next time. Or we put it on the issue bin during the training and it is addressed right away. If that is not happening at your school, then as I said before, it could be a problem with your principal.
Just in talking with my coworkers, lots of people at my school have a need for more 21st Century learning skills, so every PD we have includes these components - technology and collaboration. I guess that's why. They don't really share everybody's IGP with the staff.
Janie, when did you last teach in ISS? Have you attended a PLC or an Early Release Day professional development this year? Have you worked with an IF? I work at a school that IS doing what we need in our staff development. And what on earth do you mean by "when they can sit thru another one about assessment and classroom evaluation"? Did I miss something? I don't recall that one. You are speaking about things that you have not personally experienced. Or you are parroting what sounds like a very disgruntled individual. I find it amazing that you know each and every IF and staff member at every school and have attended every single early release day and are qualified to criticize everything.
You and Paul Klaene do NOT represent me or my view points, yet you always talk as though EVERYONE thinks the way you do and EVERYTHING is the same at EVERY school. Fail Rhetoric 101.
~Susie Q
Of course, it obvious that Susie is really an IF --- (NOT sarcasm)
ReplyDeleteit's
ReplyDeleteJanie is right. Last year, we had to stay one day a month to be taught how to assess, CASTLE training. This year they grouped it in with PLCs. Many felt they understood the PDSAs and CFAs they had already been creating. The same could be said for the endless hours of training on cooperative learning and homework or summarizing and notetaking, etc. Some people wanted assessment training, that's why the district said they did it, but some don't need this training. It's a one size fits all approach.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much paperwork with PLCs here that there is accountability in place. We have to fill out PLC PDSAs, data anaylsis forms, etc. Sure sometimes teachers will go off topic and talk about a student or upcoming field trip, but the accountability is still in place. As long as we're meeting those requirements, why do we need supervised while we do them?
Just so everyone understands, the RTI people were GIVEN a powerpoint to bring back and present to the staff. Our RTI person did not know every answer to every question, but it was a simple thing to email the CO person and find out and she did that. The failure of the RTI training was that they changed the student support plans to match RTI, but never explained how to fill out the student support plan until it was too late since we have to have parent conferences in the first 45 days. This was a district failure, they changed the student support plans and didn't explain the changes to the RTI people in time, even though I know the RTI people asked for an explanation on it. The district responded and did create an example student support plan, it was just a little late. I think your principal needs to intervene if the RTI person claims she doesn't know what she's doing as she's getting paid to learn it. The trainings come from a district powerpoint and it's pretty easy to follow.
Technology training will always be popular as it is an ever changing thing. The problem is, there is no money to implement any actual technology. Instead of let's learn about ebooks or Ipods or smartboards and senteos, it is basically "here's some websites". Again, this is not individualized, the teachers that are more effiecient with technology have to attend. They could use that time to learn their curriculum or plan lessons to meet the needs of their students, or planning for a sub to attend a workshop they do need to improve their individual teaching.
Teachers in all ISS schools and schools across the state and country have to fill out the paperwork and find a sub and attend workshops. Here we go to L to J, Reading Foundations, Carolyn Coil, etc. It's part of the job. To be fair, most teachers are life long learners and enjoy these workshops (that's why they exist and make money).
There's some awesome classroom management, student motivation type workshops out there that some people would like to attend. We don't have that choice and that's the problem.
As far as bringing it back to the staff, if it was a choice to attend you would have a better audience. Since it comes from the district, people have more of a skepticism of training. It's a "what am I going to HAVE to do now?" attitude and I'm not being ugly, I don't blame them for that. Baldridge is shoved on everyone and so people are skepitcal now about staff trainings. If it was a choice, people would be there because they are interested, not required.
Some teachers wanted nothing to do with the Showcase, some did, and you don't want to go to Raliegh, but some would. No problem, to each their own. We're all being held to the same state standards. NC requires that we earn renewel credits for our certification. Leadership and PD are on all of our evaluations. In a time of cutbacks, let us choose how we meet our requirements and stop paying someone else to take care of our professional responsibilities. Give those resources (money, teachers) back to the children.
Hey, I think I know Susie. If it's who I think it is, she went through the training to be an IF next year, if there are any openings - depends on what they're doing with the IF/AP's. She's "like this" with the IF at her school.
ReplyDeleteAnd speaking of IF/AP's - what about them? They're making admin pay.
I think both "Susie" and "2:19PM" have made some very good points. I'm glad to hear from some people who are able to explain their postitions without put downs and generalizations. And who actually work in our schools.
Susie must be an IF the way she thinks of teachers! We can't work as a team, we don't want to go to professional development, need someone to tell us best practices, and it would somehow be unfair for an IF to take the place of a retiring teacher to reduce class size. How about it's unfair to the grade levels that have to lose someone to retirement and take more students while IFs sit in their cozy offices most of the day?
ReplyDeleteIf you put IFs back in the classroom, they will NOT replace a retiring or leaving teacher. They will replace someone who is already teaching (1st or 2nd year). That is what all of you are not understanding! IF positions would NOT phase out into classroom positions. There would still be no MORE classroom positions if the IF model goes away. Please refer to the "Chart of Accounts" or take a Budget and Finance in Education class before you start telling others that these positions; if eliminated; would lead to more teachers in the classrooms. This "false hope" that you keep spewing is toxic for all!!
ReplyDeleteMay 30, 1:16 PM: There are many teachers retiring or resigning at the end of this school year. Most if not all of those teachers will need to be replaced. Let those teachers be replaced with IFs. If that does not deplete the entire pool of IFs then let the remaining IFs be shared among schools. If schools can share librarians, music teachers, etc., they can share IFs as well. Then, at the end of next school year, let the remaining IFs replace the teachers retiring that year. Thus, in just a couple of years, all of the IFs can be cycled back into the classroom without taking jobs away from the 1st or 2nd year teachers.
ReplyDeleteIf Mr. Johnson plans to continue the IF program, indeed they should have to share schools like the nurses etc, people who are vital to our children. Allotments for IFs should be the same as for APs and other support personnel. The IF at our school meets with K-1 teachers for 45 minutes on Monday, 2-3 on Tuesday and 4-5 on Wednesday for 45 minutes. That is 90 minutes out of the school day for 3 days of the week. She could spend 2 days at our school and 2 days at another school. What goes with the 5th day, the IFs meet every Thursday to plan their week. Sure wish I had an entire day one day a week. There are IFs moving into administrative positions, he could start there with sharing. As long as there is waste in the budget I can't imagine how anyone expects the county commissioners to spend additional money for education.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need to take away any jobs. 50 teachers are retiring. The district only plans to replace 25, the other 25 positions will disappear. The children in those 25 classrooms will just be squished into other classrooms. Instead of paying 35 IFS, put them in the classroom, using the money you are CURRENTLY paying 50 teachers ( 50 teachers who are at the top of the pay scale). Instead of using money for 35 IFS and 25 teachers, you're using money for 35 (put the IF coaches back in the classroom for 37) teachers and have less kids to squash into other classrooms. Right now the district plans to have 25 of those 50 teachers in the classroom, but they could take care of 37 classrooms, so yes there would be MORE classroom positions. Plus you save money by not recruiting and interviewing 25 new teachers.
ReplyDeleteWith the way the sate is cutting budgets, I doubt the IFs are paid entirely with all state PD money. The PD fund is probably supplimented in some way with county money, which doesn't have the same restictions as state money.
At some schools, all PLCs are on the same day. That means the IF has to eat lunch in between meetings, but as someone who doesn't have duty free lunch, I'll sprare my tears for them. That gives them 3 days a week, leaving off Thursday, to sit in thier offices and look up websites or talk on IM. To be fair, they do have to find some time in those three days to consult the matrix and create 1 agenda, if that's not done on Thursdays.
ReplyDeleteSusie Q,
ReplyDeleteI retired 3 years ago. I have sat in PLC's under 2 different IF's. Both were a joke when it came to helping me do my job. I worked at one of the first schools to have the honor of Baldrige shoved down our throats. I watched as master teacher after master teacher left this school because their teaching was being smothered. These teachers who had great success year after year were suddening being told how to run their classrooms by someone with 5 years experience teaching. Administration was no help because they were too afraid to speak up. No, I have not had the experience of early release days for staff development, but I do have friends in numerous schools across the system and have listened to them talk about what a waste of time they are. Teachers have less and less time in their classrooms for preparation and more and more time in useless meetings. I do know of what I speak. I think it is wonderful if the IF at your school is actually doing his/her job. Please share with us the name of this school so that others can get the CO to send other IF's to observe and learn.
The no new teachers will be able to get their chance in our school district and a lot of federal money will be lost. Sounds like a lose; lose but then again it's not going to happen so it seems ridiculous to even discuss it. The IFs are staying for 2010-2011...that is fact.
ReplyDeleteThen; not the...I know!
ReplyDeleteThe state does NOT pay directly for the IF program. The state does provides Title 1 money, which among other things can be used for professional development.
ReplyDelete"Through Title 1, school districts can hire teachers to lower student-teacher ratio, provide tutoring for struggling students, create school computer labs, fund parent involvement activities, purchase instructional materials, host professional development for teachers, create pre-kindergarten classes, and hire teacher assistants."
Before the county commissioners vote for budgets, they need to ask for an itemized list of expenditures and expected expenditures ITEM BY ITEM. I liken this to back in 1995 the university system managed to start receiving payment for out of state athletics, this year at a cost of $9,000,000 (yes folks that is millions). It was one of those bills no one looked at until it was too late.
ReplyDeleteAND I heard that the system uses local funds to pay for those teachers who are National Board certified. WHY are they not in the classroom?
ReplyDeleteThe Iredell County Commissioners meet tomorrow night (Tuesday) at 7:00 PM in the Commissioners meeting room on the 2nd floor of the Iredell County Government Center. There is going to be a hearing near the beginning of the meeting for public comments regarding the upcoming County budget including the amount allocated to I-SS. I have heard that Brady Johnson has been requesting teachers to speak at the meeting and ask the Commissioners to increase funding for I-SS. Everyone needs to remember that a major portion of the funding for the Central Office comes from these local funds. Last year this portion amounted to over 1.5 million dollars. We need to ask the Commissioners to make sure that the County funds are going to help the students and not to line the pockets of the I-
ReplyDeleteSS administrators.
You people crack me up!
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't you complaining (and I couldn't really give to craps about IF's just so you know.) about retire/rehire employees?
Do you guys have ANY CLUE how much money they are pulling in? Let's do Money/Income basics 101. The state wants to whine that it has no money, but yet it will not outlaw retire/rehire positions in the state, and not just education wise, but every state agency.
You have a mandatory 6% "contribution" from every full time employee's paycheck each month.
You a retiree (MANY MANY MANY Retirees) who fall under Bailey's Act. (For those of you who do not know.. if you had at least 5 years of contributory service prior to August 12, 1989 (I believe it's August 12, but you get the jist); you get your retirement benefit as exempted from NC State Tax.
You have a 30 year (or more) teacher who comes back to a position in the school district..they have the option of either working 6 months out of the year for their full pay (as long as they don't go over the salary cap which is set ridiculously high if you are only working half the school year).. or you can work 50% for the entire year. - out of this money, the state is NOT getting that 6% "contribution" because those employees are exempt from paying into it - they're already retired! They ARE however paying out a "lifelong" benefit to the retire/rehire on top of the state money they are using to fund the position these people are in.
So ALL the state is getting out of the deal is a measley state tax deduction on the income the employee is earning. - These are positions that the state/school system could make money off of if if IF IFFFFFFFF they would put a teacher in who is one that is not only less experienced, but in many many cases much less jaded than the one that is currently sitting in it.
IF's are flashes in the pan. There's no way our budget is going to be able to sustain their positions for long, but the fact that you have retire/rehire after retire/rehire in teaching positions that are eating up money that could go to save positions, is much more scarey for me. We have principals who have their favorites, who retired 3-10 years ago and these principals refuse to hire someone who is equally qualified to fill the positions because good ol' boy club member #215 wouldn't be able to golf every thursday afternoon, or wouldn't be able to afford this or that.. instead let's keep them in the classroom where they may or in most cases, may not be doing a service to our kids. (and there are also several administrators who draw a nice hefty salary who fall under the retire/rehire classification).
There are so many more places to get money from than fighting an already redundant battle over the IF's.
Did you look at the salaries of the top people in ISS and Mooresville on the Record and Landmark data page? The salaries are 2008 and most in I-SS are six figures. Perhaps the Record would publish the salaries they are making in May 2010 to compare, of course some of the people listed like Dr. Hill no longer works for the system.
ReplyDeleteI hope the commissioners will look at the salaries and increases this year before deciding on an increase to ISS. Why is the bd of edu allowing all the raises to admin when they need money for instructional materials and teachers. This is irresponsible on the part of Mr. Johnson and the decision makers.
ReplyDeleteI think you all need to go to that commissioners meeting and speak about how this money is being wasted. That will guarantee a cut in local budget and a cut in our supplement. Wow, how delusional are you? We're cutting our own throat! Great job facilitating this Paul. Please stop trying to help. I hope the commissioners don't read this junk.
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to be cut is the percentage of budget dollars that goes to I-SS administration. Could it be that June 1, 2010 8:14 PM is part of that percentage?
ReplyDeleteWrong is wrong==shout it to the rooftops -- sweeping things under the rug doesn't change that fact.
It would be interesting to see how much of the local funding is used to fund the BIG salaries. How much of Dale Ellis' and Melanie Taylor's salary is funded by the state and local funding??? Please share that info. Let's hope that the teachers and students will not be punished by lack of funding.
ReplyDeleteHeard today that Pam Schiffman and Dawn Creason, two admin at Race Street has asked Mr. Johnson for a raise. Can you believe ANYONE would ask in light of the layoffs of teachers.
ReplyDeleteTo June 9 8:58: In Iredell-Statesville Schools?? Um, YEP!!!! (yeah, I believe it!)
ReplyDeleteIfs do need to be shared among schools, and those that can really teach need to be back in the classroom. They should not be 11 month employees with this money crunch. Enough said, and if you as a teacher can't handle a PLC without an IF, you need to get out of education.
ReplyDeleteI agree! The system tells us they do not have funding so WHY are the IFs 11 months? A school with less than 400 students should share an IF!
ReplyDeleteYou have a great point! Why would the Bd of Edu support the IF program for 11 months when teachers/students only work 10 months. Why is the system not saving funds????
ReplyDeleteAll IFs should willingly go back into the classroom, and quit telling others how busy they are. They really would be busy in a classroom. All this expertise and all this info at PLCs is totally lost on the pitiful classroom teacher who is so dumb and so naive that she can't teach a class without the IFs input. This is really nothing, but a waste on our system. Teachers who need an IF need to get out. What are we to do? Continue wasting tax payer's money on a ridiculous position...ISS will. The IF remanins.
ReplyDeleteremains misspelled...
ReplyDelete