Remarks to the Springfield School Board

Sept. 2, 2014/Study Session

Kittilu Maxson, SNEA president

 

When you ask any educator if they consider their profession to be a business or an art, they would lean heavily toward it being an art, but each educator also willingly understands the need for accountability as they provide an undeniably important service to their community through their work with students each day.

You’re all familiar with the non-profit, “TeachGreat”. I would be remiss if I didn’t take this opportunity to point out that “TeachGreat” is grammatically incorrect. The correct phrase would be; "TeachWell". I don’t teach great, I teach well!  Putting all politics aside, you’ve asked me to bring you the teacher perspective. Thank you for this opportunity.

Let’s start by looking at our very own Springfield Learning Model. It’s processes include the familiar 3 C’s; Critical Thinking, Communication and Collaboration. Should Amendment 3 pass, teachers could see a much different emphasis in these areas. With so much riding on one-size-fits-all, state mandated testing, the results of which become the quantifiable student performance data to be used as the majority of each educator’s professional evaluation, our new 3 C’s might sound something like this;

                    *Careful Test-Taking, instead of Critical Thinking

                    *Communicating Quantifiable Data

                    *Competition, rather than Collaboration

Let’s look at that last one, Competition. Our district currently fosters and supports a culture of team collaboration at all levels. Amendment 3 could cause a subtle, yet negative shift toward professional isolation and competition among colleagues. Both are antithetical to the professional development of educators and are not in the best interests of our students… who come to us each year with a wide variety of strengths and needs. PD would need to focus on teaching to the tests. Teachers believe that what our district is focusing on now, the growth and progress of our student over time, is so much more relevant and accurate than any single, status shot derived from a one-size-fits-all, high stakes testing event.

As a climate of harmful competitiveness grows, the very same educators, who now choose to follow their hearts into careers where they advocate for the students with the most challenges to overcome, like in many of our Title and Focus schools, would be faced with the reality of their very jobs being on the line if their student’s scores didn’t meet a certain state-determined level.magine the scenario that could quickly emerge; students with potentially the most to lose, would no longer have the advantages of ever being guided and taught by our most experienced educators. What teachers would be willing to continue to take that risk?

I wonder if you’ve thought about the extra burden that will be placed on administrators and counselors if this amendment becomes law.As they create class lists and schedules, they will now not only be trying to match student’s needs with teacher’s strengths, but also be deciding the make-up of the group by which their colleagues will be evaluated and compensated. What a strain this will put on the professional and collegial relationships of educators at each site, but also on the student-teacher relationship.

Beyond the shift to Careful Test-Taking and Competition, it seems our mission statement could change from “Learning Is Personal”, to something more like “Learning Is Quantifiable”. Understand, educators want to show the effects of their art and professionalism through an effective evaluation system. Teachers don’t shy away from this process.Our district is currently implementing a new educator evaluation system which relies on highly trained administrators, collaborating with educators to use multiple measures, over time, in order to rate educator effectiveness. This evaluation process, when paired with our negotiated, binding contract and existing board policy, allows the district to have both the input and control it needs to ensure a quality educational environment for each student.

I  never thought I’d be so pleased to have the Springfield Learning Model to rely on as a structure, but as we move forward together in transparency and accountability, we must think critically about how we communicate this important issue and continue to foster collaborative, person-centered relationships which, together,  benefit our students, educators and our whole community. 

Teachers aren’t interested in having a constitutional amendment insert itself into our district’s continually improving processes.

Teachers and students are more than a test score.

Teachers understand there will be high costs of implementation, draining funding away from what they know their classrooms actually need.

Teachers don’t believe their students deserve this extra testing burden.

Teachers value working in a district that has high levels of local control.

This is a teacher’s perspective.

Thank-you.