by Kathleen Jeskey
On Thursday, the Oregon State Board of Education approved a rule
change which will require many districts to increase instructional time, also
known as “seat time”, for students. This decision was made in spite of the
Board hearing from Oregon State Employees Association (OSEA) the Oregon
Education Association (OEA) the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators
(COSA) the Oregon School Boards Association (OSBA) and the Oregon Parent
Teacher Association (PTA) that this rule change should not be made at this
time.
While all of these organizations representing Oregon school
employees, teachers, principals, superintendents and parents agree that we need
to make this change for our students, all were also united in stating that it
should not be done without serious study of the fiscal impact this would have
on schools and districts, since no increase in funding is attached to this rule
change. Many representatives of these groups are concerned because some Oregon
districts that have chosen to preserve programs such as PE and music, or retain
smaller class sizes rather than increase instructional hours, may be required
to add as much as three weeks to their school calendars with no additional
funding. The result of this would then be cutting programs or increasing class
size due to the necessity to lay off staff; as one Oregon teacher said when she
heard the news of this rule change, “Just
when things were starting to get slightly less horrible.”
The rule change was adopted very quickly, with a timeline of only
about three months between the initial reading of the proposed amendment and
its adoption. There were only a handful of public hearings. You can read
testimony from the December hearing (held three days before Christmas) here.
Some concerns result from the language of the hastily adopted amendment. For example, many believe that language that states that “ ‘Instructional time’ means time during which students are engaged in regularly scheduled instruction… working under the direction and supervision of a licensed or registered teacher…” will eliminate counting Outdoor School as “instructional time”. This would virtually kill the Outdoor Science School program that has been a capstone activity for over 200,000 sixth graders and a valuable learning experience for over 50,000 high school students who have served as counselors throughout Oregon since 1968.
Some concerns result from the language of the hastily adopted amendment. For example, many believe that language that states that “ ‘Instructional time’ means time during which students are engaged in regularly scheduled instruction… working under the direction and supervision of a licensed or registered teacher…” will eliminate counting Outdoor School as “instructional time”. This would virtually kill the Outdoor Science School program that has been a capstone activity for over 200,000 sixth graders and a valuable learning experience for over 50,000 high school students who have served as counselors throughout Oregon since 1968.
Other examples of language in the
rule change that are concerning include the requirement that
80% of students must receive minimum hours of instructional time. This fails to
take into account special education students who may need to be on a reduced
schedule, alternative education students whose schedule may be different, or
students in poverty who may need to work in order to help their families make
ends meet. Setting an arbitrary requirement of 80% does not allow schools
flexibility to meet the needs of diverse student populations. Additionally, “non-academic” field trips and assemblies
will no longer count as instructional time. This is vague language that might
result in some principals fearing that they must eliminate many or all field
trips and assemblies in order to be in compliance.
With all these concerns, with all these organizations united in
the request for nothing more than a deeper study of these rule changes prior to
implementation, why did the State School Board decide to forge ahead? Could it
be that the original complaint
was brought by the Portland Parent Coalition,
a group which counts among its members none other than Julia Brim Edwards? In
case you are unfamiliar with Ms. Edwards, let me introduce you. She currently
is employed by Nike as Senior
Director of Global Strategy & Operations; Government and Public
Affairs. She also serves on the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB) to
which she was appointed by Governor Kitzhaber. You can view her LinkedIn
profile here.
The undue influence of Nike and the Oregon Business Association
on our governor and his appointed Deputy Superintendent Rob Saxton, and
apparently the appointed State School Board as well, is unacceptable. When one
small group of parents can push through their agenda over the protests of
virtually every group representing all of Oregon’s students, this is cronyism at it’s most blatant. But hey, it’s good to be queen.
It’s time
for us to take back our schools. Please contact your legislators
and let them know how you feel about this rule change.
http://standonchildren.blogspot.com/
ReplyDelete