Lynn Fugate says this is the first year they have had a non-renewed teacher come before the board…
Board members say they are concerned about making non-renewals public. They don’t seem to understand that this information is already public record. At least one nearby county presents a list of personnel changes to their board EVERY month. Transparency.
McMillan: “If you are non-renewed, you are essentially, fired.”
[Lots of discussion about the language used, to create a less “public” list of this publicly available information.]
To the question of what information is shared, when one calls Central Office for a referral, Law Director Armstrong recommends keeping the personnel file down to “eligible to be rehired” or “not eligible to be rehired.” Nobody says what is being said, currently.
Carson says there will be unintended consequences from changing the nonrenewal policy. She says that there is no real evidence that there is a problem with the policy as it is now – and that everything they have heard is anecdotal.
[THIS is WHY the Board needs the policy change – to give them the information they need.]
Fugate wants clarification on what “notified of non-renewals” means. “Is it a number or is it a list of names?
Voting to amend the proposed amendment to read, “The Board will be notified BY the next meeting.”
Deathridge says she can’t vote on this until she knows whether the list will be published. Harris, again, explains that this is already public information.
Carson says that she will not be voting for this policy change, because she believes this should ve a procedural change.
She further says that we can’t say that non-renewal is a career-ender … and she presents some anecdotal information regarding two of the 40, who are currently teaching in another district.
Carson thinks it is okay that information has been denied to individual Board members, and says that it would be available if the whole Board asked for it.
Fugate asks for a FIVE-YEAR review!
[YES! Will they actually do it???]
As amended, the non-renewal policy fails. It can come up again at a future meeting.
Rountree asks whether the Board can still direct the Director of Schools to work on a procedural document. Armstrong says they do have such a policy in place and that the Board can request that the Director do whatever they collectively agree they want.
The “New Teacher Project” is a “diagnostic,” this is “a fancy word for test.”
Lauren points out that the people involved with this organization may not be people we want to be affiliated with.
- 3 are from Teach for America.
- 1 is from Boston public schools.
- Michelle Rhee started this organization.
Rhee has a reputation for calling the media and saying, “Hey, want to go watch me fire a principal?”
An email to West Hills teachers requests a lot of student work, to be supplied, from teachers in the school.
ALL of this began at the beginning of September – but – this grant is being brought up for approval TONIGHT.
Lauren Compares this to the Broad Academy grant, which was illegally accepted last year and notes that this is bordering on malfeasance.
The Board members say that this doesn’t apply, because the contractor was chosen by the state and that it is actually an honor.
Bounds says that she has multiple concerns. Parents have not been notified and have not given permission for their children to be involved in any kind of study. Teachers have been asked to compile student work for them to use in the study, and that there are additional observations, focus groups, and other work to be done by teachers.
McMillan wonders why, if this was already happening, nobody mentioned that to the Board on Monday.
Rountree points out serious concerns about Michelle Rhee and her colleagues.
Terry Hill asks whether this program has concluded.
Though Dr. McIntyre says he believes it has concluded, Millicent Smith says that they visited the school only one day. When she finishes, it is still unclear whether they have completed their work here.
The Board votes 4 to 4, regarding acceptance of this program.
Public Forum:
Northshore Elementary Parent, addressing the Board, regarding positive things happening at their schools. She says that both the former and current principal have been wonderful.
[The best I can figure out about this, is that someone has complained, that volunteers are discouraged from working in the school. Data is presented to refute that claim.]
A parent addresses the Board, regarding the company selected to supply questions for TNReady. She cites several studies, fom states who have used this company, and have done validity studies after the tests – only to find them to be unrelated to their actual curriculum.
She points out that there is no way testing takes up the small amount of time that has been reported – and that the time it takes to learn the testing platform, practice with the testing platform, and learn skills needed, must ALSO be included, if there is to be transparency.
The real question should not be whether we are ready for TNReady, but whether TNReady is ready for our children.