To say that the last year
and a half has been a season of change for educators in the state of Michigan
would be seriously understating what has taken place. In addition to all of the political changes—prohibited
subjects of bargaining and the euphemistic ‘right-to-work’ law to name just two—we
are also busily attempting to fully implement the Common Core State Standards
for each grade level by the target dates.
If that weren’t enough, we also needed to negotiate and settle a labor
contract in an environment that was too often vicious and hostile.
You would have to be
nerveless not to feel some anxiety over the issues we continue to face.
Aside from the uncertainty of economics (the governor has
yet to signal what he’s seeking for K-12 funding, and the contract expiration
we face in June), one of the most anxiety laden issues we all are experiencing
are the changes to the tenure law and teacher evaluations. All of us—teachers and administrators alike—are
feeling our way through a process that in past years might be described as
haphazard and meaningless.
The PGP process has been confusing enough, but now, the
question of what an observation actually is, and what our responsibilities are as
teachers to facilitate that observation, is also raising questions. While the state required school districts to
submit and gain approval of an evaluation framework to establish guidelines for
observation, they also revised section 380.1249 of the school code to muddy the
waters.
For example, the Oakridge teacher evaluation framework
states that teacher evaluators for non-tenured teachers “…will review teacher’s
lesson plans, the state curriculum standard being used in the lesson, and pupil
engagement in the lesson.” In regard to
Plan II, tenured teachers, the active verb “will” becomes the passive “may”,
suggesting that it is not a requirement that teacher’s supply written lesson
plans to the evaluator. The Michigan
Revised School Code, on the other hand, makes no such distinction, and simply
exchanges the active verb for the more antiquated “shall”.
In the same vein, we’ve all heard the stories of teachers
being supplied with three-ring binders and instructed to write lesson plans for
each lesson they teach, so that “anyone could walk into your classroom and
teach the lesson in your absence.” The people
responsible for such efforts have apparently failed to read certain documents
created by the National Governor’s Association for Best Practices, 2010a, one
of which explicitly states:
“…the
Standards do not mandate such things as a particular writing process or the full range of metacognitive strategies that students may need to monitor and direct their thinking and learning. Teachers are thus free to provide students with whatever tools and knowledge their professional judgment and experience identify as most helpful for meeting the goals set out in the Standards. (pg. 4)"
All of these changes, and all of the confusion and
anxiety they’ve created, only make the case for a strong union more compelling
and relevant. Without union
representation, teachers would have no voice among those making the changes and
creating the anxiety. Without a local
association to advocate not just for wages and benefits but working conditions, no one would listen
to our professional judgment in regard to class sizes or the value of a
particular metacognitive strategy. Alone,
we are 105 individuals with, too often, 105 differing agendas. Together, we advocate for those things that
matter to us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment