6 area superintendents:Amendment 3 removes local control from school bds.
Posted: Thursday, October 30, 2014 12:34 pm | Updated: 12:28 pm, Fri Oct 31, 2014.
On behalf of the six West Plains area school districts, you are urged to vote “no’’ on Amendment 3. John Mulford, West Plains R-7, More than 230 school boards in Missouri have adopted resolutions to oppose Amendment 3 and not a single one has supported it. These school boards are part of a growing trend of opposition to Amendment 3, which is a devastating proposal for local school districts. The proposed constitutional amendment is a state mandate that shifts local control away from parents, teachers, administrators and school boards. Amendment 3 is a poorly drafted and deeply flawed proposal that strips local school boards of much of their authority to make educational decisions related to teacher performance and evaluation. This is an issue that does not belong in the Missouri Constitution.
From the perspective of the six local school districts the following items represent the major concerns that would result if Amendment 3 passes:
Amendment 3 takes away the local control of school boards regarding the ability to make employment decisions based on the unique needs of the school district. Passage of this amendment would mandate that all school districts use an evaluation tool and process that is approved by state appointed leaders in Jefferson City. Locally elected school board members would lose the ability to determine what is best for their students, district, and community as it relates to evaluating and retaining teachers and administrators. Do we really want the state to be given the authority to tell our local school boards who they should be employing and how to evaluate those employees?
Amendment 3 forces taxpayers to pay for additional standardized tests at a time when our public schools remain underfunded. Passage of this amendment requires that “the majority” of a teacher evaluation system be based on “quantifiable student performance data.” This language indicates that additional standardized testing would be required so that all teachers in all subject areas would be evaluated in accordance with this requirement. Some cost estimates for these state-mandated standardized tests are upwards of $1 billion, which school districts and taxpayers would be forced to pay. Given that schools districts have not received full funding since 2009, how will these additional tests be paid for? And, do we really want to take additional time away from instruction to require our kids to participate in more state-mandated tests?
Amendment 3 changes the purpose of teacher evaluation. When done correctly, the purpose of teacher evaluation is to improve teacher performance and promote professional growth as an educator. Research supports this approach as having the greatest impact on the learning of our children. This amendment transforms the teacher evaluation process into a punitive system. It requires hiring, promoting, dismissing, and compensating of teachers to be based solely on the evaluation process while moving control of this process to the state. Again, do we want the state to mandate these responsibilities that have traditionally fallen under the authority of the local school board?
Does teacher evaluation really belong in our state constitution? Over the last few years school districts across the state have completely overhauled the teacher evaluation process, but all decisions were made at the local level based on what best fits the individual districts. Regardless of a person’s beliefs on public education, teacher evaluation, tenure and accountability of schools, we must consider the appropriate avenue for addressing these concerns. Amending the state constitution should not be taken lightly. There are four constitutional amendments on the November ballot. While the idea behind some of the amendments may sound logical, the question we must ask ourselves is, “does this idea really belong in the constitution?”
Amendment 3 will take away local control of our schools, and we are fundamentally opposed to that. The fact is Amendment 3 would implement yet another unfunded mandate on schools that are already facing a shortage of funding. Additionally, Amendment 3 would prevent school boards from hiring, promoting, compensating or dismissing teachers in accordance with board policy.
We believe that this amendment will have many unintended consequences for our school districts. We know our schools and our students best and it’s important that our community maintain control of the schools in our district.
John Mulford, West Plains superintendent
Vic Williams, Fairview superintendent
John Dern, Junction Hill superintendent
Wayne Stewart, Glenwood superintendent
Marvin Hatley, Howell Valley superintendent
Melonie Bunn, Richards superintendent
No comments:
Post a Comment