Clinton Herald Editorial
February 15, 2007 01:31 pm
—
There is a debate brewing in the Clinton School District between administrators and educators, and it all boils down to one simple item: the district calendar and, specifically, inservice days set aside for mandatory staff development.
It is important to note at the beginning of any discussion that administrators and educators both have strong concern for the best interest of the students, but also that this is an issue that deals with people’s jobs, union contracts and state law. Those facts might complicate the issue beyond the point of comprehension, but they can’t be ignored.
Iowa law mandates students attend school 180 days each school year, with a stipulation that teachers have the opportunity to continue their professional development through three inservice days.
For many years, inservice has been scheduled to three full days in the district calendar, typically at the end of each trimester. The administration is asking the school board to approve a change that would create six Mondays where there would be no school for students, and on those days inservice would be scheduled in the morning.
The calendar administrators proposed would ask teachers to restructure their work year but would not increase the number of hours they would be required to work. Some teachers have said their union contracts don’t allow for breaking three full days into six half days. Clinton School District Superintendent Randy Clegg feels state code allows the school board to determine the calendar.
Furthermore, Clegg said there have been recent informal conversations regarding school calendar alterations. Clegg cited many governmental and commission reports that have talked about the critical role professional development plays in school reform and that high-quality professional development is essential if students are going to achieve at high levels.
Reading between the lines, those high levels we want students to achieve at can be linked to standardized test scores, which are used as benchmarks in the federal No Child Left Behind legislation. And this is no time to argue about the merits of NCLB, because as long as it’s in effect, we must play by its rules or risk funding loss and placement on the dreaded “watch lists” that lead to headaches for teachers, administrators and students.
It may well be a good time to evaluate the district calendar to see how it can best maximize professional development and student achievement. But perhaps the district should consider a more complete analysis, including a hard look at the practical benefits of early releases each Wednesday at the elementary level and on the first and third Wednesday of each month at the middle and high school levels.
With so many factors at play, it may be too late to make a serious change before the next school year begins. And with so many other irons in the fire — a new grade school opening soon, a facilities task force analyzing every district building, a nomadic plant services department and legal issues regarding the site of the bus barn — the calendar may seem to some the least of the district’s worries.
Yet if administrators and educators are so concerned about the calendar at this point, we must reason that it truly is a key part of the educational process and deserves significant attention. We want the best for all of our students, and taking time to have frank discussions about day-to-day education seems a very good place to start.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.