We find Commissioner Mitchell D. Chester's statements to be rather odd considering that the DESE has been involved in the development of the plan all along. In fact, the DESE hired a plan manager to work with the district to create the plan, which he is now criticizing. Why would Chester criticize a plan his department had a hand in creating?
Mitchell's Statements:
"I am disappointed that at this point in time we have yet to see a plan from the district that reflects both a willingness and a sense of urgency about the need to change the way in which we're doing business in New Bedford."
"I would say my patience is wearing thin."
"What they've submitted is more of a laundry list of partnerships and initiatives ... but not a coherent strategy for ensuring that children are receiving a high-quality program of instruction."
"I need a plan from the district that shows that they're repositioning themselves to insist on viable leadership at the school building level, on strong focus of improving curriculum and instruction for students ... and a strategy for positioning the central office to support that improved curriculum and instruction."
"What I've seen from the district is a proposal to secure a number of partnerships with outside organizations, each of which represents a different initiative, a different approach, but which collectively don't add up to a coherent, strategic approach to improving curriculum and instruction."
Click here to read the Turnaround Plan.
7 comments:
Once again the leaders know nothing about the instruction we have been trying to put forth for the last ten years!!!
No kidding!! We've been saying the same thing for years!!! For once the state is talking some sense!!
Please pay close attention to the following quote which I think is at the heart of the troubles in this district:
"I need a plan from the district that shows that they're repositioning themselves to insist on viable leadership at the school building level, on strong focus of improving curriculum and instruction for students ... and a strategy for positioning the central office to support that improved curriculum and instruction." In other words, back off and let the right leaders lead their schools!! Top down micro-management hasn't been working for some time now. We need real leaders running our schools and the discretion to do so, not "Yes-men" that do nothing except preserve the status quo from those at the top.
Boo hoo, they won't let us lead our schools. Give me a break. Discretion? Who is stopping you? You have employees or students day after day, hours on end. But somehow, someone on county street has tied your hands? Applaud the Mitchells, Jon and Chester, at your peril. But don't tell me they are asking for less centralization. Their message is clear: they want constant, detailed responses to a million and one aspects of schooling and they want it yesterday, along with a plan to change it, track it, and explain the inexplicable when targets are not met. personally, I have no idea how that happens, how parent, child, and staff issues, emergencies, and turnover can be handled along with that, all on a budget of 80%, along with UIA, S Committee, paper, and Roundtable pulling in four different directions and crying wolf every other week. Do you?
I agree with the last post, well said!!!
Have noticed that every article about education in the standard times is an assault against teachers? Talk about agendas!
I'm unimpressed with ineffective state employees that can't give sound recommendations during the molding of this turnaround plan. Those involved at the state level should be fired or reprimanded for their incompetence.
What are they paid for?
Post a Comment