Teachers as advisors to 8-10 students works well in many schools
Anyone proposing we reduce class sizes in our state—as I did
in #214—needs to provide at least one specific recommendation on how we can
afford it, as it will mean paying for more teachers.
What would you cut?
Counselors. Fewer counselors
(with their preposterous ratios per student–the most recent figure for Colorado
is 1:324[i])
and more teachers in a school building. This is one way to reduce the number of
students in core classes, where too many middle and high school teachers in Colorado
are asked to meet the needs of over 140 students. It is too much. We see this
in the deeply troubling issues regarding a lack of time for teachers, of
burnout and attrition, touched on in my Sept. 1 newsletter.
And who will take the place of the counselors?
Teachers. They will have smaller classes, but they will also
be the advisor to 8-10 of their students. Exactly as I was asked to do in two
schools where we had, if I recall correctly, just one counselor—whose job it
was to help the graduating class with applications to their next school or
college.
I.
Teacher as advisors - How it works
The most efficient way is for the 8-10 advisees to be among
the students in a teacher’s class, so they see each other every day, not just once
a quarter, as is the case with many counselors. Teachers invariably know their
students better than most counselors can possibly know their 300-plus “caseload.”
To be an advisor does not add to the number of students a teacher needs to know
well; it simply means a special commitment to 8-10 of them.
Which includes what?
1) Regular “meetings” – a kind of “homeroom” with your advisees for 15 minutes a day. Or a few sit-downs, one-on-one; more often just informal check-ins. Lunch together once in a while. A chat in the hallway before school. Paying extra attention to your advisees’ health, their spirits, their work habits and, of course, their grades. Getting to know their interests. Building trust.
2) You receive notes from your fellow teachers, coaches, and
those leading extracurricular activities who work with your advisees (back in
the day, pre-email, actual written NOTES!)—questions, concerns, praise. You have
an idea in real time if your advisees are struggling in a course, if their attitude
or study habits might be an issue, and where, as similar messages arrive from
two or three colleagues, a pattern emerges that helps you see it’s time to set
up a longer conversation.
3) As the advisor, you become the first link for many
families. Parents know that you know their son or daughter in a way the
counselors seldom do. Your goal is to be—and parents trust you in this
role—their child’s advocate. The one adult in the building they believe feels
an extra responsibility to watch out for the well-being and growth of their
child. In some cases, those parents become friends.
4) You sit down with each advisee to work on his or her
schedule for the following year. This is not rocket science. You know the boy
or girl well enough to handle this role without much training. In this process
you also learn more about your advisees: what excites them, what they expect of
themselves, their hopes – and apprehensions – about the next school year.
5) If “real” counseling seems necessary—mental health
support—you can be a link to the school psychologist or social worker. You are
not expected to have that expertise.
In the two secondary schools where I served as an advisor
to about eight students each year, it was the student’s choice if he or she
wanted to stay with us as their advisor the next year. If the relationship was
good, we could be their advisor for several years. In maintaining this connection,
we came to know the student, and their family, really well. (What a joy, years
later, to be asked to attend the wedding of former advisees!) And yet as
students develop a bond with some another faculty member or coach, they might
switch to be with that person the following year. It works.
II. Jefferson County Open School – 50 years with
teachers as advisors
From Lives of Passion, Schools of Hope: How One
Public School Ignites a Lifelong Love of Learning, by Rick Posner, PhD,
pub. 2009 (former teacher and assistant principal at the Open School).
Early in the book, Posner devotes a chapter to the critical
role of the advisor at the Open School. Chapter 3, “Relationships: The Skills
of Life,” introduces a section called, “A Foundation to Build On: The
Advisor-Advisee Relationship.”
In some ways, the school is all about
relationships. In fact, one of the few requirements is that each student has at
least one trusting, supportive relationship to start with—the one with his
advisor. This connection with an adult in the [school] community is really the
starting point for everything that happens at the school. The advisor acts as
an advocate and guide through the self-directed journey that is the Open
School.
… With all the talk about school accountability these days, no one seems to be asking about a student’s accountability to herself and her responsibility for her own education. And who is accountable to the individual student? At a conventional high school, who does a parent call to find out about how his child is doing? His child’s math teacher? The school counselor? Sometimes you’re lucky if anyone even knows your child by name. At the Open School, a parent knows who to call—the advisor.
The advisory system is designed to build confidence and encourage the social and personal skills a student needs to pursue goals and to participate actively in the community. Students gain a sense of empowerment that extends to and is supported by the school community, and they learn invaluable skills that they can carry through their lives as adults. Some kind of advising or mentoring program should be the starting point for all schools that wish to transform students’ lives and build for the future.
Much of the rest of this chapter, as Posner puts it, “builds
on” this key component and shows how the school “fosters healthy relationships.”
He explores the school’s efforts to nurture trust, compassion, empathy,
conflict resolution, responsibility, confidence, acceptance, and respect. Throughout
the book Posner quotes from Open School alumni as they reflect on its impact on
their lives. Many are eager to express their gratitude for the strong
relationships they formed with their advisor, and other faculty, during their
Open School years.
At the website for the Open
School, https://jcos.jeffcopublicschools.org/, we see the school’s continued
commitment to have every teacher serve as an advisor. Their job description demonstrates
that to be an advisor is central to their role. A few examples:
Jana Durbin - ELC Advisor
Molly Rubin - ELC Advisor
Jimi Gibson - ELC Remote Advisor
IA & Bridges Advisors (Grades 4-5
& 6)
Kate Johnson- IA Advisor
Kristie Edwards - IA Advisor
Foundations Advisors (Grades 7-8)
Hannah Reynolds - Foundations Advisor /
Special Education
Brandon Parker - Foundations Advisor /
Social Studies
Jolayne Keller - Foundations Advisor /
Science
Kaitie Kasper - Foundations Advisor /
Language Arts
Walkabout Advisors (Grades 9-12)
Adria Brown - Walkabout
Advisor / Science
Benjamin Dancer - Walkabout Advisor / Language Arts
Dave Harmes - Walkabout Advisor / Math &
Social Studies
Jeremy Kowal - Walkabout Advisor / Shop
Jacob Sliemers - Walkabout Advisor / Science
Tom Sheridan - Walkabout Advisor / Theatre
Jenny Tanner - Walkabout Advisor / Math &
Science
III. Ted Sizer,
the Coalition of Essential Schools, and Francis W. Parker Charter Essential
School
Theodore R. Sizer’s book, Horace’s Compromise – The
Dilemma of the American High School (published 1984), made the case for a
redesign of our secondary schools. The Nine Essential Principles laid out in
that book became the guide for Sizer’s national organization, the Coalition of
Essential Schools. Two quotes.
·
Redefining the role of adults in the school
to get to that 1:80 teacher-student ratio
“As is obvious to even the most casual visitor to high schools, the conditions of work for teachers and principals need to be sharply changed. Horace [Sizer’s fictional teacher of his book title] should not have to compromise; he should be responsible for only 80 students at a time, not 120 or 150 or 175, as is common today in many public and parochial schools. How can this be done? With more money for salaries, obviously. With a redefinition of adult roles within a school system.” (Examples follow. From Section III, Teachers; Part 6, Trust.)
· In a chapter called “Principals’ Questions,” Sizer includes a number of questions school leaders have raised about his proposals—and his response:
(Bold
mine)
“You haven’t mentioned guidance counselors.”
“Counselors today act either as administrators, arranging schedules and job and college interviews and the like, or as teachers, coaching and questioning young people about their personal concerns. Good teachers are good counselors, in that second sense; students turn to them for help, whether or not their titles identify them as ‘guidance’ people. Most high school guidance departments are overloaded with obligations, many of which are contradictory …
“A decentralized school with small academic units has less need for specialized counseling offices; improved faculty-student ratios make this possible…” (From Section II, The Program)
**
My conversation
with Colleen L.
Meaney, Director (August,
2020)
Theodore R. Sizer
Teachers' Center
Francis W. Parker Charter
Essential School, Devens, Massachusetts
A school serving grades 7-12. Enrollment - about 400
students.
Founded by Ted and Nancy Sizer and others in 1995. Now in its
26th year.
After
hearing from Director Meaney on how the school has managed to maintain the
small class size and low teacher-student ratio so vital to Ted Sizer (see AV #214),
I asked about its advisory program today.
|
The Faculty – “The
Parker School has a talented and dedicated faculty. Parker teachers work
together every summer to develop the school's curriculum and its unique
program. All teachers serve as advisers to students, nurturing their
intellectual, emotional, social, and ethical development. Parker gives top
priority to keeping teaching loads at a level where every student can be
known well.”[ii] |
She stressed how essential it is. When we interview candidates
to teach here, she told me, we really explore if they are prepared to
take on this additional role. In her words, “If you can’t be a good advisor, you cannot teach at our
school.” Being an advisor is quite simply “a given,” Meaney said, fundamental
to the school’s “primary mission,” as she put it, “to know students well.”
I ask Director Meaney how the advisor-advisee policy alters the
need for counselors at her school. Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School has
three people on a “wellness team”: a school psychologist, a social worker, and
a nurse. It also has a college counselor. Echoing what we hear from many
educators, Meaney tells me that her school has seen an ever greater need to
address the mental health concerns of students. Advisors, she says, are often
the “first step of support.” Through them the school begins to note when a
student’s needs are getting (her nifty term for this) “louder.” When it does, this
can lead to support from the psychologist or social worker.
We want people to “shine in their lane,” Meaney says, not expecting
teachers to assume responsibilities best handled by those trained for more
complex challenges. In such cases, the professionals in their fields,
the social worker and/or psychologist, take the lead.
· For more on advisor-advisee policies and relationships from the Coalition of Essential Schools:
Advisory Program
Research and Evaluation | Coalition of Essential Schools...
essentialschools.org ›
horace-issues › advisory-program...
At its heart, advisory forges connections among students and the school community, creating conditions that facilitate academic success and personal growth. Intuitively, the program makes perfect sense. But that isn’t enough. Maintaining an effective school-wide advisory program requires a substantial investment of resources. So what does the research say?
Are Advisory
Groups 'Essential'? What They Do, How They Work
essentialschools.org ›
horace-issues › are-advisory-groups...
If even one person in a school knows him well enough to care, a student’s chances of success go up dramatically. In small
groups that can focus on a range of subjects, teachers and students are forming
new bonds and setting new standards for a personal education.
Student Advisory - Ashland School District - http://www.ashland.k12.or.us/files/StudentAdv.pdf
This publication focuses on student advisory programs. High school students often feel disconnected and have few personalized relationships with the adults who educate them. Advisory programs are based on the belief that students need the opportunity to develop trusting relationships with adult educators and that doing so benefits students in a variety of ways. In a student advisory program, each student in the school is assigned a teacher or staff member who assists the student in achieving his or her academic and personal goals.
IV. Colorado’s
approach: lower the counselor-student ratio. Success? $100 million well
spent?
In Colorado, policymakers and schools have ignored the
unfair burden we place on teachers. The focus, instead, has been to address the
(perhaps equally) unfair burden we place on counselors.
In this section I merely introduce a few key points. (More
details in the Addendum.) We need to reassess Colorado’s decision to make
lowering the counselor-student ratio such a priority. This started in 2008 when
the legislature passed the School Counselor Corps Grant Program.
School Counselor Corps Grant Program (SCCGP) - 2008-2020
Fifteen years ago, no one could look at the counselor-student ratio in Colorado and feel pleased: 1:548 in 2005-06. In 2008 the Colorado legislature sought to bring these alarming rates downs with the passage of School Counselor Corps Grant Program (SCCGP). Colorado has now spent close to $100 million (Addendum). As a state, we are still not close to the 1:250 ratio recommended by the American School Counselor Association (ASCA),[iii] but it is much better. In some schools receiving the SCCGP funds, the ratio is even in the low 200’s.
The declining
average number of students assigned to a counselor in Colorado:
2005-06 – 548
2007-08
– 470
2010-11
– 402
2014-15
– 383
2018-19
– 324*
(2004--05 to 2014-15 data from NACAC and ASCA State-by-State Report Student-to-Counselor Ratio Report.[iv])
(*2018-19 figure is from the 2020 Legislative Report – Colorado School Counselor Grant Program.[v])
A great success, true? And yet, still
ridiculously high, agreed? Consider this: Your school has five counselors who have
been working with 1,800 students. With the SCCGP grant, you add a sixth
counselor; the 1:360 ratio comes down to 1:300. A meaningful change? Are these
six individuals likely to form a strong connection with their 300 students they
meet just a handful of times in a school year?
My argument: We must do more to help the men and women who teach the students every day. We must create work conditions—and allow the necessary time—to enable these adults to establish a good rapport and relationship with their students, supporting them, listening to them, knowing them. It is possible, assuming (see AV #214) teachers are not asked to teach 35 third graders, or 150 high school students.
Given the $100 million of taxpayer money committed to SCCGP since 2008-09, we must ask if the program has achieved its own stated purpose: [a] “to increase the state graduation rate and [b] increase the percentage of students who are appropriately prepared for, apply to, and continue into postsecondary education.”[vi] As regards [a], I am not alone in dismissing higher graduation rates as telling us anything about greater college readiness.[vii] As for [b], I see nothing in any article or report on SCCGP’s outcomes to indicate that this has been achieved (see Addendum). More students taking concurrent enrollment and CTE classes says nothing about the rate of success in passing the courses. (See my studies on AP exams in low-performing high schools: more students taking, but often few passing.)
Good counselors can play a critical role in the lives of our students; I bet they may have even saved lives. SCCGP has been a positive for many schools. Nevertheless, I do not believe we have spent our dollars wisely. In good schools it is the teacher-student ratio—not the counselor-student ratio—that makes the biggest difference. We know this. Let’s act on it.
The great manager—and wit—the Baltimore Orioles’ Earl Weaver made a key distinction between baseball and that game played on Sunday afternoons. “This ain't a football game, we do this every day." 162 games over six months. Teachers do this every day too. They teach and try get to know and meet the needs of their students. Every day. 172 days or so every year. But they cannot do it, or they are likely to leave the profession after 4-5 years, if we ask too much of them.
For this reason, our
first priority should be to limit class sizes and the teacher-student ratio.
**
Addendum – SCCGP - articles, reports, funds committed by the Colorado legislature
I cannot find a news article or any study of the School Counselor Corps Grant Program that provides a rigorous analysis of its effectiveness. Although the annual Legislative Reports by CDE (section III below) provide 20 pages of useful data, they only give us the good news. The 2020 Legislative Report concludes: “SCCGP is meeting its legislatively mandated goals in reach and impact.” I see little evidence of that.
I would
hope legislators who have supported this initiative (the grant program “was
updated in 2014 via Senate Bill 14-150, and again in 2019 via HB-19-1187”[viii]) will demand a more thorough
evaluation than we have seen to date. The question to ask: Are students
more “college ready” due to more counselors?
I.
News stories – a superficial look at
the grant and the money spent.
(Bold
mine)
From July
2016 - More students on to college. So?
“Money spent to bring in more middle school
and high school counselors helped keep almost 1,000 at-risk students in
Colorado schools and send more of them to college, a new report shows.”
“The state-funded Colorado School Counselor Corps grant provided $16 million to 59 schools between 2010 and 2015 in an effort to keep students engaged and chart a course — unfamiliar to many low-income students — toward college and career.”[ix]
From
May 2018 - Improving “educational
outcomes.” Evidence?
“Colorado is betting that a big investment in counseling can improve educational outcomes for its low-income students. Since 2008, it has spent almost $60 million to hire an additional 270 counselors and provide professional development training at 365 low-income middle and high schools throughout the state, via grants from the Colorado School Counselor Corps.”[x]
From May
2019 – The “utility players” who can do it all. What about the starting nine—the
teachers?
“School counselors are the utility players at a school,
said Carlos Hipolito-Delgado, an associate professor of counselor education at
the University of Colorado Denver. They work with students on their academic
and career planning and social and emotional development."
“Over
the past decade, 57 percent of school districts have received the grant
and more than 300 school counselors have served students across the
state.”[xi]
See “Colorado School Counselor Corps Grant Program: Early Experiences and Lessons Learned,” WestEd, Nov. 2016.[xii] An in-depth analysis? A balanced look? Hardly. “This report provides information about the SCCGP and its initial successes, including participants’ experiences, in order to inform and assist other state education agencies and policymakers who might be interested in developing similar initiatives in their states.” Not a negative word.
In fact, the report so inflated
the goals of the grant that they are almost laughable. (Bold mine)
Although the
SCCGP is a grant program and is funded by the legislature, state leaders and
program designers have envisioned the program as a systemic change strategy
designed to enhance the way schools operate, while improving practice and
policy along the way. They consider successful sites to be those that envision
a future in which every student pursues some avenue of postsecondary studies,
and where a schoolwide culture provides counselors and other educators with
the time and space required to foster postsecondary readiness and success. The
program is intended to infuse the entire school culture, including
students’ daily interactions.
More counselors as “a systemic
change strategy,” a program “intended to infuse the entire school culture”? One
more reason we need a serious study of how $100 million has been spent.
III.
Annual Legislative Reports, produced by the Colorado
Department of Education
Three
recent annual reports to the legislature seem intent to convince policymakers
that the grant is doing all it was supposed to, and to justify continued
support.
· 2016 Legislative Report Colorado School Counselor Corps Grant -
https://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/2016-school-counselor-corps-grant-program
·
2018 Legislative
Report Colorado School Counselor Corps Grant Program –https://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/sccgp2018legreport
·
2020
Legislative Report Colorado School Counselor Corps Grant Program -http://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/2020-sccg-pdf
The Executive Summary each year
reminds us of “the purpose of SCCGP: to increase the graduation rate within the
state and increase the percentage of students who are appropriately prepared
for, apply to, and continue into postsecondary education.” And yet these
reports offer no data that measures how well the students are “appropriately
prepared for” college or how many “continue” (and succeed) in college after
they enter a higher education institution.
The 2020 Legislative Report
offered this conclusion: “… the eight-year trend data demonstrates that SCCGP schools
and students are experiencing higher rates of postsecondary readiness than the
state.” This is “measured by the overall sustained growth in
their graduation, completion, dropout, FAFSA completion, concurrent enrollment
and matriculation rates even after funding ceased.”
But who believes that this is how
we measure postsecondary readiness?
Furthermore, I have no idea what this so-called “highlight” on “Program outcomes” (2011-12 through 2017-18) tells us about how this $100 million has advanced the college readiness of students: “Grantees report accessing nearly 25,000 hours of postsecondary and workforce readiness professional development reaching over 2,100 professionals annually.”[xiii]
Finally, along with others, I have pointed out for several years the grim remediation rates in college of recent high school graduates—from schools with “ever rising graduation rates.” The state law for SCCGP includes remediation rates as a useful measure of the program's effectiveness. See 22-91-105, Reporting: d) A comparison of the dropout rates, and the college matriculation and remediation rates, if applicable, at the recipient secondary schools for the years prior to receipt of the grant and the years for which the education provider receives the grant.
|
Guess which topic gets
the headlines? From “Student-to-Counselor Ratios are Dangerously High. Here’s How Two Districts Are Tackling
It,” by Emily Tate, EdSurge, Sept. 19, 2019.[xiv] But the best thing the district can do for a school counselor,
new or experienced, (counselor Melissa) Marsh says, is lower their caseload,
even if it’s just by a few students. “The smaller a counselor’s caseload is, the more personalized
services they can provide,” she adds. True for teachers too!
Why don’t we talk about this? |
“The program operates from a plan for
closing the achievement gap” was rated the lowest overall in the last year of
implementation and did not improve as other elements did, 3.05 to 3.13.” (p.
28)
This should not
surprise us, when academic achievement is of so little concern in these
reports. Instead, they assure us of the reduced student caseload for counselors;
provide graduation, dropout, and matriculation rates, etc.; and tell us the
students are more prepared for college.[xv]
But are they? More prepared to take and pass college classes?
We can pat ourselves on the back for having reduced the counselor-student ratio from around 550 to 325 these past ten years. Still, has it been worth the cost?
Given the tough choices[xvi] we must make these days—how to invest our limited education dollars—a rhetorical question: who is most responsible for working with high school students to see that they are more prepared to “take and pass college classes”?
Reason again to turn our attention to what we can do for teachers.
IV.
Colorado now funds SCCGP at $10 million a year. Total to date
(2008-2021): $100,000,000
From the 2020
Legislative Report – Colorado SCCGP:
“Since the 2014-15 school year, SCCGP has
been appropriated $10,000,000 annually to distribute to grantees for
implementing postsecondary success supports.”[xvii]
I asked the Colorado Department
of Education for the amount the legislation has committed to support SCCGP since it began
in 2008-09. My thanks to CDE for responding the next day with this
account—based on its review of the long bill the past 13 years—of the funds
committed to SCCGP.
|
2020-21 |
$10,000,000.00 |
|
2019-20 |
$10,250,000.00 |
|
2018-19 |
$10,000,000.00 |
|
2017-18 |
$10,002,802.00 |
|
2016-17 |
$10,000,000.00 |
|
2015-16 |
$10,000,000.00 |
|
2014-15 |
$10,000,000.00 |
|
2013-14 |
$5,002,716.00 |
|
2012-13 |
$5,000,000.00 |
|
2011-12 |
$4,520,000.00 |
|
2010-11 |
$5,000,000.00 |
|
2009-10 |
$4,998,500.00 |
|
2008-09 |
$5,000,000.00 |
|
$99,774,018.00 |
Endnotes
[i]
2020 Legislative Report – Colorado School Counselor Grant Program https://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/sccgp2018legreport
[iii] “ASCA recommends that schools strive to
maintain a 250:1 student-to-counselor ratio. In this analysis, only three
states (New Hampshire, Vermont, and Wyoming) maintain a ratio lower than
250:1.”
The
national average in 2014-15 was 482. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/Publications/ratioreport.pdf
[iv] STATE-BY-STATE STUDENT-TO-COUNSELOR
RATIO REPORT 10-YEAR TRENDS, 2004-05 to 2014-15,
“The
National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) and the American
School Counselor Association (ASCA) compiled this report to provide a glimpse
at the 10-year trends in student-to-counselor ratios from 2004-05 to 2014-15,
the latest school years for which data is available.”
“Our intention in producing this data is to
shed light on the often unmanageable caseloads public school counselors
must serve. Research shows that access to a school counselor can make a
significant difference in student persistence/retention, students’
postsecondary aspirations, and students’ likelihood of enrolling in
postsecondary education. To realize such results, school counselors must
operate in an environment free of overwhelmingly large student
caseloads.” (Bold mine)
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/Publications/ratioreport.pdf
[vii]
AV #183 – “Remediation rates suggest our graduation rates will soon fall”
(Sept. 5, 2018) and “High school graduation rates aren’t
necessarily a reason to celebrate,”[vii]
The Denver Post (July
2, 2015).
[ix] From “How adding high school
counselors saved Colorado more than $300 million,” Chalkbeat Colorado,
by Wesley Wright Jul 19, 2016, https://co.chalkbeat.org/2016/7/19/21100616/how-adding-high-school-counselors-saved-colorado-more-than-300-million#.V4_YcvkrKUn
[x] From
“School counselors keep kids on track. Why are they first to be cut? - How Colorado is betting
on counseling to vault low-income kids into good jobs and post-secondary
education,” by Sarah Gonser, May 31, 2018. https://hechingerreport.org/school-counselors-keep-kids-on-track-why-are-they-first-to-be-cut/
[xi]
From “More Counselors Help Students Plan For Future, Thanks
To State Grant,” KUNC,
by Stephanie Daniel, May 6, 2019
-
https://www.kunc.org/education/2019-05-06/more-counselors-help-students-plan-for-future-thanks-to-state-grant#stream/0?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cb_bureau_colorado
[xii]
http://www.cde.state.co.us/postsecondary/colorado-school-counselor-corps-grant-program-early-experiences-and-lessons-learned
[xiii]
CDE’s School Counselor Corps Grant Program, Fact Sheet, http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/sccgfactsheet
[xiv]
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-09-19-counselor-to-student-ratios-are-dangerously-high-here-s-how-two-districts-are-tackling-it
[xv]
As far as demonstrating improvement in academic achievement—due to the
SCCPG—CDE’s School Counselor Corps Grant Program, Fact Sheet, includes this
statement:
“Research shows
(Belasco, 2013): Students attending high schools with fully implemented school
counseling programs earn higher grades…”
However, none of CDE’s annual reports, from
what I could find, speak of higher grades in the schools awarded the School
Counselor Grant. Another example of how CDE’s own reports fail to speak to any
improved academic achievement.
[xvi] Though
dated, the Policy Guide for 2017-18 from the Colorado Education Association
reveals the kind of indiscriminate plea, we want more of everyone, that
ignores the hard choices we have to make. I am glad to see the CEA put
“reducing class sizes” first, but if that is our priority, let’s focus on THAT.
Under “Supporting Student-centered Learning,” we read that the “CEA supports: reducing
class sizes in all grades, with priority attention to grades K-5, as well as
reducing the ratios of students assigned to the following school employees:
counselors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, special education providers,
and other public school employees who are assigned a specific case load of
students.” https://www.coloradoea.org/wp-content/uploads/PolicyGuide2017-18.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment