RSS Feeds
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Check out this interesting column about the idea that total student loads per teacher -- not class size -- might have a lot to do with raising student achievement (and making teachers happy) in middle and high schools especially:
"Some urban districts have TSLs approaching 200 kids per teacher. But after principals get budgeting power, the load drops sharply, sometimes to as low as 80 kids per instructor. When that happens, the portion of students scoring "proficient" on state tests climbs."
Beware of the Easy School Fix Jay Mathews Washington Post
Apparently, TSL is capped in some districts -- 170 in NYC, 225 in LA. (Chicago?) The column is based on a not-yet-published study of 442 schools including Chicago by a UCLA professor who advocates school-based budgeting that eliminates nonclassroom positions in favor of reducing teacher loads.
I'm going to try and get my hands on the report and will let you know more.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Mail
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:58 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
This is really very ironic. The concept of total student load was built into the state of Illinois Administrative code for teachers of students with disabilities. The concept was called the "case load." The case load system for special education teachers as it has existed, which is basically TSL, is abolished by administrative rule starting in September 2009.
The rule change can be found at Illinois Administrative Code 226.730 . As with other teachers special education teachers will only have a class by class enrollment limit, not a TSL. Section 226.735 requires that every school district and special education cooperative in our state develop a plan “specifying limits on the workload of its special educators so that all services required under students’ IEPs, as well as all needed ancillary and support services, can be provided at the requisite level of intensity.” These plans are required to be in effect for 2009-2010 school year.
These plans are to be developed according to 226.735 (a) in cooperation with teacher’s unions. The language of this subsection reads:
"Each plan shall be developed in cooperation with the entity’s affected employees and, where there is an exclusive representative, in accordance with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (IELRA) [115 ILCS 5]. Each plan shall take effect for the 2009-10 school year, or as soon as possible after that date, if a later date is necessary to comply with an agreement under the IELRA in effect at the beginning of that school year."
Access Living opposed these changes at every level of the State government, including in the General Assembly. I personally made numerous trips to Springfield to oppose this rule change. Both the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association endorsed this rule change even after I and others made personal appeals to the presidents of both teachers organizations to oppose this rule change. I also appeared directly to the president of the CTU, a special education teacher herself to oppose this rule change.
Access Living wrote ISBE on August 25, 2008 and asked these questions:
"5 ILCS 120/2 (C) (2) excludes from our state’s Open Meetings Act “collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees.” Access Living has significant concerns that any plan development meetings held between the Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union will be closed to parents of students with disabilities and disability advocacy organizations such as Access Living. Section 4 of IELRA indicates that these cooperative plan development meetings would be considered collective negotiating matters. "
"Our reading 226.735 (a) does not indicate that these workload plans are required to be submitted to ISBE or approved by ISBE. We would like to know if ISBE intends on requiring the Chicago Public Schools to submit its plan to the agency or require that it be made public. Does ISBE intend on providing any type of mechanism for members of the public to object to the workload plan adopted for CPS, a school district with 53,000 students with disabilities that will be impacted by this plan? In other words does the plan developed by CPS in cooperation with the CTU have to go through some type of public hearing process before it goes in to effect? We are also completely unclear if the CPS Board itself must vote on this plan. Is this plan considered to be part of a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to the School Code? "
To date we have recieved no response from ISBE to our letter.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
The rule change can be found at Illinois Administrative Code 226.730 . As with other teachers special education teachers will only have a class by class enrollment limit, not a TSL. Section 226.735 requires that every school district and special education cooperative in our state develop a plan “specifying limits on the workload of its special educators so that all services required under students’ IEPs, as well as all needed ancillary and support services, can be provided at the requisite level of intensity.” These plans are required to be in effect for 2009-2010 school year.
These plans are to be developed according to 226.735 (a) in cooperation with teacher’s unions. The language of this subsection reads:
"Each plan shall be developed in cooperation with the entity’s affected employees and, where there is an exclusive representative, in accordance with the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act (IELRA) [115 ILCS 5]. Each plan shall take effect for the 2009-10 school year, or as soon as possible after that date, if a later date is necessary to comply with an agreement under the IELRA in effect at the beginning of that school year."
Access Living opposed these changes at every level of the State government, including in the General Assembly. I personally made numerous trips to Springfield to oppose this rule change. Both the Illinois Federation of Teachers and the Illinois Education Association endorsed this rule change even after I and others made personal appeals to the presidents of both teachers organizations to oppose this rule change. I also appeared directly to the president of the CTU, a special education teacher herself to oppose this rule change.
Access Living wrote ISBE on August 25, 2008 and asked these questions:
"5 ILCS 120/2 (C) (2) excludes from our state’s Open Meetings Act “collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees.” Access Living has significant concerns that any plan development meetings held between the Chicago Public Schools and the Chicago Teachers Union will be closed to parents of students with disabilities and disability advocacy organizations such as Access Living. Section 4 of IELRA indicates that these cooperative plan development meetings would be considered collective negotiating matters. "
"Our reading 226.735 (a) does not indicate that these workload plans are required to be submitted to ISBE or approved by ISBE. We would like to know if ISBE intends on requiring the Chicago Public Schools to submit its plan to the agency or require that it be made public. Does ISBE intend on providing any type of mechanism for members of the public to object to the workload plan adopted for CPS, a school district with 53,000 students with disabilities that will be impacted by this plan? In other words does the plan developed by CPS in cooperation with the CTU have to go through some type of public hearing process before it goes in to effect? We are also completely unclear if the CPS Board itself must vote on this plan. Is this plan considered to be part of a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to the School Code? "
To date we have recieved no response from ISBE to our letter.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 3:32 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Form the Jay Matthews article on TSL and the book William Ouichi will publish:
In his chapter he says that making schools smaller can also reduce TSL. The success of public charter schools, with fewer students and powerful principals, seems in tune with his findings, he says. But he does not buy the argument that charters do better because their teachers are not hampered by union rules. Reducing TSL seems to increase achievement whether the teachers are unionized or not.
This should be the nail in the coffin on the "teachers hampered by union rules" nonsense. I would like to know what rules stop teachers from working with their students? What rules stop teachers from coming early or staying late? This is one of the oft-repeated mantras of the charter/voucher crowd. It is and always has been a bald-face lie, but it is one that bashes public school teachers and makes good sound bites.
I can't wait to read the book when it's published next year.
In his chapter he says that making schools smaller can also reduce TSL. The success of public charter schools, with fewer students and powerful principals, seems in tune with his findings, he says. But he does not buy the argument that charters do better because their teachers are not hampered by union rules. Reducing TSL seems to increase achievement whether the teachers are unionized or not.
This should be the nail in the coffin on the "teachers hampered by union rules" nonsense. I would like to know what rules stop teachers from working with their students? What rules stop teachers from coming early or staying late? This is one of the oft-repeated mantras of the charter/voucher crowd. It is and always has been a bald-face lie, but it is one that bashes public school teachers and makes good sound bites.
I can't wait to read the book when it's published next year.
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 5:06 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
ISBE and OSS need to be sued by a single parent for allowing, if not promoting, huge inclusion caseloads which serve no one well. How is it that we have caseloads of plus 20 in our inclusion programs and the suburbs have inclusion caseloads of 10-12 with many one on one aides? Our children are just not important...
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 5:10 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
30 % students could be legally included in regular classroom (with sped inclusion teaqcher).
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 7:02 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
I have 23 students in inclusion (ED, LD and Autistic) spread out in three different grades. One child has an aide. It is ridiculous.
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 7:12 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
The way in which we work with special education students in CPS needs to be totally rethought. Step into any "inclusion" classroom with a special education co-teacher and watch the students with learning disabilities shut down. Watch as the general education teacher teaches three difficult concepts in one 40 minute class period. Where is the "practice, reteach, practice, review" strategy that every student with a disability needs to achieve and maintain mastery level? Watch while the students with disabilities become frustrated as they fall further and further behind. Watch as the students begin to act out, cut school, drop out. Watch as talented special education teachers are treated as classroom aides, standing in the back of rooms. Everyone is losing.
Speaking of losing, did you know that special education students who are placed into separate instruction classes receive a reduction in grade points resulting in reduced GPA's? Many of these students do not have a significantly modified curriculum. Many of them are in separate instruction classes because they need a modified environment in which to learn. How is this fair or legal? This unfair practice began with the 2007-2008 school year.
Speaking of losing, did you know that special education students who are placed into separate instruction classes receive a reduction in grade points resulting in reduced GPA's? Many of these students do not have a significantly modified curriculum. Many of them are in separate instruction classes because they need a modified environment in which to learn. How is this fair or legal? This unfair practice began with the 2007-2008 school year.
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 9:01 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
It is a subject for judicial review.One condition-somebody should bring it up.
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 10:45 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Actually in CPS it can be as hight as 40%. Totally Unfair. Oh wait we are just educators what do we know???
Fri Sep 26, 2008 at 11:37 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
According to my knowledge the proposed 40% failed.Please check with the Illinois State Board of Education Special Education(easily available online)
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:22 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
I don't know where else to post this, but does anyone know of any open high school math positions in cps?
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 2:32 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Sabotage of the general high schools is also possible if "Total Student Load" is used stupidly and against the most at risk students and their teachers. Chicago's general high schools are being sabotaged this week and next behind a smokescreen of nonsense from Arne Duncan and his media handlers.
But first, some background.
At the present time, CPS is using "Total Student Load" against teachers, the contract and decency. Here's how. Under Article 28 of the Agreement (which has been legislatively held to be unenforceable since the Daley Dictatorship began in 1995), there were two contractual protections the centered on class size.
I will just talk about the high schools. Class size maximums were set (and enforced) for academic subjects except music and art. English and math classes for "remedial" students were to be a maximum of 25 per class; regular, honors and AP could be 28. Art, music and physical education were supposed to be five classes with a "total." The two concepts were segregated.
Maximum was enforced because it was contractual. Common sense (not usually followed in CPS) also held that if you had 35 or 40 kids in a class any particular period, you would not be able to get to all of them.
Today, the Duncan administration (and the Office of High Schools) have forced the individual class maximum up to a "Total Student Load" criterion, and beyond, simply by placing crazy formulas over how a high school principal could staff. (They have done the same thing since 2004 with the Demographics of building usage, but that's another story for another time; in both cases they're cooking the books).
The results undermine instructional integrity (and the school year), especially for the general high schools. These results also result in bizarre disruptions of the general high schools -- such as will be happening Monday.
On Monday, most Chicago public schools students (including virtually all of the students in the selective high schools, the charter schools, and the vast majority of those in the elementary schools, including my seven-year-old son) will begin the fourth full week of instruction.
At places like Hyde Park (where Arne Duncan cut nine teachers last week) or Clemente (rumored 17 cut; haven't confirmed), the school year will begin -- at roughly the first week of October! -- because of CPS management.
At Hyde Park High School this weekend, the administration has been forced to reprogram 40 classes (the ninth teacher was a librarian, and that cut leaves the school with one librarian for nearly 1,900 students). The reprogramming will result in the disruption of the entire school, with the resulting security and other problems.
At Clemente it's even worse. Duncan just cut more than a dozen teachers (rumor is 17) There, students will arrive next week to learn that their teachers have been cut, programs changed, and their school year effectively cut by ten percent (September has been lost, equivalent to one month out of ten in the regular school year).
This is happening at dozens of other general high schools that my colleagues are surveying right now. At some, the teachers are afraid to discuss the attacks on decency and sanity because the sabotage -- they know -- puts them on the next chopping block for privatization.
I called Mike Vaughn three days ago asking two questions. First, to confirm the cuts (which by then I was checking out at Hyde Park) and get a copy of the staffing formulas being used against the general high schools this year.
Second, I asked how CPS could be paying a retired principal who was already on a pension of $100,000 per year another $100,000 per year (or so) and making that person (Ed Klunk) the chief administrator of those massive cuts.
Mike Vaughn is usually decent about getting back with answers to my questions.
This series of questions he has not answered, so I'm assuming that Celeste Garrett has ordered the cover up of this monstrosity, just as she tried to do last year -- until the kids at three schools -- Julian, Schurz, and Wells walked out and managed to get some TV crews to stop by and see hundreds of them on the sidewalks.
The management of CPS is sabotaging the general high schools again this week (and last) using staffing formulas that are not appropriate for the challenges being faced by the general high schools.
The reason for the sabotage is that Arne Duncan is under orders from Mayor Daley to continue privatizing the schools under "Renaissance 2010", and the best way to create some Shock Doctrine "failure" is to make sure it happens.
Last year, it was Orr High School and Harper.
The year before it was Englewood and Collins.
The year before that it was Austin and Calumet.
Those six schools have now been privatized and flipped into charters (with the exception of one sliver of Austin) or "Turnaround" schools.
So the sabotage continues this school year.
Of course, Arne will prattle on if anyone eventually asks him with the lie about how tight the budget is this year (blah, blah, blah). That never stops him from hiring dozens of new patronage people at the top and middle ranks every year, from Michael Scott's son as soon as Scott left as Board President three years ago to the nephew of one of the vice presidents of SEIU Local 73, who was hired last year at more than $130,000 per year for a big downtown job.
Total Student Load can be used to sabotage high school teaching and student learning. And that part of the reality has been perfected since Arne Duncan became chief of CPS seven years ago.
But first, some background.
At the present time, CPS is using "Total Student Load" against teachers, the contract and decency. Here's how. Under Article 28 of the Agreement (which has been legislatively held to be unenforceable since the Daley Dictatorship began in 1995), there were two contractual protections the centered on class size.
I will just talk about the high schools. Class size maximums were set (and enforced) for academic subjects except music and art. English and math classes for "remedial" students were to be a maximum of 25 per class; regular, honors and AP could be 28. Art, music and physical education were supposed to be five classes with a "total." The two concepts were segregated.
Maximum was enforced because it was contractual. Common sense (not usually followed in CPS) also held that if you had 35 or 40 kids in a class any particular period, you would not be able to get to all of them.
Today, the Duncan administration (and the Office of High Schools) have forced the individual class maximum up to a "Total Student Load" criterion, and beyond, simply by placing crazy formulas over how a high school principal could staff. (They have done the same thing since 2004 with the Demographics of building usage, but that's another story for another time; in both cases they're cooking the books).
The results undermine instructional integrity (and the school year), especially for the general high schools. These results also result in bizarre disruptions of the general high schools -- such as will be happening Monday.
On Monday, most Chicago public schools students (including virtually all of the students in the selective high schools, the charter schools, and the vast majority of those in the elementary schools, including my seven-year-old son) will begin the fourth full week of instruction.
At places like Hyde Park (where Arne Duncan cut nine teachers last week) or Clemente (rumored 17 cut; haven't confirmed), the school year will begin -- at roughly the first week of October! -- because of CPS management.
At Hyde Park High School this weekend, the administration has been forced to reprogram 40 classes (the ninth teacher was a librarian, and that cut leaves the school with one librarian for nearly 1,900 students). The reprogramming will result in the disruption of the entire school, with the resulting security and other problems.
At Clemente it's even worse. Duncan just cut more than a dozen teachers (rumor is 17) There, students will arrive next week to learn that their teachers have been cut, programs changed, and their school year effectively cut by ten percent (September has been lost, equivalent to one month out of ten in the regular school year).
This is happening at dozens of other general high schools that my colleagues are surveying right now. At some, the teachers are afraid to discuss the attacks on decency and sanity because the sabotage -- they know -- puts them on the next chopping block for privatization.
I called Mike Vaughn three days ago asking two questions. First, to confirm the cuts (which by then I was checking out at Hyde Park) and get a copy of the staffing formulas being used against the general high schools this year.
Second, I asked how CPS could be paying a retired principal who was already on a pension of $100,000 per year another $100,000 per year (or so) and making that person (Ed Klunk) the chief administrator of those massive cuts.
Mike Vaughn is usually decent about getting back with answers to my questions.
This series of questions he has not answered, so I'm assuming that Celeste Garrett has ordered the cover up of this monstrosity, just as she tried to do last year -- until the kids at three schools -- Julian, Schurz, and Wells walked out and managed to get some TV crews to stop by and see hundreds of them on the sidewalks.
The management of CPS is sabotaging the general high schools again this week (and last) using staffing formulas that are not appropriate for the challenges being faced by the general high schools.
The reason for the sabotage is that Arne Duncan is under orders from Mayor Daley to continue privatizing the schools under "Renaissance 2010", and the best way to create some Shock Doctrine "failure" is to make sure it happens.
Last year, it was Orr High School and Harper.
The year before it was Englewood and Collins.
The year before that it was Austin and Calumet.
Those six schools have now been privatized and flipped into charters (with the exception of one sliver of Austin) or "Turnaround" schools.
So the sabotage continues this school year.
Of course, Arne will prattle on if anyone eventually asks him with the lie about how tight the budget is this year (blah, blah, blah). That never stops him from hiring dozens of new patronage people at the top and middle ranks every year, from Michael Scott's son as soon as Scott left as Board President three years ago to the nephew of one of the vice presidents of SEIU Local 73, who was hired last year at more than $130,000 per year for a big downtown job.
Total Student Load can be used to sabotage high school teaching and student learning. And that part of the reality has been perfected since Arne Duncan became chief of CPS seven years ago.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 7:41 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Unemployed math teacher
Bogan needs math teachers
Bogan needs math teachers
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 8:19 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
If a SpEd teacher just stands in the back of the room in an inclusion classroom, then she is the one not doing her job. A gen ed teacher is responsible for that whole class and cannot stop to coddle and direct another adult, another professional. I'm not suggesting that the system actually works, in fact, the inclusion model is a joke, but if this is what we are stuck with until the next great sea change in SpEd, then some initiative is in order from everyone.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 8:41 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
At least the special ed teacher stood in the back of the classroom. Mine drank coffee and read the newspaper. I read the IEP that said only one concept at a time. My question is, If I teach one concept at a time to my reg ed kids, then I'm behind - so isn't it the job of the inclusion teacher to do the practice, review and reteach part????
I have never had a definitive answer. That's why I think inclusion not only doesn't work - it's harmful.
I have never had a definitive answer. That's why I think inclusion not only doesn't work - it's harmful.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 8:55 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Lawsuits are expensive and rarely achieve what is best for the student. Corey H is the perfect example. Corey H's mom, took her out of inclusion classes and yet here we are asking basic questions these many years later. Students with special needs are at the mercy of their schools and classrooms. General education teachers need help, not workshops. We need planning time with the inclusion teachers, resources and tools to address those with special needs. The Board knows this, but does not seem to have the wherewithal to provide it. They can hire consultants and paper pushers by the truckloads at hugely inflated salaries, but those of us on the ground are still in need. I hope Rod Estvan weighs back in on this.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 10:09 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
I just got "cut" at Manley HS and my opinion is that the Mayor and the Administration/Management team at the district level are completely out of touch with reality. They have no idea how hard it is to have 30 x 5 = 150 students or 25 + 20 + 40 + 30 + 35 = 150 with many of them special needs OR disruptive, immature OR not able to read and write. It becomes an exercise in futile effort.
I am very happy that I do not have to stay there with even bigger classes. The hallways during passing periods are unbelieveable! Noisy, kids running, shoving, dissin' teachers and security guards. Then the tardy bell sounds and NOTHING changes--for 5 minutes!!
I am very happy that I do not have to stay there with even bigger classes. The hallways during passing periods are unbelieveable! Noisy, kids running, shoving, dissin' teachers and security guards. Then the tardy bell sounds and NOTHING changes--for 5 minutes!!
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Open positions
We have either one or two open positions currently. They may have hired someone for one position on Thursday.
We may not get the second position number until the 20th day.
We may not get the second position number until the 20th day.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:08 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
You're right George & company - general HS teachers are afraid to complain for fear they will be cut. It's not paranoia fueled, it's a cold hard fact. Complain about the working conditions and you may be chopped off & nobody really cares. (Except the RARE courageous teacher, many concerned but powerless students & the few parents that can decipher the Bd. propaganda fabrications)
Union Delegate, take heed – make sure you are solidly placed in the seniority/tenure line – the Union can’t/won’t protect you when Adm. comes for you. Ask your Field Rep. if they can protect you from retribution for filing contract violation grievances – ask them how many grievances have been won when this is an issue.....Answer – almost none (actually – none that I know of but maybe somebody, somewhere, sometime actually got protection from the Union) And even if a miracle happens and you are successful, your job at your school will be long gone. You have no creditable protection against your Administration!!
Ask Marilyn .... oh but you'll be call "out of order"
Union Delegate, take heed – make sure you are solidly placed in the seniority/tenure line – the Union can’t/won’t protect you when Adm. comes for you. Ask your Field Rep. if they can protect you from retribution for filing contract violation grievances – ask them how many grievances have been won when this is an issue.....Answer – almost none (actually – none that I know of but maybe somebody, somewhere, sometime actually got protection from the Union) And even if a miracle happens and you are successful, your job at your school will be long gone. You have no creditable protection against your Administration!!
Ask Marilyn .... oh but you'll be call "out of order"
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 12:53 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
If the general education teacher lectures, then does an example on the board, then does another example and calls on students, then sends the class home with a homework example.....then just WHERE does the sped inclusion teacher fit in? She/he wakes students who fall asleep, she/he cues students who are talking to stop talking and listen, and she/he worries about the sped students who goes home with an assignment they don't know how to do. That is "inclusion" in a CPS high school. Co-teachers DO NOT plan together, the DO NOT evaluate together, and they DO NOT teach together. The CPS inclusion model does not allow for that. I teach with five different teachers, in three different disciplines.... it DOES NOT work!
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 1:19 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
That's how we saw inclusion work (not work) in grade school, too. So sad.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 2:05 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
raising student achievement (and making teachers happy)
I would be happy to be able to spend more time working on student achievement. Instead, I am spending the weekend re-doing four weeks worth of grade grade entries because the new Gradebook program that we are required to use doesn't work properly. I even had a student say that it was unfair for me to have to do all that extra work.
I would be happy to be able to spend more time working on student achievement. Instead, I am spending the weekend re-doing four weeks worth of grade grade entries because the new Gradebook program that we are required to use doesn't work properly. I even had a student say that it was unfair for me to have to do all that extra work.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 2:06 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
I have a caseload of 18 and am in two grades/rooms for 45 minutes everyday and in another grade/room for 50 minutes a day. I then pullout three separate groups for 45-50 minutes a day. This pull-out time is when I go over the lesson taught in the general education room and reteach, restate, adapt and modify according to the IEP. I then try to teach to the child's strength, modify homework and show them how to use technology to help them with the overwhelming amount of written work required of them in a high achieving school.
During my prep time I administer diagnostic tests to my students for annual reviews and MDCs and to struggling students from the grades I service in order to enable them to be in SBPS/RTi and complete handwritten IEPs of up to 30 pages. No online IEP and it is 2008. I also have to write lesson plans for each week which is more redundant paperwork.
During my morning prep time I consult with teachers in the departmentalized program where 8 of my students are and also consult with the teachers from the other two grades. All grading is collaborative and this takes time. There is also consult time with the nurse and social worker regarding medication and social issues. Many mornings are spent trying to alleviate parental concerns. There are many mornings where I am on my cell phone in my car with a gen ed teacher discussing strategies to help a child with a particular issue. There are also days when I consult with one of my student's aides who has been offered no inservicing by CPS in her 5 years with CPS. I guess aides with two year degrees are experts on autism or manic depressive children.
I love my job but I am stressed as are the other teachers at my school.
General education teachers have a legitimate beef when children
are dumped into general education rooms without supports. I am not in the room enough but this is CPS' way of saving monies.
Resource programs are not synonymous with inclusion programs in any other system in Illinois but CPS. I did have high hopes with Corey H. but I see things getting worse for our children.
During my prep time I administer diagnostic tests to my students for annual reviews and MDCs and to struggling students from the grades I service in order to enable them to be in SBPS/RTi and complete handwritten IEPs of up to 30 pages. No online IEP and it is 2008. I also have to write lesson plans for each week which is more redundant paperwork.
During my morning prep time I consult with teachers in the departmentalized program where 8 of my students are and also consult with the teachers from the other two grades. All grading is collaborative and this takes time. There is also consult time with the nurse and social worker regarding medication and social issues. Many mornings are spent trying to alleviate parental concerns. There are many mornings where I am on my cell phone in my car with a gen ed teacher discussing strategies to help a child with a particular issue. There are also days when I consult with one of my student's aides who has been offered no inservicing by CPS in her 5 years with CPS. I guess aides with two year degrees are experts on autism or manic depressive children.
I love my job but I am stressed as are the other teachers at my school.
General education teachers have a legitimate beef when children
are dumped into general education rooms without supports. I am not in the room enough but this is CPS' way of saving monies.
Resource programs are not synonymous with inclusion programs in any other system in Illinois but CPS. I did have high hopes with Corey H. but I see things getting worse for our children.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 2:27 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
thanks xian, but you didn't mention the name of the school.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 6:39 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
TO Ann: I completely feel your pain. I do the exact same as you (except this year I only have two resource periods and now have 3 of "inclusion." Last year I bought a program that allows you to save the IEP that's online at the OSS website (which means you can type your IEPs and all the other paperwork posted there). It was the best $70 of my own money I've ever spent. Go to an office supply store and ask the computer people for a PDF writer program this weekend. I promise, its worth it.
Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 11:38 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
The IFT Special Education Task Force met several times regarding the proposed changes to Illinois Administrative Code 226.730. Three members of the CTU are on that Task Force. There was a great deal of concern about the impact the proposed changes would have on Teachers and their students. The IFT members were not in support of the proposed changes.
Sue Walter, representing the IFT Sped Task Force, Mary McGuire, CTU Recording Secretary and Linda Goff, Chairman of the CTU Special Education Committee appeared before ISBE and testified against the proposed changes. This is a matter of public record.
Sue Walter, representing the IFT Sped Task Force, Mary McGuire, CTU Recording Secretary and Linda Goff, Chairman of the CTU Special Education Committee appeared before ISBE and testified against the proposed changes. This is a matter of public record.
Sun Sep 28, 2008 at 7:36 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
We pay a lot of dues to the IFT yet we get very little in return. The IFT offers courses but not for CTU members, advocates very little for the largest school system in Illinois and does not file work place grievances about abuse of caseloads in special education. I would like my IFT and AFT dues returned to me so I can get together with other Chicago teachers and file a lawsuit on abuses in special education. This is not a new problem yet CTU and the IFT do NOTHING!
Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:30 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
On Thursday June 14, 2007 the Illinois Superintendent of Schools Dr. Christopher Koch invited a number of the stakeholders in relation to our State special education rules, specifically Sections 226.130 (relating to identification of students with learning disabilities) and 226.730 (class size/caseload). Among those attending this meeting either in person or by phone were representatives from the Illinois Federation of Teachers, Illinois Education Association, the chair of the Illinois Special Education Coalition (ISELA), Family Resource Center on Disability (FRCD), Designs for Change (DFC), Access Living of Chicago (AL), Illinois State Advisory Council on the Education of Children with Disabilities, the Learning Disabilities Association of Illinois (LDA-I) and associations representing Special Education Administrators. I attended that meeting.
Four of these stakeholders, ISELA, FRCD, DFC, and AL agreed on a proposal to the State Superintendent for specific alternative language for the two sections of the Special Education rules that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) of the Illinois General Assembly has currently under a filing prohibition. Therefore, ISELA, FRCD, DFC, and AL who were the only stakeholders present at the meeting to have written proposals for consideration have not and could not realistically agree to ideas or regulatory concepts not fully developed by ISBE staff at this meeting. At the conclusion of this meeting we were informed by ISBE that it was not agreeing to our proposals at that time nor did ISBE indicate that they would present our proposals for alternative language to its Board for its consideration. Neither the IFT or IEA indicated that they supported our alternative language which did kept “caseloads.”
We were frustrated by ISBE to the extent that the meeting called on incredibly short notice, less than 24 hours, did not result in more concrete results that could benefit students with disabilities in our state. At the May 17, 2007 meeting of the State Board rule 226.730 was approved with the modification language relating to each school districting developing a staffing plan developed “cooperation” with teachers unions. Before the vote was taken both the IFT staff person and the IEA staff person were taken into a separate conference room with Dr. Koch and the ISBE General counsel. When they emerged the modification language was added, in fact it was written in that separate conference room. I was at that meeting in Springfield.
The IFT did oppose 226.730 on September 12, 2006 and the IFT Special Education Task Force also opposed the rule. However, both the IFT and CTU changed their position one this issue. So we can read the following statement posted on the CTU website on May 29, 2007 following the ISBE vote:
“NEW SPECIAL EDUCATION RULES APPROVED BY ISBE
May 29, 2007
After many months of discussion, the Illinois State Board of Education has approved changes to the Special Education Rules. These changes include revisions of the ones that ISBE proposed and adopted in December, 2006.
The approved changes to the rules include:
Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, special education class sizes will be determined by the time a student spends outside the general education classroom instead of type of disability a student has. Local unions will have an opportunity to bargain workload under this provision, because under the new rules school districts will be required to have a written plan for determining special education teacher workloads. Determination of workload will include, in addition to actual teaching time, collaboration with staff, attendance at meetings, paperwork and reporting.
Beginning in 2009-10, school districts will be required to use a Response to Intervention (RTI) process as a factor to determine whether a student is learning disabled.
There are many other changes as well. The CTU Special Education Committee and IFT Task Force (which includes members of the CTU Special Ed. Committee) provided a great deal of input concerning these changes. Last September, 2006, CTU Recording Secretary, Mary McGuire and CTU Special Education Committee Chairman, Linda Goff, argued against some of the previously proposed revisions including those concerning class size/case load and transition planning. In response, the Illinois Federation of Teachers Special Education Task Force did not approve of the initial proposed changes and the IFT urged the Joint Committee on Administrative rules not to approve the revisions. In January, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) issued a prohibition on the filing of the rules resulting in ISBE meeting with the Illinois Federation of Teachers, The Illinois Education Association and other groups to reach an agreement acceptable to all parties. The latest revisions are a compromise more acceptable to all.
JCAR will meet to vote on the rules next month.”
Access Living and ISELA, FRCD, DFC attempted again to block the rule through JCAR, but with the support of the unions it passed and now is law.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Four of these stakeholders, ISELA, FRCD, DFC, and AL agreed on a proposal to the State Superintendent for specific alternative language for the two sections of the Special Education rules that the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) of the Illinois General Assembly has currently under a filing prohibition. Therefore, ISELA, FRCD, DFC, and AL who were the only stakeholders present at the meeting to have written proposals for consideration have not and could not realistically agree to ideas or regulatory concepts not fully developed by ISBE staff at this meeting. At the conclusion of this meeting we were informed by ISBE that it was not agreeing to our proposals at that time nor did ISBE indicate that they would present our proposals for alternative language to its Board for its consideration. Neither the IFT or IEA indicated that they supported our alternative language which did kept “caseloads.”
We were frustrated by ISBE to the extent that the meeting called on incredibly short notice, less than 24 hours, did not result in more concrete results that could benefit students with disabilities in our state. At the May 17, 2007 meeting of the State Board rule 226.730 was approved with the modification language relating to each school districting developing a staffing plan developed “cooperation” with teachers unions. Before the vote was taken both the IFT staff person and the IEA staff person were taken into a separate conference room with Dr. Koch and the ISBE General counsel. When they emerged the modification language was added, in fact it was written in that separate conference room. I was at that meeting in Springfield.
The IFT did oppose 226.730 on September 12, 2006 and the IFT Special Education Task Force also opposed the rule. However, both the IFT and CTU changed their position one this issue. So we can read the following statement posted on the CTU website on May 29, 2007 following the ISBE vote:
“NEW SPECIAL EDUCATION RULES APPROVED BY ISBE
May 29, 2007
After many months of discussion, the Illinois State Board of Education has approved changes to the Special Education Rules. These changes include revisions of the ones that ISBE proposed and adopted in December, 2006.
The approved changes to the rules include:
Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, special education class sizes will be determined by the time a student spends outside the general education classroom instead of type of disability a student has. Local unions will have an opportunity to bargain workload under this provision, because under the new rules school districts will be required to have a written plan for determining special education teacher workloads. Determination of workload will include, in addition to actual teaching time, collaboration with staff, attendance at meetings, paperwork and reporting.
Beginning in 2009-10, school districts will be required to use a Response to Intervention (RTI) process as a factor to determine whether a student is learning disabled.
There are many other changes as well. The CTU Special Education Committee and IFT Task Force (which includes members of the CTU Special Ed. Committee) provided a great deal of input concerning these changes. Last September, 2006, CTU Recording Secretary, Mary McGuire and CTU Special Education Committee Chairman, Linda Goff, argued against some of the previously proposed revisions including those concerning class size/case load and transition planning. In response, the Illinois Federation of Teachers Special Education Task Force did not approve of the initial proposed changes and the IFT urged the Joint Committee on Administrative rules not to approve the revisions. In January, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) issued a prohibition on the filing of the rules resulting in ISBE meeting with the Illinois Federation of Teachers, The Illinois Education Association and other groups to reach an agreement acceptable to all parties. The latest revisions are a compromise more acceptable to all.
JCAR will meet to vote on the rules next month.”
Access Living and ISELA, FRCD, DFC attempted again to block the rule through JCAR, but with the support of the unions it passed and now is law.
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
If blog readers read this month's Substance, you would see it published in full our FY09 CPS budget review. It that review we ask that CPS reduce use of the co-taught model at the elementary school level and move to a cross certified single teacher model for numerous classrooms.
Here is what we wrote:
"CPS had been on a hunt for ways to reduce costs related to educating students with disabilities. Fundamentally this effort has failed; costs have continued to rise, even as CPS has imposed various reductions in services, including the provision of one on one aides to some severely disable students. The greatest possibility for controlling ever increasing special education costs and improving academic results is by moving towards a Universal Design for Learning model in many elementary level classrooms over a period of years.
There is much talk of “inclusion” and “differentiated instruction” in special education circles that does not focus on improved academic skills for students with disabilities. In this literature it is expected that a regular education teacher will be able differentiate instruction for students with disabilities without understanding the ramifications of these students’ disabilities on their learning process.
The heart of the problem is the separation between special education and regular education teachers’ knowledge base. The solution is to be found in new types of classrooms in many schools with overall class sizes small enough where students with mild disabilities can effectively be instructed by one highly qualified cross trained teacher in primary and middle school grades. In addition to the cross certification these teachers need to have extensive training in the teaching of reading. These teachers because of the work load they would face must be paid beyond the level of teachers who are not cross trained with these extensive skills.
As of June 2008 in grades 1-12 there are about 14,000 students with learning disabilities who are receiving direct special education services for no more than 5 hours a week. These students are assigned to approximately 700 special education teachers’ case loads. These teachers constitute about 19% of all projected FY09 special teachers. The cost for these 700 teachers is at least $42 million based just on average salaries not including benefits. The special education teachers that primarily service these students are called “resource” teachers. Over the last ten years more and more of the actual service provision for these students is taking place within general education classrooms, with fewer group pull out classes.
In elementary schools resource teachers are covering numerous classrooms during a school day, often only spending forty minutes or less in any one room. Many of these 14,000 students receive no direct special education services at all, instead their regular education teachers are provided consultative services by a resource teacher on often irregular time schedules.
The resource model as it exists in elementary schools is highly problematic and is clearly not producing the type of results we need for these students. It does not provide comprehensive support for these students; instead it focuses completely on the areas of greatest academic deficits for a limited time each day. For example students may be pulled out for language arts because of significant deficits in reading skills, yet these same students may be included in regular education social studies with a grade level text book that a general education teacher is expected to modify for the student.
The consultative aspects of the resource model are even more problematic because these special education teachers do not have the time during a school day to observe students who are not receiving direct services and can not provide truly relevant advice to general education teachers. Many regular education teachers in many CPS elementary schools feel abandoned by this consultative model.
If CPS assigned six mildly disabled students to a classroom of 20 students taught by one highly trained cross certified teacher in the primary and middle grades CPS could reduce one and a half resource positions for each five “real inclusion” classrooms created. Because a 20 student classroom is about five students smaller than the average size in grades 2-6 such a model would also require creating one new general education classroom for about each five of these real inclusion classrooms on a system wide basis.
Because these cross certified teachers will need an incentive to take such challenging positions CPS will need to pay a premium to these teachers in addition to their base salaries inclusive of step and lane. We would suggest CPS should be paying at least a $6,000 per year premium to these teachers. The CPS could at a cost of less than $2 million per year establish 150 such classrooms and provide each classroom with $1,000 supplementary materials budget per year.
The six students with disabilities in these classrooms need to be the same individual children all school day long, schools can not rotate disabled students in and out of these real inclusion rooms. Students with disabilities in these real inclusion model classrooms would need to advance classes using the same model up to the junior high level or when they exit special education. This model would need to be evaluated over a period time to see if more students with disabilities were achieving State standards than were similar students using traditional separate regular and special education teachers, if more of these students were transitioning out of special education altogether, and if there were positive effects on the non-disabled students in these classrooms.
There is nothing in the State School Code that would prohibit such a merger of regular education and special education teachers as long a required services indicated on IEPs are provided. The current ISBE special education teacher funding reimbursement scheme is modified for the CPS by Illinois state law at 105 ILCS 5/1D 1 and CPS could receive appropriate reimbursement for each of these cross certificated teachers.
The CPS would have to negotiate this issue with the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and push some charter schools in this direction via the special education reimbursement system. The Illinois Administrative Code at 226.735 requires that the CPS and the CTU “in cooperation” shall adopt a plan specifying limits on the workload of its special educators so that all services required under students’ IEPs are provided. These plans and negotiations are required to be completed by the start of the 2009-2010 school year.
Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year a defined case load for what had been called “resource” teachers has been effectively abolished. Class sizes for separate classes containing only students with disabilities will remain, but for special education teachers working inside regular education classrooms no fixed ratio will exist. This can either be an opportunity or a disaster for students with mild disabilities. Access Living opposed this change in the Illinois Administrative Code at every level because there was no defined replacement for the current standards.
Such a merged regular education and special education approach as we suggest will not work for students requiring special education services for more than 20% of the school day; it will likely not work at the high school level because of the complexity of the curriculum and larger class sizes. It will not work if CPS places more than six students with disabilities in classrooms or has class sizes larger than 20 students.
It will not work if these classrooms are over loaded intentionally with regular education students who are suspected of having disabilities, but have not yet either been identified or have entered an RtI type process. Because of space considerations it will not work in significantly over crowded elementary schools. Most importantly it will not work if CPS does not highly compensate teachers who take on this complex teaching assignment. Currently there are at least several hundred teachers in CPS who are cross certified already working either as special education teachers or regular education teachers, but formally not as both within the same classroom.
The Board must take some type of steps to change this failed special education system. A system that costs much and produces limited results for far too many students. We have suggested one place to start this complex reform process."
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Here is what we wrote:
"CPS had been on a hunt for ways to reduce costs related to educating students with disabilities. Fundamentally this effort has failed; costs have continued to rise, even as CPS has imposed various reductions in services, including the provision of one on one aides to some severely disable students. The greatest possibility for controlling ever increasing special education costs and improving academic results is by moving towards a Universal Design for Learning model in many elementary level classrooms over a period of years.
There is much talk of “inclusion” and “differentiated instruction” in special education circles that does not focus on improved academic skills for students with disabilities. In this literature it is expected that a regular education teacher will be able differentiate instruction for students with disabilities without understanding the ramifications of these students’ disabilities on their learning process.
The heart of the problem is the separation between special education and regular education teachers’ knowledge base. The solution is to be found in new types of classrooms in many schools with overall class sizes small enough where students with mild disabilities can effectively be instructed by one highly qualified cross trained teacher in primary and middle school grades. In addition to the cross certification these teachers need to have extensive training in the teaching of reading. These teachers because of the work load they would face must be paid beyond the level of teachers who are not cross trained with these extensive skills.
As of June 2008 in grades 1-12 there are about 14,000 students with learning disabilities who are receiving direct special education services for no more than 5 hours a week. These students are assigned to approximately 700 special education teachers’ case loads. These teachers constitute about 19% of all projected FY09 special teachers. The cost for these 700 teachers is at least $42 million based just on average salaries not including benefits. The special education teachers that primarily service these students are called “resource” teachers. Over the last ten years more and more of the actual service provision for these students is taking place within general education classrooms, with fewer group pull out classes.
In elementary schools resource teachers are covering numerous classrooms during a school day, often only spending forty minutes or less in any one room. Many of these 14,000 students receive no direct special education services at all, instead their regular education teachers are provided consultative services by a resource teacher on often irregular time schedules.
The resource model as it exists in elementary schools is highly problematic and is clearly not producing the type of results we need for these students. It does not provide comprehensive support for these students; instead it focuses completely on the areas of greatest academic deficits for a limited time each day. For example students may be pulled out for language arts because of significant deficits in reading skills, yet these same students may be included in regular education social studies with a grade level text book that a general education teacher is expected to modify for the student.
The consultative aspects of the resource model are even more problematic because these special education teachers do not have the time during a school day to observe students who are not receiving direct services and can not provide truly relevant advice to general education teachers. Many regular education teachers in many CPS elementary schools feel abandoned by this consultative model.
If CPS assigned six mildly disabled students to a classroom of 20 students taught by one highly trained cross certified teacher in the primary and middle grades CPS could reduce one and a half resource positions for each five “real inclusion” classrooms created. Because a 20 student classroom is about five students smaller than the average size in grades 2-6 such a model would also require creating one new general education classroom for about each five of these real inclusion classrooms on a system wide basis.
Because these cross certified teachers will need an incentive to take such challenging positions CPS will need to pay a premium to these teachers in addition to their base salaries inclusive of step and lane. We would suggest CPS should be paying at least a $6,000 per year premium to these teachers. The CPS could at a cost of less than $2 million per year establish 150 such classrooms and provide each classroom with $1,000 supplementary materials budget per year.
The six students with disabilities in these classrooms need to be the same individual children all school day long, schools can not rotate disabled students in and out of these real inclusion rooms. Students with disabilities in these real inclusion model classrooms would need to advance classes using the same model up to the junior high level or when they exit special education. This model would need to be evaluated over a period time to see if more students with disabilities were achieving State standards than were similar students using traditional separate regular and special education teachers, if more of these students were transitioning out of special education altogether, and if there were positive effects on the non-disabled students in these classrooms.
There is nothing in the State School Code that would prohibit such a merger of regular education and special education teachers as long a required services indicated on IEPs are provided. The current ISBE special education teacher funding reimbursement scheme is modified for the CPS by Illinois state law at 105 ILCS 5/1D 1 and CPS could receive appropriate reimbursement for each of these cross certificated teachers.
The CPS would have to negotiate this issue with the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) and push some charter schools in this direction via the special education reimbursement system. The Illinois Administrative Code at 226.735 requires that the CPS and the CTU “in cooperation” shall adopt a plan specifying limits on the workload of its special educators so that all services required under students’ IEPs are provided. These plans and negotiations are required to be completed by the start of the 2009-2010 school year.
Beginning in the 2009-2010 school year a defined case load for what had been called “resource” teachers has been effectively abolished. Class sizes for separate classes containing only students with disabilities will remain, but for special education teachers working inside regular education classrooms no fixed ratio will exist. This can either be an opportunity or a disaster for students with mild disabilities. Access Living opposed this change in the Illinois Administrative Code at every level because there was no defined replacement for the current standards.
Such a merged regular education and special education approach as we suggest will not work for students requiring special education services for more than 20% of the school day; it will likely not work at the high school level because of the complexity of the curriculum and larger class sizes. It will not work if CPS places more than six students with disabilities in classrooms or has class sizes larger than 20 students.
It will not work if these classrooms are over loaded intentionally with regular education students who are suspected of having disabilities, but have not yet either been identified or have entered an RtI type process. Because of space considerations it will not work in significantly over crowded elementary schools. Most importantly it will not work if CPS does not highly compensate teachers who take on this complex teaching assignment. Currently there are at least several hundred teachers in CPS who are cross certified already working either as special education teachers or regular education teachers, but formally not as both within the same classroom.
The Board must take some type of steps to change this failed special education system. A system that costs much and produces limited results for far too many students. We have suggested one place to start this complex reform process."
Rod Estvan
Access Living
Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 1:44 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
So CTU sold out the special education teachers again. Why isn't Rod Estvan running OSS? Good point about the IFT and AFT dues. They do nothing for us especially in special education-we are left high and dry.
Aren't there former members of the CTU and CPS administration working now for the IFT AND ISBE-conflict of interest big time. Maybe, they need an Inspector General.
Aren't there former members of the CTU and CPS administration working now for the IFT AND ISBE-conflict of interest big time. Maybe, they need an Inspector General.
Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 2:15 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
"If blog readers read this month's Substance, you would see it published in full our FY09 CPS budget review..." (Rod, yesterday).
"This month" of course is September 2008. All of our print subscribers have received their copies by now. We are continuing our budget reviews in the October Substance with some stories about "Clout at the Top" -- basically, how to get a $100,000 a year job in "public education" without any credentials or experience in public education. Tops on that list is Josh Edelman, followed by Eduardo Garza (one of those new faces inside the railing at Board meetings) and dozens of others. The entire list of 1,200 (plus) people now being paid more than $100,000 per year at CPS can't be published, but we're putting into print a reasonable sample (about ten tabloid pages, with pictures).
As usual, CPS claims that any information on the background of any of its executives is "confidential" information. If this sounds like what just got us into the mess on Wall Street (and across the planet) under the same kinds of radical deregulation, you're right. At this point, the main qualifications for an executive job (paying in excess of $90,000 per year) in "public education" in Chicago are political clout and a finely tuned knowledge of "Atlas Shrugged" and other classics of the governing genre. Just ask Aren where he finds these people. But don't expect the information to be made public easily in the next couple of weeks.
George N. Schmidt
Editor, Substance
www.substancenews.net
"This month" of course is September 2008. All of our print subscribers have received their copies by now. We are continuing our budget reviews in the October Substance with some stories about "Clout at the Top" -- basically, how to get a $100,000 a year job in "public education" without any credentials or experience in public education. Tops on that list is Josh Edelman, followed by Eduardo Garza (one of those new faces inside the railing at Board meetings) and dozens of others. The entire list of 1,200 (plus) people now being paid more than $100,000 per year at CPS can't be published, but we're putting into print a reasonable sample (about ten tabloid pages, with pictures).
As usual, CPS claims that any information on the background of any of its executives is "confidential" information. If this sounds like what just got us into the mess on Wall Street (and across the planet) under the same kinds of radical deregulation, you're right. At this point, the main qualifications for an executive job (paying in excess of $90,000 per year) in "public education" in Chicago are political clout and a finely tuned knowledge of "Atlas Shrugged" and other classics of the governing genre. Just ask Aren where he finds these people. But don't expect the information to be made public easily in the next couple of weeks.
George N. Schmidt
Editor, Substance
www.substancenews.net
Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 1:34 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Ah. "It will not work if these classrooms are over loaded intentionally with regular education students who are suspected of having disabilities, but have not yet either been identified or have entered an RtI type process. Because of space considerations it will not work in significantly over crowded elementary schools. Most importantly it will not work if CPS does not highly compensate teachers who take on this complex teaching assignment."
I think the writing it on the wall. ISBE and CPS would never implement this approach, smart as it is. It would mean all students whose disabilities are impairing their ability to meet academic, social and emotional standards would have to be identified. CPS relies on students - not - being identified.
I think the writing it on the wall. ISBE and CPS would never implement this approach, smart as it is. It would mean all students whose disabilities are impairing their ability to meet academic, social and emotional standards would have to be identified. CPS relies on students - not - being identified.
Wed Oct 1, 2008 at 7:14 PM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Can CPS cut teachers after the 20th day? Isn't the 20th day date different in Track E schools? Teachers are being cut this week at a Track E school.
Thu Oct 2, 2008 at 11:35 AM
"Total Student Load" Makes All The Difference
Tilden had 17 cut.
Anyone can confirm that?
Anyone can confirm that?
