My take on it is that there were a lot of things in it that they didn't want to agree to. One of them was the teacher evaluation plan that we just started that I know for a fact is working. They would have to get rid of that in favor ofstudent performance being the measure. I am sure that there are other things in there as well.
At the highschool parent meeting, we were told that they wanted them to sign it without seeing what was in it. So, there was a big argument about whether you should sign an agreement without seeing what is in it.
Originally posted by OldWiseOne: Well, apparently Superintendent Chow had a good idea what was in it -- he signed off on it.
Just more examples -- really out in the open now -- of how some want the status quo to remain just that.
I don't think he knew what was in it either. The question was asked at the meeting about how many people would sign something without knowing what was in it. So there was debate about that. I always read things before I sign them.
I thought one of the articles said that just because they apply they do not have to except the money. In otherwords, they could have applied and after reading the details if they did not like it, they could decline to participate.
Originally posted by Beth: I thought one of the articles said that just because they apply they do not have to except the money. In otherwords, they could have applied and after reading the details if they did not like it, they could decline to participate.
But my question is: why all the secrecy? Why couldn't they tell them everything before they applied? This is the way these things usually work. They give you the info and then you decide if you want to participate.
Secrecy seems to go hand in hand in all areas pertaining to education. Look no further than the school board or ACSC in general... Funny how it's okay for one and not the other.
be here now.
Posts: 45 | Location: here. | Registered: 18 September 2009
Originally posted by metta: Secrecy seems to go hand in hand in all areas pertaining to education. Look no further than the school board or ACSC in general... Funny how it's okay for one and not the other.
I do n't know of specific instances of secrecy, but there are times when committees must go behind closed doors to discuss things. For example, I recently auditioned for a play. The auditions were done publicly (some are and some aren't). When the auditions were over, the staff got together and discussed their options. This is what a committee does. When they were finished, they decided and the results were released. (I got the part, btw). I am sure that the people who didn't get the part were upset, but I don't think that they faulted the process.
Sure, I don't doubt the necessity of non-disclosure on certain items at certain times. I'm merely pointing out a perceived goose and gander thing... Unfortunately suspicion is almost a guaranteed response when things are hidden.
(this is not directed to anyone person here on the forum --->
I would hope that the next time parents bemoan "secret discussions, meetings, etc" that they won't be disrespected as many have in the past. Again, because it it is a completely normal response as evidenced in this instance...
Oh, and break a leg Nubian!
be here now.
Posts: 45 | Location: here. | Registered: 18 September 2009
Doesn't really matter. Even Arne Duncan saw that Indiana's plan wasn't up to snuff. Indiana was denied the opportunity to get RTTT funds. So perhaps those who looked at it and declined to get mixed up in something that would have hurt students in the long run knew a bit more than the armchair quarterbacks in Anderson, huh?
