Thank you for covering this topic. I really hoped someone would answer the question of just how many teachers are actually part of the WEA. I suspect it is small and not particularly representative of all of the Tosa teachers. No one wanted to answer that question during the school board election related to WEA endorsements either but I digress. I recently renewed my request (from last May) asking Dr. Means and the Board for a de-identified summary of teacher exit interviews to be shared at a board meeting. There’s a lot of anecdotal information that floats around this community. Let’s hear from the teachers themselves. Many teachers don’t speak up out of fear of retaliation. Many just throw their hands up and find a job elsewhere because they don’t feel supported and heard. Some teachers have bravely spoken up at Board meetings only to have community members say they should just leave if they don’t like it here. Isn’t it time to listen to the teachers? My request for exit interview information fell flat last year so I hope it’s honored this time. Not sharing it speaks volumes. I also think it’s important for teacher climate survey data to be shared with the Board and public. There are a lot of reasons teachers are unhappy and searching for a better work environment. Money alone isn’t going to fix this exodus.
Agree with the comments below. The district is running like a "non-profit" (heavy on the quotations) healthcare organization. First, we needed schools so we passed a referendum. Then we had too much capacity, so we opened the doors for more kids from other areas. Then, we realized that these kids had been underserved and we needed to get them up to par. So, we added a ton of top-heavy director and above positions to create programs for these kids. Then, we cut funding for USTEM and other programs. Now, we need more $$.
BS
We are making the lives of our teachers miserable, so they are leaving. Now, we want to throw good money after bad. As Ben indicated, adding overhead with declining revenue is simply bad business.
We need to attract and retain good educators, fully agree. But, the district has enough money to do that, if they are smart enough to reduce the top heavy bureaucracy and focus more on the taxpayers in our community. Then, make sure we are enabling our educators to focus on curriculum and not disruptions. Both kids and parents.
This community is absolutely willing to invest in our kids and community. But, I hope there is growing awareness and concern over the sheer volume of hubristic stupidity and waste that is happening.
I found the data a little confusing and contradictory but I think a lot of the additional positions are not necessarily administrators but support staff and “teaching” roles that don’t necessarily require teaching—like curriculum coordinators and academic coaches. This makes the aggregat data hard to decipher.
The ways titles have been made tend towards obfuscation, agreed. Many chief and director in support roles that have been advertised. But, some specific examples I’m aware of. 1) the director of diversity and inclusion (new position) is reviewing suspensions. Seems to be a reactive role rather than an anticipated proactive one. 2) we have been at USTEM for years (soon to leave the program and school) and are sad to see how unsupported it has become (why we are leaving). Through hearsay, have been told there is a new curriculum director and a known need to reinvest in that fledgling program. But, the person in that role has told some USTEM parents they can’t make any changes for a few years until an audit cycle comes around. It’s on the (very good and dedicated) teachers to self-support, which I’d imagine they are tired of both time and cost based. So, what the heck is this curriculum admin doing for now?!?! A three year research project?! That’s my point entirely, pay the teachers and avoid aimless, top heavy ones.
Sounds great. But where’s the money coming from? We were assured by some school board candidates that the district is in sound financial shape. Without cutting classes or another referendum, some creative budgeting will need to be done.
Also, do we know that pay is the main reason teachers are leaving? Maybe breaking up fights, being told by a peer that teachers should not address students as “boys and girls” and working with 40+ teachers who publicly called parents bigots and homophobic for not fully supporting the HGD curriculum leads to a toxic work environment. Even with top pay, who wants to work in those conditions?
Thank you for covering this topic. I really hoped someone would answer the question of just how many teachers are actually part of the WEA. I suspect it is small and not particularly representative of all of the Tosa teachers. No one wanted to answer that question during the school board election related to WEA endorsements either but I digress. I recently renewed my request (from last May) asking Dr. Means and the Board for a de-identified summary of teacher exit interviews to be shared at a board meeting. There’s a lot of anecdotal information that floats around this community. Let’s hear from the teachers themselves. Many teachers don’t speak up out of fear of retaliation. Many just throw their hands up and find a job elsewhere because they don’t feel supported and heard. Some teachers have bravely spoken up at Board meetings only to have community members say they should just leave if they don’t like it here. Isn’t it time to listen to the teachers? My request for exit interview information fell flat last year so I hope it’s honored this time. Not sharing it speaks volumes. I also think it’s important for teacher climate survey data to be shared with the Board and public. There are a lot of reasons teachers are unhappy and searching for a better work environment. Money alone isn’t going to fix this exodus.
Agree with the comments below. The district is running like a "non-profit" (heavy on the quotations) healthcare organization. First, we needed schools so we passed a referendum. Then we had too much capacity, so we opened the doors for more kids from other areas. Then, we realized that these kids had been underserved and we needed to get them up to par. So, we added a ton of top-heavy director and above positions to create programs for these kids. Then, we cut funding for USTEM and other programs. Now, we need more $$.
BS
We are making the lives of our teachers miserable, so they are leaving. Now, we want to throw good money after bad. As Ben indicated, adding overhead with declining revenue is simply bad business.
We need to attract and retain good educators, fully agree. But, the district has enough money to do that, if they are smart enough to reduce the top heavy bureaucracy and focus more on the taxpayers in our community. Then, make sure we are enabling our educators to focus on curriculum and not disruptions. Both kids and parents.
This community is absolutely willing to invest in our kids and community. But, I hope there is growing awareness and concern over the sheer volume of hubristic stupidity and waste that is happening.
Time to hit the rest button.
Thanks. I tried to look at administrative bloat in this article https://wauwastoa.substack.com/p/teacher-turnover-is-high-no-one-is
I found the data a little confusing and contradictory but I think a lot of the additional positions are not necessarily administrators but support staff and “teaching” roles that don’t necessarily require teaching—like curriculum coordinators and academic coaches. This makes the aggregat data hard to decipher.
The ways titles have been made tend towards obfuscation, agreed. Many chief and director in support roles that have been advertised. But, some specific examples I’m aware of. 1) the director of diversity and inclusion (new position) is reviewing suspensions. Seems to be a reactive role rather than an anticipated proactive one. 2) we have been at USTEM for years (soon to leave the program and school) and are sad to see how unsupported it has become (why we are leaving). Through hearsay, have been told there is a new curriculum director and a known need to reinvest in that fledgling program. But, the person in that role has told some USTEM parents they can’t make any changes for a few years until an audit cycle comes around. It’s on the (very good and dedicated) teachers to self-support, which I’d imagine they are tired of both time and cost based. So, what the heck is this curriculum admin doing for now?!?! A three year research project?! That’s my point entirely, pay the teachers and avoid aimless, top heavy ones.
Sounds great. But where’s the money coming from? We were assured by some school board candidates that the district is in sound financial shape. Without cutting classes or another referendum, some creative budgeting will need to be done.
Also, do we know that pay is the main reason teachers are leaving? Maybe breaking up fights, being told by a peer that teachers should not address students as “boys and girls” and working with 40+ teachers who publicly called parents bigots and homophobic for not fully supporting the HGD curriculum leads to a toxic work environment. Even with top pay, who wants to work in those conditions?