EdWize attacks WSF
Edwize, a blog I have praised in the past, stakes out an unnecessarily combative and skeptical position on the Weighted Student Formula idea in the article A Trojan Horse whinnies. Maybe I'm being naive, and the "100% solution" initiative that they take aim at really is a sinister wolf in sheep's clothing or an end run towards vouchers and union busting. Assuming it really is another name for WSF, then I think we here in San Francisco can take a less paranoid view of the the idea entails.
In its most paranoid extreme, the article allege that the %100'ers want to "challenge teacher assignments and seniority", though they neglect to cite any specifics. They follow this conjecture with the wild-eyed conclusion:
In SFUSD, the WSF site budgeting pays for teacher salaries using an average salary and not the actual salary. This protects the seniority system, perhaps too much so. The SF policy also preserves union hiring and seniority rules too. These are really difficult and important problems for any policy to address. I'm not saying that SFUSD's policies hit the right balance between site based autonomy and teacher unionism. But again, WSF is not inherently at odds with existing teacher pay scales and worker rights.
I'm sorry that EdWize would rush to a snap judgement on the idea of WSF budgeting. They might learn a lot by studying districts like SFUSD that have implemented it before they leap to conclusions. I too am wary of the sudden spotlight on WSF, the so-called %100 solution, and the odd bedfellows these initiatives are attracting. I hope to investigate these proposals in more depth here in the future. But the Weighted Student Formula concept has merit. I firmly believe that it has played an important role in improving schools here. It really does promote site based autonomy, which does — in my Libertarian Democrat view — improve school governance, enhance accountability for school performance, and inform parental choices.
In its most paranoid extreme, the article allege that the %100'ers want to "challenge teacher assignments and seniority", though they neglect to cite any specifics. They follow this conjecture with the wild-eyed conclusion:
In other words, paying the negotiated salaries of the teachers in the school, at whatever step they are on, should be scrapped in favor of giving principals a pot of dough and letting them hire teachers they can afford.They should take a deep breath and review the proposal and review how WSF has been implemented in the real world. Here it entails nothing like this. In San Francisco, WSF fully respects union pay scales, and does it nothing weaken union work rules. That does not mean that the %100'ers are proposing adopting the San Francisco model, but it does prove that WSF and unionism can coexist. The two are hardly antithetical.
In SFUSD, the WSF site budgeting pays for teacher salaries using an average salary and not the actual salary. This protects the seniority system, perhaps too much so. The SF policy also preserves union hiring and seniority rules too. These are really difficult and important problems for any policy to address. I'm not saying that SFUSD's policies hit the right balance between site based autonomy and teacher unionism. But again, WSF is not inherently at odds with existing teacher pay scales and worker rights.
I'm sorry that EdWize would rush to a snap judgement on the idea of WSF budgeting. They might learn a lot by studying districts like SFUSD that have implemented it before they leap to conclusions. I too am wary of the sudden spotlight on WSF, the so-called %100 solution, and the odd bedfellows these initiatives are attracting. I hope to investigate these proposals in more depth here in the future. But the Weighted Student Formula concept has merit. I firmly believe that it has played an important role in improving schools here. It really does promote site based autonomy, which does — in my Libertarian Democrat view — improve school governance, enhance accountability for school performance, and inform parental choices.
3 Comments:
I wrote a little bit about the new WSF report last week (you can read them here and here). It sounds like you guys have a good system that balances seniority with getting the money to where it needs to be, but I really worry about any system that makes teacher salaries a part of individual school budgets.
Nice posts. I'll try to respond to them on your blog. I agree with you, for the most part, and I definitely worry about the strange bedfellows that are jumping on the WSF bandwagon.
To me the biggest problem with SF's WSF implementation is not the fact that teacher salaries are in play. That really is the beauty of it. And since they are dealing with averaged salaries (burdened with benefits for both active and retired employees, BTW) there is no incentive to hire young teachers at the expense of experienced hands. What you have instead are choices about needs beyond core classroom teachers. Does this site need reading specialists? PE teachers? Librarians? There is some ability to tailor the program to the needs of the kids.
Our problem is that too much of the budget is tied up in restricted funds, and cannot be allocated via WSF. That means that WSF budgets only barely cover salaries, leaving very little discretion on the part of the site councils. I've speculated about ways of mitigating this on our list. Time to post it here I suppose...
Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean people arn't plotting against us! NY and CA are two blue states separated by too many red states. The NYC school budgeting system is a lot like the SF syste ... in NYC schools receive a dollar budget: tax levy per capita, Title 1 I(if eligible) and formula driven statre dollars (Special Ed, ELL etc), the school (usually the principal) "buys" services - teachers "cost" an average aount, no benefit in hiring less experienced teachers and over 90% of the dollars buy personnel ... sounds a lot like SF.
When Ron Paige and the Fordham Foundation flak some "innovation" my paranoia genes suspect foul odors ... if Bill Clinton was sitting across the table I would listen intently, with the Bushies I guard my wallet and my privates ..
Post a Comment
<< Home