EDUCATION WEEK: COMMENTARY The Key to Good Science Teaching

EDUCATION WEEK: COMMENTARY The Key to Good Science Teaching

By Kirsten Daehler

Think back to learning about science in your early school years. What experiences stand out? What excited you or shut you down? What inspired you to learn more?

I often use these questions to launch professional learning with administrators, instructional coaches, and teachers. Some have exceptionally vivid memories of engaging science at school, from experimenting with pill bugs to blowing something up. But just as many remember reading uninspiring textbooks and answering end-of-chapter questions.

The takeaway from such anecdotes is clear: Good teaching matters, and it’s tough to teach science well. An effective science lesson requires planning engaging activities, navigating tricky science concepts, anticipating and working with students’ preconceptions and misconceptions, and making difficult decisions on the fly. Good teaching is an art-one performed by those with specialized knowledge and skills.

The adoption of new standards in many states-such as the Next Generation Science Standards-adds greater complexities for teachers. These standards shift expectations for how students learn science and often bring significant changes in curriculum and classroom practices. Many science teachers already lack “sufficiently rich experiences” with content in the science discipline they currently teach, according to a 2015 National Academy of Sciences report. This problem is especially significant both at the elementary level and in schools serving predominantly low-income student populations. But the problem is by no means limited to the elementary grades. Currently, two out of every five high schools aren’t offering physics because they don’t have qualified teachers.

The new Every Student Succeeds Act calls for top-notch science teachers for all students. But how can we get there? The key is continuous learning. And the quality of that continuing education matters every bit as much as the duration…

Read the full article. May require an Education Week subscription.

 

WASHINGTON POST: The big problems with the Obama administration’s new teacher-education regulations

WASHINGTON POST: The big problems with the Obama administration’s new teacher-education regulations

By Valerie Strauss

The Obama administration recently published long-awaited regulations for programs that prepare new K-12 teachers.

The U.S. Education Department had attempted to do this several years ago, but that effort was notable for several controversies, one of them a suggestion that teacher-preparation programs be evaluated in part by the standardized test scores of the students being taught by program graduates. Now we have the final regulations — and critics of the original draft remain unsatisfied.

For one thing, the new regulations, as this story by my colleague Emma Brown explains, require states to issue annual ratings for teacher-prep programs, an effort, supporters say, to separate the successful programs from the failures. They still also require each state  to evaluate teacher-training programs based on student learning, but this time leaving it to the states to decide how to measure academic growth and how much it should weigh in an overall rating.  That means that the department will permit states to use test scores for evaluation — a method that is not used to evaluate any other professional preparation program.

There are other problems with the new regulations, as well, as explained in this post by Lauren Anderson and Ken Zeichner. Anderson is a professor and chair of the Education Department at Connecticut College. Zeichner is a professor of teacher education at the University of Washington at Seattle who has done extensive research on teaching and teacher education.


By Lauren Anderson and Ken Zeichner

 Teacher preparation is shaping up to be the next frontier for entrepreneurs. Growing attention from federal and state policymakers and newly available capital from large philanthropic sources such as the Schusterman and Gates Foundations are attracting attention from entrepreneurs looking to break the lock that universities have on preparing teachers. — Stacey Childress, CEO, New Schools Venture Fund, 2016

How to put half of the institutions out of business? . . . The federal government thinks that tighter regulation of these institutions is the answer. — John Merrow, 2016

The new federal teacher-preparation regulations reveal much about how contemporary education reform “works” — and for whom. And given how the regulations are likely to work on teacher education in the coming few years, they should be cause for concern — both about the future of teacher education in the United States and the increasing penetration of education policymaking by private interests.

To be sure, while education is a state responsibility, some federal regulation is reasonable. Given that teacher-preparation programs receive funds from federal student aid programs, it makes sense for the federal government to expect that states will hold programs to certain standards, such as demonstrating responsiveness to local districts’ hiring needs, as well as graduates’ and employers’ feedback.

It’s likewise reasonable to expect that programs of all stripes will demonstrate not only commitment to continuous improvement but also evidence of progress along that path. In fact, these and similar expectations are already a part of some states’ monitoring of teacher-preparation programs.

Concerning the Content of the Regulations

Some aspects of the new regulations, however, are less reasonable, and are also inconsistent with the new federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). For example, the new regulations require that states hold teacher-education programs accountable for the achievement outcomes of their graduates’ students, an approach that many, including Presidents Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers and Lily Eskelsen García of the National Education Association, have criticized and for which there is not a robust evidence base.

Indeed, in none of the professions that policymakers often claim teaching should emulate are programs held accountable in a corollary manner. Medical schools, for example, are not evaluated based on the health outcomes of their graduates’ patients, both because of methodological challenges inherent to establishing such linkages and because of accepted understanding about how complex the variables are that impact health, much like learning.

The new regulations also embody the same unreasonable (and unwise) label-and-punish mechanisms that were discredited under No Child Left Behind and are out of step with its successor ESSA.

And, as stated by both Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate Education Committee, and Rep. John Kline, the Minnesota Republican who chairs the House Education Committee, the requirement for states to evaluate programs in particular ways and to group programs into categories of quality also appear to violate the Higher Education Act. It does this by dictating the form evaluation takes instead of leaving such decisions for states to make — we would hope — in collaboration with professional accrediting bodies.

Other aspects of the new regulations are worrisome for how they conspire with a particular aspect of ESSA — the optional teacher-preparation academy provision in Title 2 — to “serve up” or unlock the field of teacher education for innovative disruption and corporate intervention.

This “academy provision” originated in the GREAT Act in 2011, which was developed by representatives of the New Schools Venture Fund and Relay Graduate School of Education and a few members of Congress. Its aims were written into ESSA such that Title 2 dollars can now be used to support the expansion of entrepreneurial “start-up programs” (i.e., teacher preparation “academies”). These will be exempted from many of the requirements that states will enforce for other programs — such as hiring faculty who hold advanced degrees or conduct research, holding students to certain credit hours or course sequences, or securing accreditation from the field’s accrediting bodies.

The provision is particularly critical to examine because, to date, new entrepreneurial programs have focused almost exclusively on preparing teachers to teach “other people’s children” in schools within high-poverty communities — not on preparing teachers for socioeconomically advantaged communities. Therefore, the entry of such programs into the field raises important questions not only about effectiveness but also about equity.

Advocates of the academy provision have argued that deregulation and a release from “unnecessary restrictions” on programs are necessary to stimulate innovation in teacher education. This is not the case; in fact, Title 2 of ESSA presents opportunity for states to invest in evidence-based approaches — such as residency, induction, and “Grow Your Own” programs — that can be used to address teacher shortages without lowering standards as the academy provision does. Investments by states in such approaches would be wise.

Conversely, the academy provision, which lowers standards for “start-ups,” introduces a mechanism by which venture philanthropists and other corporate actors can infuse competition into the teacher education “market” and supply programs to meet the need that will arise when existing college and university programs are closed by states enforcing the new regulations.

Thus, while the new regulations rhetorically position as equal parties, entrepreneurial alternative routes and university programs, their intersection with the academy provision evidently favors expedient expansion of the former and winnowing of the latter. Indeed, it’s this dynamic that accounts for early endorsement of the “academies” idea among corporate reform entities, a number of which were also involved in drafting the new regulations from which they now stand to benefit.

Rhetoric, relationships, and the regulations

These linkages between the regulations and ESSA’s academy provision are reflected in the rhetoric and references woven throughout recent announcements. Consider, for example, that the Department of Education’s under-1500-word press release mentions by name only two “preparation providers,” one of which is Relay Graduate School of Education.

Despite its unsubstantiated claims to effectiveness, recent rejection by the state Education Department in Pennsylvania and controversial methods, Relay receives praise from the Department of Education for offering programs that “require teachers to demonstrate evidence of effectiveness in classrooms before completion,” as if ensuring candidates’ effectiveness is what distinguishes Relay.

Rather what distinguishes Relay is that it is not a graduate school in any recognizable sense. It is precisely the kind of independent program enabled and encouraged under the academy provision. What also distinguishes Relay, but goes unmentioned in the written release, is that its co-founder and current president is, among other things, also founder and board chair of the same politically connected charter network, Uncommon Schools, that employed John B. King  Jr., the current education secretary, prior to his previous job in New York as state education commissioner.

Consider, too, how these linkages are reflected in the composition of those around the table at the live-streamed announcement of the regulations in Los Angeles on October 12. Notably absent were representatives from the field’s key professional organizations: National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE), Council of Chief State School Officers (CSSO), and Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), all of whom soon after released their own responses.

Notably present, meanwhile, were Benjamin Riley, executive director of the Texas-based Deans for Impact group, and Ted Mitchell,  his former New Schools Venture Fund colleague and now undersecretary of education. Both were key players in the development of ESSA’s academy provision and its predecessor, the GREAT Act.

In light of their connection, it wasn’t surprising that Mitchell, roughly 30 minutes into the event, mentioned how the new regulations encourage states to “design mechanisms that will take student learning outcomes into account” and then followed with a quick handoff to Riley, “is that the right direction …. Ben?” Riley, unsurprised by the question, quickly affirmed the “direction” and then mentioned related “provisions of the new federal education bill [ESSA]” as a “sea change” for teacher education and higher education.

Besides King, Mitchell and Riley, other attendees included two deans, one from the hosting institution, USC’s Rossier School of Education, and the other from an historically black college and university. Both, along with Relay’s Dean, are among the 20 members of Deans for Impact, which Riley helped found and now leads. Remaining participants were a mix of educators, all affiliated with the host institution: a local superintendent who is also a doctoral student, a local teacher and principal who are also graduates and adjunct faculty, a clinical faculty member, and an education “entrepreneur and innovator” who holds a chair “Educational Entrepreneurship, Technology and Innovation” and whose career has included founding, co-founding and/or leading online education ventures.

As with named providers in the press release and invited participants at the live-streamed event, the choice of host reveals much about the federally favored future of teacher education, too. The University of Southern California’s Rossier education school is among just a handful of schools and colleges of education in research institutions without tenure-track or tenured members among its teacher-education concentration faculty, of which there are 60, 19 clinical and 41 adjunct. Faculty in its other three concentrations, meanwhile, are 26 percent, 38 percent and 39 percent tenure-track or tenured. It follows then, that despite the university setting, not one tenure-track or tenured teacher educator was featured among attendees at the announcement of the new regulations.

Evidence not evident, and other mixed messages

There are other telling — and troublingly mixed — messages at work here.

While the Department of Education has repeatedly emphasized the importance of evidence in using federal education dollars, it has promoted — in and around the new regulations — “innovations” absent a research base (or faculty configurations that support research).

For example, King has stated that “relevant, rigorous evidence must be an essential part of decision-making”; the new regulations themselves also emphasize the importance of “useful” data that can drive continuous improvement. And yet, the department has endorsed Relay, which has expanded from one campus to 13 despite no credible evidence to suggest it has met its goal of preparing teachers who can raise student achievement in urban districts.

And when during the live-streamed event Rossier is touted for increasing enrollments — from “75-80 student graduates a year” to “in the last  six years 2,700 around the country,” there is no indication given, or called for by King, Mitchell, or Riley, as to whether or how the production of “high-quality teachers at scale” is predicated on “rigorous” research and continuous improvement.

The most evident mixed message to us is woven throughout, wherever the rhetoric of respect for the work of teachers and teacher educators collides with real-time disregarding of their knowledge, marginalizing of their voices, and co-opting of their language and labor in the service of corporate reform.

Consider, for example, that Riley’s first comments during the live-streamed event stated what is common knowledge for those in teacher education and most any educational program — that we face a multiplicity of challenges and desire deeply, but often struggle to know, how students fare after graduation. He recounted learning this not from experience, having never been a teacher or teacher educator, but from the “privilege” of traveling the country visiting programs. It’s the kind of privilege that teacher educators, especially clinical ones, rarely receive and from which they would arguably glean more new insight than someone who has never engaged in their work. Indeed, they have been working, often amid fiscal and material scarcity, at solutions to such challenges for years.

To that very point, it was the clinical faculty member who offered some of the only pushback during the event, in response to Riley’s call for programs to “lead” by signing up to be “held accountable for student outcomes.” Speaking as a science educator, he reminded those present that quality data depends on “excellent assessment” and contrasted “authentic assessments … where kids get to do science” with “low-level” assessments.

He then gestured toward his former student, explained that he wanted, “to go on the record . . . all that she’s doing as a teacher, it’s hard to measure,” and invited her to “just list some of the things.” Her list included serving on the school’s professional development committee, as head of girls basketball, as assistant athletic director, as head of the science fair, and so on, all while teaching AP chemistry, sleeping five hours a night, and commuting an hour or more each morning and evening.

The list’s length led to some laughter and an assurance from Mitchell that the Department of Education wasn’t looking for a “one size fits all measure” but an understanding of “the total impact that teachers are having in their community, on their students, and their colleagues.”

For us, the exchange spoke volumes about the power dynamics at play in policy — and in the press event itself — and about long-standing debates concerning how to measure justly young people’s development and the labor that facilitates it. The exchange was also one that we recognized would not have occurred if not for the risky engagement of a seasoned teacher educator going off-script and “on the record” without the protection of tenure.

In response to the event-ending invitation for all present to offer one thing they would like to see addressed going forward, that same science educator mentioned the importance of exemplary candidates and early field experiences, and closed with an emphatic assertion of teaching as “an amazing profession.”

Riley, up next, responded immediately. “Yes, and . . .” he began, stitching his comments to the faculty member’s, and then breaking from them; he warned he’d be “a little controversial” and then stated that he “would love to see programs around the country reward the people who actually do the work of preparing future teachers as much as they do the people who do the research in the journals that I don’t read.”

Of course bragging — or even joking — about not reading research journals is a startling admission from the representative of an education deans organization. Even more striking is how the broader comment captures so much of what the incursion of private interests into education policy looks and sounds like to many teacher educators: co-optation of language and of labor.

For example, if any group has been advocating for teacher education and teaching, it has not been the corporate-funded reformers; it has been teacher educators — often from the margins of their own institutions, often up against those with fancy pedigrees and big bankrolls but limited understanding of or respect for the work teachers do.

This is why, even though aspects of the new regulations are reasonable, there is also real and reasonable cause for concern about which priorities — substance or scale, evidence or illusion, innovation or integrity, collaboration or co-optation — the regulations reflect and will refract throughout the system.

Put simply, increasing regulation for some while decreasing regulation for others is not just unreasonable. In this case, it’s cynical, dangerous and rationalized more by special interests than by sound judgments or policy precedent.

Getting real and reaching for reasonable

There is wide variation in quality among all types of teacher education programs and ongoing improvement of all programs is needed. That said, the new federal regulations will not bring us where we need to go. We canpromote innovation and reasonable, high standards for all programs; it’s possible if we allow states and accrediting bodies, with real involvement of educators, to engage in a process that has professional integrity, rather than one hijacked by educational entrepreneurs who know little of the work.

We need a sincere federal investment in program improvement, and a genuine discussion of different policy options. We don’t need a simplistic, corporate reform-serving approach that encourages — precipitates even — the closure of some programs and the funding of more nimble “start-up” ventures with lower standards.

We won’t benefit from a public and policy discourse that simply ignores the long tradition of critique and reform within teacher education, including the work of scholars such as John Goodlad, Linda Darling-Hammond, Christine Sleeter, and Peter Murrell, and organizations such as the Holmes Group and the National Association of Multicultural Education, and that frames the concerned responses of teacher educators as simply knee-jerk and “anxious about needed changes . . . in a field that has not made progress in a long time.”

If anything, such an approach and discourse only take us further from the promise of supporting accomplished teaching practice.

PUBLIC RADIO TULSA: Oklahoma Cited as a Leader in Transition to New Federal Education Law

PUBLIC RADIO TULSA: Oklahoma Cited as a Leader in Transition to New Federal Education Law

Oklahoma is among the leaders halfway through the transition to new federal education law.

The Every Student Succeeds Act, or ESSA, is replacing the No Child Left Behind Act. It was signed into law by President Barack Obama on Dec. 10, 2015, and all U.S. schools must comply for the 2017–2018 school year.

“Oklahoma is our shining model that’s taking place right now and what they’re doing to get it right for their students,” said National Education Association President Lily Eskelen-Garcia. “It’s not easy. It’s not perfect.”

ESSA returns several controls to states that the federal government assumed under No Child Left Behind. Oklahoma education officials say work with state lawmakers to pass bills on student testing and teacher evaluations put Oklahoma on the right path.

Donna Harris-Aikens with the National Education Association said Oklahoma has involved not just teachers, but also parents and school support staff in talks about how to implement ESSA’s provisions.

“We’re talking to all of our members about ESSA and making sure their voices are in the room, because everyone who has responsibility for educating kids should have a voice in this conversation,” Harris-Aikens said.

One provision of ESSA allows local officials to develop school improvement plans, something now required by Oklahoma law. Sky Ranch Elementary Principal Amy Braun said teachers at one school came up with a plan covering topics from how poverty affects the brain to using technology to better engage students.

“So, imagine the possibilities of all of our teachers in Oklahoma being able to dream and having the power to direct their own teaching and learning to actually improve student achievement,” Braun said.

ESSA also reduces the standardized testing burden.

(Read the article on the Public Radio Tulsa site)

ESSA Implementation Timeline

ESSA Implementation Timeline

The roundtable discussion with the United States Department of Education is next week in Casper. This is an important opportunity for Wyoming and I encourage you to attend and bring parents, board members, educators, community partners, and even students to the event.  Here is a link to the press release with additional information.

Planning for the implementation of ESSA in Wyoming continues to move forward on several fronts. Namely, the WDE is actively soliciting and receiving meaningful input from a variety of stakeholders. Almost every day, new information is added to the ESSA link on our website.  Here is a timeline of historical and upcoming milestones:

  • June – Aug 2016: First round of public input
  • July 2016: Internal Design Team convenes
  • Sept 2016: Internal Design Team begins writing state plan
  • Oct – Dec 2016: Second round of public input
  • Nov 2016: Advisory Committee makes recommendations to Select Committee on Statewide Education Accountability
  • Dec 2016: Work Groups convene to review rough draft of state plan
  • Volunteer to be on Work Group
  • Jan – March 2017: Wyoming Legislature Convenes
  • April 2017: Release draft state plan
  • May 2017: 30-Day public review of draft state plan
  • June 2017: 30-Day Governor’s Office review of draft state plan
  • July 2017: Submit state plan

Another round of listening tours begins in November. Here is a link to additional information about dates and locations. 

EVERY KID VOTES

Recently, Secretary of State Ed Murray held the first Wyoming Youth Voter Summit–only a small percentage of eligible voters aged 18-24 actually vote. During this event, several Wyoming leaders learned about the Every Kid Votes campaign. This is a fast-approaching opportunity for our K-8 students to “cast their votes” for the upcoming election. “Election Day” is November 1. The Responsibility Foundation will host a training webinar for Wyoming next Wednesday, October 26, at 10:00 AM. If you are interested in this opportunity for any of your schools, please have a facilitator or administrator reach out to the Responsibility Foundation:

Marc Liebman marc@responsibilityfoundation.org

Bart Skalla bart@responsibilityfoundation.org

Here is a statement from Governor Mead on the topic:

I encourage all Wyoming schools and students to participate in the “Every Kid Votes” mock election on November 1. We all have an obligation to study the issues and the candidates, and every American should vote. “Every Kid Votes” offers an opportunity for our school children to learn about civic responsibility and the precious right to vote. 

President Ronald Reagan said, “The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties and we will not see its luster diminished.” Its luster is brightest when every person participates fully in the democratic process.  I support this effort to help our kids learn more about that process. 

Wyoming Department of Education Seeks More Public Input on the Every Student Succeeds Act

Wyoming Department of Education Seeks More Public Input on the Every Student Succeeds Act

CHEYENNE – The Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) is offering multiple ways for the public to give more input on the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). A statewide listening tour and an online survey have been launched to continue stakeholder engagement on the implementation of ESSA in Wyoming.

“This really is an effort to continue the stakeholder engagement we began this summer with the virtual town halls,” said State Superintendent Jillian Balow. “We know that in order to build the best plan for Wyoming, we must hear from the people in our state about what they want from their public education system.”

The listening tour kicks off with a Community Roundtable at Community Roundtable at Casper College on October 26 with officials from the U.S. Department of Education. It will continue with WDE staff holding listening sessions in five locations:

  • Nov. 3: Central Wyoming College, Student Center 103, Riverton
  • Nov. 9: Gillette College, GCMN 120 Presentation Hall, Gillette
  • Dec. 1: Western Wyoming Community College, RSC 3650 A and B Meeting Rooms, Rock Springs
  • Dec. 7: Northwest College, Fagerberg Bldg. Room 70, Powell
  • Dec. 8: Laramie County Community College, Center for Conferences and Institutes Room 121, Cheyenne
  • All listening sessions are scheduled for 6:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

The online survey is available at edu.wyoming.gov/essa through December 31, 2016 to gather further input, as is a link to volunteer to be on an ESSA Work Group, and information on the transition timeline and public input gathered so far.

– END –

Media Contact:
Kari Eakins, Communications Director
kari.eakins@wyo.gov
307-777-2053

Community Roundtable on the Every Student Succeeds Act to be Held in Casper

Community Roundtable on the Every Student Succeeds Act to be Held in Casper

CHEYENNE – U.S. Senator Mike Enzi and State Superintendent Jillian Balow announced today that officials from the U.S. Department of Education (USED) will participate in a Community Roundtable on implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) at Casper College on October 26.

“Due to Senator Enzi’s major role in overhauling No Child Left Behind and getting us to ESSA, Wyoming is one of a handful of states that the USED is visiting in person to hold a discussion on what it will look like in practice. We appreciate their willingness to travel to Casper and listen to our concerns related to federal education policy and how it affects rural states like Wyoming.” said Superintendent Balow.

Senator Enzi will be unable to attend the roundtable, but adds, “When Congress passed this new education law, our intent was clear – we want authority of education policy to rest with the states. The U.S. Department of Education needs to heed this directive in its implementation process. I am pleased that the department chose Wyoming as a state to visit, we have a lot of insight to share.”

USED officials will participate in a listening session in which the public is invited to share ideas and provide meaningful input on how ESSA affects Wyoming and rural states. In addition, staff from the Wyoming Department of Education will collect input specific to the development of Wyoming’s plan for implementation of ESSA.

The Community Roundtable will go from 9:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. in CS-160 Nichols Auditorium at Casper College.

– END –

Media Contact:
Kari Eakins, Communications Director
kari.eakins@wyo.gov
307-777-2053

ESSA Community Roundtable

ESSA Community Roundtable

The WDE continues to welcome new educators and subject matter experts into key positions—our team grows stronger every day! First, Shelley Hamel joins us as the new Director of School Support. She previously served as the Special Education Director in Douglas—her leadership is a mainstay in Wyoming education and we are fortunate to have her lead work in CTE, federal programs, and more. Next, Laurie Hernandez was appointed as the Interim Director of Standards and Assessment. She successfully led the science standards committee work –she’s the right person to lead staff and stakeholders through this transition.  Mike Flicek, who works with WDE on a number of data and assessment projects, will temporarily fill the role of assessment administrator. We intend to conduct a national search for a new assessment administrator. Meanwhile, Laurie and Mike will oversee the RFP and statewide assessment procurement work.

Upcoming ESSA Roundtable

We are nearly finished planning the ESSA roundtable with the United States Department of Education. As you’ll recall, the USDOE selected Wyoming as one of seven states to seek feedback from during a “listening session.”  Here is a tentative agenda for the event.  It will be held October 26 at Casper College. Please plan to attend and invite others to join you. This is a unique opportunity for Wyoming’s education voice to be heard.

Dr. Rebecca Watts, Exec Director of the UW Trustees Education Initiative, Canyon Hardesty and Dr. Mark Stock of UW, and Superintendent Balow stand at the podium after presenting at the Rural Education Forum
Dr. Rebecca Watts, Exec Director of the UW Trustees Education Initiative, Canyon Hardesty and Dr. Mark Stock of UW, and I represent Wyoming at the Rural Education Forum

Rural Education Forum

This week I attended a convening for rural education.  Chiefs from rural states met in Ohio to discuss ESSA implementation, Native American education, equity in rural states, teachers as leaders, and more.  I am enthused about the direction we are headed as a nation and grateful to have strong State Chiefs in rural states. The next president of CCSSO is South Dakota’s Melody Schopp and I expect to see rural education leaders continue to have a distinct voice at the table.

WeTip to Safe2Tell

Below is a memo for Wyoming Safe-2-Tell. This program REPLACES the WeTip program. Please advise building principals and/or school safety coordinators to remove WeTip posters and information. The Department of Homeland Security, the Attorney General’s Office, the Wyoming Legislature, and the WDE have worked for quite some time to put this program in place and we are all anxious to roll it out.

Teachers Hunt and More

Finally, last week was the 4th Wyoming Women’s Antelope Hunt. It was an honor to co-chair the event with Chief Justice Marilyn Kite. The event is also a fundraiser for the Wyoming Women’s Foundation which lends its support to self-sufficiency among women by providing resources, scholarships, and information. 37 of 45 hunters filled their tags. I gave lots of shout outs to the teachers who hunted, guided, and/or volunteered.  It was very neat to have educators at the event!

Superintendent Balow smiles while posing for a picture with three hunters.

Wyoming teachers/first time hunters received scholarships to participate in the Wyoming Women’s Antelope Hunt–All three had a successful hunt!

Memos to be released Monday, October 17:

NSBA urges Supreme Court to uphold long-standing processes that encourage parent-school collaboration in special education

NSBA urges Supreme Court to uphold long-standing processes that encourage parent-school collaboration in special education

NSBA joined by the Michigan Association of School Boards (MASB), the School Superintendents Association (AASA), Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO), and National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), filed a “friend of the court” (amicus) brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools.

Read more…