While I realize and appreciate the need for our teachers to have planning time, I can't help but feel chagrined (deceived?) at how this joint planning time for teachers was one of the selling points when West implemented their small learning communities grant. Obviously that didn't work out as advertised because we now need to give up an hour of student class time to enable this joint collaboration. Boy, do I feel like I have been fed a load of fertilizer.

Re... "we now need to give up an hour of student class time"...

Has your reading comprehension degenerated from sleeping under the fertilizer wagon with your mouth open? The proposal clearly says that the teachers will trade the current half-day staff development days (three of them) for a one-hour late start each week. The current model enables fragmented, sit'n'git, ineffective professional development. The new proposal allows ongoing, connected, job-embedded professional development. Adult learners tend to do better with frequent, short bursts of collaborative learning as opposed to infrequent, multi-hour drone fests listening some outside expert.

Your comment is commensurable with someone who is obtuse or a troll. Or both.

Motak,

While you are denigrating my reading abilities, I have to wonder about your mathematical skills. How do three half days of staff development equal 36 weeks worth of one-hour late starts?

Mr. Henriques--thanks endlessly for not taking the bait in this bizarrely hostile comment. You raise the level of discourse with your discretion. I appreciate it.

Let's not lose the main point -- that a chief feature of the SLC grants has been the shared planning and discussion time for teachers. We know this especially well at West, where we have heard it said many times over the years. Why, then, do we need more shared planning time for teachers? Are we not doing what we said we were going to do in the SLC grant? Is it not working (i.e., having the desired effect on student performance and achievement)? If it's not working, then why are we once again doing more of what's not working?

Another point is that this proposal puts adult needs ahead of student needs. (Indeed, I have repeatedly been struck by how much of the SLC grant money has been used to support adults -- many of them new grant-based hires -- talking to other adults.) Research shows clearly that people function best on a routine schedule. Thus it would be one thing to have a later starting time for our high schools five days a week; but on only one day? and a mid-week day at that? Mark my word, this idea, if implemented, will only wreak havoc with student attendance and tardiness.

I have heard of other districts having one late start day - I can't give an example but I know this is done in other districts. What has changed for Madison Teachers that makes this something they want? Are the in-service days no longer useful? When do they collaborate now? I am not against the idea. I just want to understand why this is more important to teachers than class time.

With all due respect to Mr Matthews: cross-fertilization? Does he mean cross-pollination? Freudian slip or Yogi Barra moment?