Money for school nurses, teacher health plans

Cross-blog alert: James Salzer over on Gold Dome Live reports that the House will vote on the 2010 budget to include money for school nurses and the 10 percent bonuses for teachers with national board certification. Gov. Sonny Perdue proposed eliminating both to save money.

The House also will vote to maintain current health care costs for teachers and other state employees.

4 comments Add your comment

jim d

March 17th, 2009
6:09 pm

Other than teachers and nurses –who really cares?

ScienceTeacher671

March 17th, 2009
6:23 pm

Parents of children with severe allergies, diabetes, seizure disorders, and other potentially life-threatening conditions?

32 Years In

March 17th, 2009
8:04 pm

Latest thing in the news is the furlough days…a suggestion is “letting the inservice days” be our furlough days. So not only do I have to waste my day sitting in yet another meeting to justify somebody in the Central Office’s job, but you aren’t paying me for it? I don’t think so. I could handle being given furlough days, but let me choose how to use the day for which I’m not getting paid.

Snitter

March 31st, 2009
9:52 pm

Georgia’s budget crisis requires wise stewardship and spending where it counts—increasing student learning. As legislators, superintendents and school boards debate budget cuts and short-term stimulus monies, key factors about what kinds of spending are important in educational outcomes are becoming clearer thanks to a state-wide study of spending in high schools in North Carolina.
The 2008 study by the Carolina Institute for Public Policy, North Carolina High School Resource Allocation Study, provides clear guidance on some key questions. While overall per pupil spending in districts was not largely predictive of achievement, certain patterns of spending were. The North Carolina study found the amount of money high schools spend on regular classroom instruction does have a sizable impact on student learning outcomes. An increase of $500 per pupil spent on regular instruction is associated with a significant increase on students’ End of Course test scores. Regular classroom expenditures include teacher salaries, supplementary pay, supplies, texts, teacher assistants, tutors and library and media services. Higher expenditures on other functions also have smaller, but significant impacts on higher achievement (special education, district and administrative services, transportation). On the other hand, spending on supplementary instruction (outside the normal school day and week) is actually associated with lower student test scores—although there may be other benefits.
Certain teacher characteristics had negative effects on student learning: schools with high percentages of teachers who entered the field through alternative, temporary or emergency routes were associated with lower end of course test scores. On the other hand, teachers who graduated from highly competitive colleges had a positive impact on student learning. A surprising finding was that once temporary, provisional and alternative licenses were removed from analysis, teachers in their first three years of teaching are an asset in increasing student scores. “This may suggest that traditional teacher preparation programs are doing a better job of preparing new high school teachers than is commonly recognized” according to the authors. Clearly, hiring teachers from highly competitive schools who come through rigorous teacher education programs pays benefits for students in North Carolina’s high schools and there is no reason to think that Georgia’s schools are different. The study identified gains for schools with higher numbers of teachers with advanced degrees, National Board certification, and degrees from highly competitive schools. One of the keys in this study was taking the school faculty, rather than the individual teacher, as the unit of analysis.
The other key element identified in the North Carolina study on improving high school student achievement is leadership. Schools that were outperforming expectations had leaders that provided both the will and the capacity to succeed with demographically challenging student populations. The common characteristics of these leaders were commitment, sharing collective accountability and responsibility, and resilience. In addition, opportunities for all students to learn through carefully chosen curricular, instructional and assessment practices in an orderly and disciplined environment were the focus of effective principals. The Georgia Leadership Institute for School Improvement and the state’s new performance-based standards for principals and district leaders are doing the work of preparing and re-invigorating Georgia’s principals to meet changing leadership demands.