Can someone explain to me why we have instructional coaches? What is their actual job? My understanding is that they go into classes and then teach the teachers how to teach. I am sincerely asking if this is correct- not trying to start a big argument about instructional coaches. I just don't understand why we have teachers whose sole job is to teach the teachers how to teach. Shouldn't the teachers we hire already know how to teach? Do they have these coaches in all districts?
You are correct teachers should know how to teach. Its to get their friends the new title. CT hires teachers for no pay because they have NO experience. This is why no one is coming to Melrose to teach and so many are leaving the schools.
The paras need to run a special election for president, vice president, secretary and treasurer. This is how to get the union back with a election. Not one person can do this themselves. You want to have good honest people to run the union and not people that will run to management.
You hire instructional coaches when you have hired a plethora of teachers who don't know what they are doing. Melrose can't attract qualified teachers, so we are left with the dregs that no one else wants. None of this will change until Taymore and her cabal are gone. Despite all the "exemplary" ratings handed out by the Doughboy and that collection of nitwits on the SC, her reputation in the education community is such that good candidates avoid Melrose like the plague. All the fake awards and exemplary ratings in the world can't change that, and the exodus of the few good teachers remaining will continue until the system is unrepairable by anybody.
There is an end to this road we're on if nothing changes. It's called receivership. How's that going to look on your resume, Rob?
What's Fair is the question. Nothing is fair there will ALWAY'S be snakes in the grass.
I would seek legal advice with the way union and management handled a tone of dislike to a officer. And had other union members disparaging against this officer as well.
Instructional coaches are just one more ploy by certain school districts to add one more layer of middle management. If you have a good curriculum, good curriculum directors, and good teachers, there should be no need for instructional coaches. Teachers who move into these positions are teachers who don't want to teach, but want to move into administration. I have taught 25 years in a very successful school district, and we have never had instructional coaches, and I daresay we never will need them. Get your act together, Cyndy, and hire qualified teachers.
Does anyone here understand what a "coach" is? Coaches are folks that help other folks improve and become better. Coaches are not just for the "poor performing" individuals, top professional athletes, business folks, performing arts, etc. use coaches all the time to become better. In baseball, there are hitting coaches, pitching coaches, etc. Golf players have coaches, tennis players have coaches, etc. Top business executives sometimes hire personal coaches to help them with presentation skills, self-marketing etc.
With respect to teachers, many teachers are good teachers, yes even at Melrose, and want to get better and improve their craft. Instructional coaches help them do this. Instructional Coaches can come into the classroom and make observations, report what they see to teacher, and make suggestions on what to improve and how to do this. ALL TEACHERS can benefit with some level of instructional coaching, not just the "bad teachers" that people think Melrose only hires.
People don't go into teaching for the money or the hours. They go into it because they have an interest and passion for educating and inspiring the next generation. This is their goal and most want to do it to their best ability. Instructional Coaches are another part of the tool box that can be used to improve a teacher's effectiveness.
Tell me another profession where these so-called coaches are paid for by tax dollars - dollars that could be spent hiring teachers who are actually qualified. Jacka$$.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/teachersalaries.aspx?mode=&year=2015&orderBy=AVERAGE%20DESC
The Melrose community apparently doesn't want to pay its teachers as well as most other Massachusetts communities. Maybe this is the reason that Melrose has "poor, unqualified teachers", because if you equate "performance" with pay, then there is your answer.
The citizens of Melrose, and it's collection of "know-it-all Monday morning, arm chair educators and school board members", claim to value education and the need to attract and retain "quality" teachers, yet anytime there is a vote to approve monies to better the school system, specifically towards teacher salaries, it is shot down. Again, if you equate teacher performance with $, then maybe that is your answer.
Are low salaries a part of the problem? Probably, but by far the major reasons Melrose can't attract quality personnel are the witch running the system, and the politics ridden backstabbing toxic environment she creates. In case your head is enclosed in a stainless steel box, you have to know that the word is out - no one wants to work here, and salaries are not the main reason. That's why we get the dregs who need "coaching".
Who's ultimately responsible for this? That boob in the Mayor's office, our very own "education expert", who is totally incapable of admitting he made a mistake. Instead, all we hear is how incredibly wonderful things are, and how exemplary she is. Please.
All true. Maybe if Melrose would:
1. stop spending millions on feelgood stuff that makes no educational difference,
like that useless learning commons
2. get rid of the Super and her cronies and get someone who knows what they are
doing, doesn't play favorites, and cares more about actually educating instead
of spending all their time making it appear that's what they're doing
then people might not be so averse to putting more money into the system. As long as the people running things, and that includes the Mayor, who never should have been allowed to weasel his way onto the SC (the SC - another bag of worms), remain, that's not going to happen. Enough is enough.
I do not agree on having coaches because a brand new teacher comes into the schools not even sure if she wants to be a teacher yet. The reason they wait 3years to get tenure is to make sure this is going to be there career.
Most teachers will leave around the first 5 years of teaching. Some hope this is the career they want and find out different. So why waste money on the first year teachers. This is a study on teachers that come and go. When the teachers become coaches they are no longer in the union also.
The post that Prof. Correctipa is incorrect the spelling is correct. Watch your post.
Is she related to Ms. Hogan the superintendents secretary? I already know were this is going its not what you know its who you know. Always in Melrose this is the standard in placing family members.
No surprises here.
I am a employee at the Melrose schools and reading your post is totally a laugh. EH, is ecstatic to be leaving the Roosevelt, Roosey Bunch, and MM. The only mistake is that you mentioned it is not irrelevant that she is related to Diane Hogan? It is truly irrelevant but it depends on Erin, to use her expertise to prove she has the capabilities to succeed. Yes, the Roosevelt is full of jealous women in the school that is correct.
Are you kidding me! It's not what you know it's who you know. Let's be real...