Testimony - suicide, WaKIDS, assessments

To: House Education Committee
Re: 2/7/2013 public hearings

PRO - HB 1336, Increasing the capacity of school districts to recognize and respond to troubled youth.



Sent in written testimony

Dear Chairwoman Santos and committee members,

Washington State PTA supports state efforts in this area and sincerely thanks the sponsors. We would also encourage the state to continue to offer school staff tools to address students’ social and emotional health, such as support to implement Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports and adoption of comprehensive K-12 Social Emotional Learning standards and the state support needed to implement them for all children.

Sincerely,

Ramona Hattendorf, WSPTA Government Relations Coordinator

-
PRO -  HB 1369 , Using school days for meeting with parents and families as part of the Washington inventory of developing skills.

Sent in written testimony:

Dear Chairwoman Santos and committee members,

Washington State PTA continues to strongly support WaKIDS and we are interested in supporting practitioners in a manner that best helps them implement. In a nutshell, WaKIDS gives us a different approach that emphasizes transitions and relationship building; it makes sense to rethink instructional time and give schools flexibility in how to implement WaKIDS.

Sincerely,

Ramona Hattendorf, WSPTA Government Relations Coordinator

-
CONCERNS - HB 1293, Requiring school districts to disclose information about required assessments

Sent in written testimony:

Dear Chairwoman Santos and committee members,

Washington State PTA has concerns about this bill as written. We are very interested in giving families the information they need to be engaged partners in their child’s education, but we have the following questions and comments:

1. Is this going to come back in 1 or 2 years as an unfunded mandate?

Rather than require districts to check something else off their list, could OSPI include this information in their online school reports? It might make more sense – and be easier on families -- to provide all school data in one place. What is the rationale for putting the additional burden and costs on the school districts?

2. Requiring No.11/financial costs seems out of context.

Clarity around budgeting is a good thing, but this singles out assessments over and beyond other investments – such as the cost of lost instructional time to half days/ staff time, or costs of substitutes so staff can participate in professional development during the school day/year. It is always good to share budget information with the community, but there is no context here for families to engage knowledgably.

If the point of including costs is to give parents a fuller understanding of the budget and how it affects instructional choices, then you should add this information to the prototypical model breakdowns that OSPI is developing, and you might consider adding information on the school report about actual classroom learning time. And then you should make sure both of those reports (the spending breakdown and the school report) are linked so families and communities can see the big picture and easily find it. Districts, schools and other entities can then more easily share links to the disaggregated state information.

Sincerely,

Ramona Hattendorf, WSPTA Government Relations Coordinator