Reflections on Differentiated Staffing

Our group came up with a model in which certified (highly-qualified) personnel would lead a group of lesser qualified "educators" in scaffolded vertical teams.  It would allow for a career ladder for those that wished to serve at higher levels as well as financial flexibility at the lower levels of each team. 

I, personally, dissent in this conversation.  To implement differentiated staffing in this model de-values certified teachers as educators and farms out tasks to uncertified "educators" such as aids, student teachers, and interns.  I feel that to do so robs students of quality in the classroom.

It is a solution that only serves to decrease instructional costs and that is unacceptable. In the spirit of the guiding question listed in the instructions above, I cannot write a single line, let alone 1-2 pages on “How differentiated staffing might impact and/or improve the goals of that campus.”

The only way in which I see a variation of Differentiated Staffing that would be effective would include the hiring of teachers with multiple certifications.  In that instance, the school would have a limited amount of scheduling flexibility and possibly eliminate the need to hire .5 FTEs (or less) in order to service courses in which there are fewer than 5 or 6 sections.  It would possibly increase course selection opportunities for students while not increasing the overall operational costs to the school or district.

I cannot think of other conditions under which differentiated staffing serves the public, nor does it produce an environment that serves in the best interests of our students.  Our students deserve our best.  Differentiated staffing promises nothing that remotely resembles our best.