By Tamara

With levy renewal votes on the horizon for many of
Washington’s districts I’ve been thinking a lot about what an education worth
paying for should look like. I think we
can all agree a solid grasp of fundamental skills in reading and math should be
a non-negotiable outcome. Followed by the ability to form, support, and articulate
an argument whether spoken or written. Art, music, physical education, and
technological literacy each play critical roles in the development of those
skills. As a bookend, adequate time
within the working day for teachers to plan and collaborate on lessons should
also be non-negotiable. That is the core of an education I want for my own
children and one I would support monetarily beyond taxes.

Yet I find myself in an uncomfortable position as a teacher
with a “backstage view” of how resources are allocated. When I witness my district
making new curriculum adoption with all its attending professional development
year after year (especially this year with the full knowledge Common Core is
coming) as a taxpayer, I feel short-changed. When I know first- hand that
developing proficiency with new curriculum and assessments takes time, as a
parent I worry my children are not getting the quality instruction their teachers
are capable of if not having to adjust to yet another adoption. Those are the biggies. But I also find myself
thinking , “Really, we are paying for children to spend twenty minutes reading
with a “Reading Rover” dog because a dog
is so much better at imparting literacy skills?” and “Really, we need five certificated
staff to proctor MAP to twenty-six
students for two hours out of the instructional day?” We have an entire room
full of class sets of books that we actually hired a “volunteer” to organize
but that no one has used in classroom instruction for at least three years. Sure
some of these expenditures are site-based decisions. But whether site-based or
district-wide, this is not how I expect my tax dollars for education to be spent.

So I am on the fence about my local levy. To vote no feels
like cutting off my nose to spite my face. But voting yes feels like a stamp of
approval for resource allocation I cannot as a parent, taxpayer, or educator
support.

 

 

 

Each spring the uncertainties of student enrollment, teacher transfers or retirement, and funding make budgetary predictions difficult.

To remain financially sound some districts send out pink slips to the newest teachers. In no way is this ideal. These teachers face uncertainty about their employment future. Some of the district’s best teachers, who happen to be new hires, may not have their contracts renewed.

New legislation, yet to be introduced, may change how districts respond to RIFs. Instead of RIFs base on level of experience they may be based on a teacher’s evaluation relative to other teachers.

This bill, I assume, is in response to schools being unable to retain effective teachers when they are forced to lay off staff.

In 2009-2010, 3% of Washington’s teachers were given RIF notices. 87% of those teachers were recalled. Evidence does not suggest that the best and brightest young teachers are losing out to ineffective veterans.

Still, this idea is compelling. Shouldn’t the best teachers be the last ones to be laid off? Yes. If only it were that simple.

Distinguishing between the best and the worst teacher in a school may not be that difficult. But it is much more difficult to distinguish between the second and the third worst (one may keep their job while the other may not).

New evaluation systems are expected to have different criteria for novice and experienced teachers. Is a good novice teacher more effective than an average experienced teacher? Who wins in this RIF race a teacher with five years of solid student growth and one recent year of poor growth or the second year teacher with two years of average growth?

What are the recall rights for a RIFed teacher?

When the art program is cut can somebody determine the relative effectiveness between a high school and elementary art teacher?

The idea, keeping the best, is elegant. Implementing this idea? Not so much. Since relatively few new teachers actually lose positions this law is unlikely to result in an improved teaching force.

I'd like to see lawmakers put their efforts elsewhere. If lawmakers want to address the problems related to RIFs they should fulfill their paramount duty and fully fund education. And they should allow local school districts the time and space to implement the new evaluation criteria. Many stakeholders came together to put this evaluation model in place. Rolling out this system will be challenging. Rolling out this system while simultaneously addressing the complexities of a new model for RIFs seems unwise. But I'm no lawmaker...

By Mark

Here's some data for you.

Between my first and second period English classes, I have 60 students total. Certainly, a reasonable number for a large high school.

At the six-week progress report in October, a whopping 15 of those 60 had A's. Five had F's.

During the months of October, November, December and January, I participated in around 20 one-on-one or wraparound meetings (the latter included other teachers, administrators, counselors along with parent and usually student). Of those, at least half were specifically for the five young'uns earning an F at the October progress check.

If I were to keep a comm log (like back in the National Board candidacy days) I'd be willing to venture that far greater than 50% of my emails, phone calls, and letters home focused on those five kids who were earning an F in October. Arrangements were made for before and after school help with me and other teachers. Reasonable adjustments were made to deadlines, the scope of tasks, and the lengths of essays. Audiobooks were ordered and provided to students. Supplemental materials were provided to help with text comprehension and task completion.

The semester ends this week. The same exact five students still have F's. However, of the 15 who had A's, nine have dropped to a B+ or lower; the current "A count" is at eight: six kids held the A, two managed to climb up from the middle ranks.

Who have I failed worse? The five kids who still have an F? The nine kids who slipped south of the A? 

By Kristin

Something's been bugging me lately.  While I support testing to gauge whether a child's where she's supposed to be or not, and I support using that information as one of the many possible measures of a teacher's impact on a child's growth, I am not happy with testing in Washington State. I wish my district and OSPI would get themselves organized.

I'm starting to feel like a 41-year old student driver, a driver who's had her license and been driving professionally for sixteen years now, but who still has an instructor next to her telling her what to do.  To make it worse, while my instructor is telling me to how to steer, park and reverse a car, the test I'll ultimately have to take involves flying a plane.

By Kristin

Here's a Lincoln Continental.  I had the opportunity to have the entire back seat to myself one long summer drive, going from Atlanta to Miami, and I'm here to tell you that the back seat was bigger than some apartments I've lived in.  It certainly had better storage. 

I'm old enough to remember the first appearance of "compact" cars.  They were, in Southern California at least, called "Jap cars," "sardine cans," and "nut twisters." That last one is from my best friend's father, and I just couldn't leave it out.  He drove a big Audi sedan and, we can only assume, drove untwisted.

The transition to small, fuel efficient cars was not an easy one, nor one without its unsavory terminology.  Education is experiencing its own unsavory moment, and we see terms like "ed deform" being tossed about. Is that where we're really going?  As someone with a "deform"ity, I have to assume that this term was invented to wound.  

Luckily for us, with the way humans keep reproducing, some people managed to stomach the unsexiness that was a Honda Civic and chose to drive a car with better gas mileage. 29 MPG for the Honda, compared to the Continental's 7.9.  Where we would be in our quest for fossil fuel if everyone insisted on driving a nut-untwisting Continental is anyone's guess.

By Tom

I’m pretty sure my house needs a new roof. It’s not leaking right now, but it looks like it might. There’s moss here and there, and the shingles look old and limp, like they’re about ready to give up.

But the trouble with getting a new roof is that there’s nothing “new” or “flashy” to show off. You just have a roof that’s new. No one stands out in their front yard, admiring their new roof, like they would with a new patio. People don’t comment on it.

But if we don’t replace our roof in a timely manner, we stand to compromise our entire house. No matter how much we’d like to put in a new patio out front, we need to stay focused on taking care of the roof. Being a grownup means setting priorities.

Washington State, like every other state, is flat broke. Not only that, the State Supreme Court recently ruled that the Washington Legislature is shamefully underfunding its schools, ordered them to take care of the problem.

That‘s what you might call a “priority.”

The Legislature needs to focus right now on just one thing: fully funding education. Period. Nothing should be allowed to distract their attention or divert their funds.

Two bills were introduced this month that do nothing to fully fund education and do everything to distract lawmakers from doing what the court just ordered them to do.

These bills would introduce charter schools to Washington State. Personally, I’m rather intrigued by charter schools. Where I was once dead-set against them, after visiting several successful charters in New York City, I’ve come to appreciate what they do with the populations they serve, and I think they may be useful in certain areas here.

But not now.

By Mark

One day my oldest son, at the time a kindergartner, came home distraught.

Eventually, my wife and I were able to coax out the whole story. He said he'd done everything he was supposed to do: day after day he was doing his work in class, helping others, being a good citizen, and everything else his teacher asked. He'd been a great line leader, a great tablemate, and almost always raised his hand before speaking.

Sobbing, he couldn't understand why the teacher just wouldn't ever change his card to orange.

By Travis

It has been 15 years since I started teaching and I have taught in a number of schools, spending the most time in three. Each time I move to a new school, I see an environment for greatness and it fills me with excitement. Over time, the greatness never comes. It appears that each school gets close but always falls short.

The impulse is to find an error, a single negative to explain why the school cannot reach greatness. However, there is no single issue that, if solved, could move the school to greatness. Each of the three schools has well trained educators, has strong principal leaders, and has students are eager to work. So why is greatness elusive?

By Tom

After enjoying Mark’s take on the recent Washington State Supreme Court’s McCleary decision, you now get to endure mine. Sometimes two views on the same topic is a good thing. Sometimes it’s not.

First the good: The decision itself was a win, however sloppy. The State Supreme Court ruled that the State Legislature has to follow the State Constitution and make ample provisions for public education, which according to the constitution, is its “paramount duty.” The suit was filed five years ago on behalf of four students, Carter and Kelsey McCleary and Robbie and Haley Venema. (Carter and Robbie are still in school; their sisters have since graduated.) (There was a kid named Steve Venema in my 8th grade PE class. I wonder if they're related.) The two families were joined in the suit by a large coalition of educational organizations, including over a dozen school districts and the Washington Education Association. The plaintive in the suit was the State of Washington. The case was actually decided last year, but the state appealed it to the Supreme Court, which made the 7-2 decision last Thursday. The two dissenters included Chief Justice Barbara Madsen, who, with no apparent sense of irony, thought it best to let the Legislature take care of the problem.

And the Bad: Six years. That’s how long the Court gave the Legislature to solve the problem. Six whole years. In six years, all the McCleary and Venema kids will be out of school and pursuing their careers. In six years every legislator and judge in Washington will either be replaced or reelected. In six years, every kid in my class will be in high school, replaced by kids who are currently learning to talk and use the toilet. In six years, the computer sitting in your lap will have been replaced at least once. In six years, you will have had to repaint your house. And in six years, the New Husky Stadium will be five years old, which means that it will have been used about thirty times, by football players that represent a student body from all over the country, whose out-of-state tuition will be used to send Washington students to community college. The Court gave the State six years to do what I can say in six words: Increase revenue to pay for education.

And now the Ugly: This, the Seattle Times’ take on the decision. I’m not sure why, but in the last few years, the relationship between Washington’s teachers (especially their union) and the leading daily newspaper has gone from chilly to cold to disrespectful to downright hostile. This is a new low for the Times; where they apparently blame the education funding crisis on collective bargaining, teacher strikes and our cushy healthcare plans. Ouch.

Will this decision make any difference? Maybe, maybe not. Certainly not anytime soon, unless 2018 is your idea of soon.

But hey; a win's a win!

By Mark

You've probably read about it: The Washington State Supreme court stated in an 85-page opinion that the State of Washington has not met it's constitutional obligation to fully fund its public schools. (Here's the actual majority ruling in the case, officially McCleary v. State.) 

So now what? The court intends to "keep a close eye" on the legislature. I guess I need help understanding what this means and how this serves as an example of the system at work. So, the state has until 2018 to comply. If they don't comply, then what?

The same kinds of rulings are appearing elsewhere, as pointed out in a blog I read frequently, where accomplished teachers in California talk state and national ed policy. I learned there at InterACT, through a post by David B. Cohen, about Lobato v. State of Colorado wherein the court similarly ruled that the state had failed to meet its obligation. Cohen's post is worth a read, as he distills out the critical language in the Colorado court's ruling. Like many of us, Cohen is still watching Colorado, since its state school board has now voted in favor of appealing that court ruling. 

I'm sure more certain information about "what next" will manifest soon. (Actually... who am I kidding, the waters are certain to get a whole lot muddier before they get any clearer.)

What do you know? What are your thoughts? What is the next line in our conversation about this important ruling? My first step: put those student essays down for a few minutes to pore over our State Court's opinion; I hope to find some compelling language...we'll see.

By Tamara

We talk a lot here about reform: change in education. But do those conversations lead us to action? Or more conversation? Not that more conversation is bad. More conversation is often needed to flesh out ideas.

It's New Year's Eve. That time when many of us are making resolutions. Some that will stick, some that wont. This year one of mine is start taking real action based on my education policy conversations. I don't know exactly what those actions are going to be. This is probably the year I take the leap and try some lobbying in Olympia.

What about others? Are there actions you are looking forward to taking in the new year that support your thoughts and conversations here?

By Tom

There are about seventeen hours from the time I say goodbye to my students until the time I say hello to them the next day. Of those seventeen hours, I like to spend about eight in bed. That leaves nine. It takes me about an hour a day to commute; dinner and breakfast combined take another hour, and I spend one more hour shaving, showering and performing other “miscellaneous hygienic tasks.”

That leaves me with six hours of free time. But not really; since one of those hours has to be spent at school, according to my contract, and another hour has to be spent at home, doing chores and staying on top of my kids’ homework.

So I really only have four hours of discretionary time each day. Four out of 24.

By Rob

Some time ago I was struggling to set up procedures during my literacy instruction.  I was attempting to meet with a guided reading group while the reminder of my class was engaged independently in a meaningful activity.  For some students the “independent” activity was a too challenging and they needed support.  For other students it was too easy and they were finishing early.  Other students had difficulty remaining on task and caused disruptions.  These are the challenges of a novice teacher.

All things considered I was doing pretty well but I knew it could be done better.  But I wasn’t sure how.  I was building the boat as I was crossing the ocean.

I spoke with some other teachers and we shared the same struggles.  After I confided in my principal I found this “struggle” reflected in my evaluation.  Prior to that evaluators found little to criticize.  I regretted opening up my practice.

 By Travis

The message is clear. Very clear.

On the surface, the message comes across as positive, saying there is an organization out there to help children. I am all for helping children.

However, there is hidden message. An agenda, perhaps? This subtle meaning sends its message to the community even if the community does not consciously read it that way.

By Rob

Tom has written some thoughtful posts (here, here, and here) about charter schools.  When I read about charter schools with a cohesive staff, a common vision, and high standards for all I’m excited about the possibilities for their use in education reform.  I am also a firm believer that the same reforms are possible for public schools. 

If charter schools take hold then resources will shift towards making them viable.  Who provides the transportation?  Who maintains the facilities?  Who provides the special education services in the least restrictive environment?  Who provides the oversight?  Undoubtedly answers to these questions are possible.  But what if the resources used to address these questions were invested in local school improvement?

By Tom

The Seattle Times came out with a story today about the “Alarming” achievement gap between African American students and the children of African immigrants. Apparently the Seattle School district studied their data and found that African American students perform significantly worse than their African classmates, even when you control for factors such as income and single-parent families.

I’m glad the Times ran this article. It’s hard – not to mention awkward – to generalize when you’re talking about something as emotionally charged as race, but when something like this comes along, you sort of have to. That is, after all, the whole point of analyzing data.

Most teachers have noticed this phenomenon for years. I certainly have. Our school has a large proportion of both populations, and most African immigrants are among the most motivated students in the school. Their parents push them hard and are very supportive of everything we do in school. In talking with these parents, I’ve always gotten the sense that educational opportunity was one of the main reasons for their being here, and they have no intention of watching their children squander that opportunity. I get the feeling, from working with many of these families, that they genuinely trust the teachers, the schools and the entire educational system.

As we know all too well, African American families don’t exactly share that same trust of our educational system. Nor should they; our educational system hasn’t exactly spent the past two hundred years earning that trust. There's no question but that this lack of trust interferes with their children's success in school. It's unfortunate, it's sad, but it's true.

What this data shows is that success in school has nothing to do with race. It might have something to do with poverty, but it has everything to do with the relationships between our schools and our families.

What I want to know is this: where do we go from here? How do we build productive relationships with all of our families so that every child succeeds? 

 

By Travis

Principals are near useless. Near…I would not be so mean as to say totally. I know they serve a purpose. But, hey, let’s be honest. How often is your principal in your classroom? If you are lucky, it is twice a year for the district mandated formal observation. Principals do not teach classes so how could a principal possibly understand life in your classroom? They cannot relate. When seen in the big picture, principals do not do much to impact instruction, and as such, are near useless.

However, my principal is not. Lisa teaches.

By Tamara

For the last few weeks I have been reflecting on Tom’s observations and analysis of charter schools. Rather than the question about the role charter schools should or shouldn’t play in Washington, what has had me thinking most is the question of what society should expect from teachers. Tom repeatedly noted the time and energy he observed both public and charter school teachers committing. In our comments-based conversation he concluded that truly high caliber teaching does not co-exist well with family life. Agreed.

Yet I wonder: is that right? While there are certainly professions where those with family need not apply, should teaching be one of them?  Many of us here have discussed how being parents make us better teachers. I know when I feel like I am having an “off” teaching day, I think about what I expect from my own child’s teacher. What do I want them to do for my child? Sacrificing their family is never on the list.

 

It is simply difficult for me to accept the idea that having a family (or a life outside the professional day) means one can’t be a high caliber teacher.  It just doesn’t play out in my day to day observations. When I think of the best teachers I work with, most have families and full post-school day lives. It is also difficult for me to accept the notion that any profession should eclipse personal life. Yes we expect long hours and exacting attention to detail from our doctors, emergency responders and our elected officials. But don’t we also expect them to attend to their personal needs as well? I don’t want a burned out doctor doing surgery on me or anyone else. I don’t want elected officials making life-altering policy on a steady diet of all-nighters. And I certainly don’t want a resentful, stressed out teacher educating my child. I don’t want to be a resentful, stressed out teacher!

 

Maybe it’s not a question of what society expects from teachers. Maybe the question is what do we expect the role of work to play in our lives?  I think about how we introduce ourselves: “My name is Jane Doe and I am insert profession here.” We identify ourselves by what we do.  Whereas many other societies identify themselves by who they are: “My name is ______, I am the son of insert three generations of family names here.” So maybe the question is more about are we living to work or working to live?

 

At the end of the discussion I believe there has to be a balance. Will there be sacrifices? Of course.   Yet I maintain there has to be a way to be the best professionals we desire to be without it coming at the complete expense of our personal lives.

 

 

 

By Kristin

I admit, when my friend read this to me there was a moment - about when he read "Being an educator means that you are a part of the noblest profession ... Quite frankly it takes a special person to be an educator," - that I started thinking of the bills I've paid this month and the bills I have yet to pay. Teachers are either noble or destroying children, it seems, and I think reality is that we're all in a middle ground. Am I noble if I'm tired of looking at essays instead of my daughters?  I don't think so.  Am I destroying children if I often put the grading down and read Go Dog, Go?  I don't think so.

But by the end, I admit it, I was inspired.  I love when I'm proven wrong.  This high school principal's essay got me where it counts when he wrote, "The educator that I just described ... will ... never fall victim to the bitterness."  "Ouch!" I thought.  I don't want to be that teacher!

By Tom

In case you missed it, there was a wonderful article in the Seattle Times about Asa Mercer Middle School, named after the guy in the picture. Asa Mercer - the school, not the guy - went from being the poster child of woeful, inner-city education to one of the best schools in the Seattle School District. In only six years.

So how did Asa Mercer accomplish this turnaround?

A strong administrator, dedicated teachers focused on a common vision, good curriculum, a belief that every student can achieve and really hard work.

This is exactly what I found in the schools I visited last month in New York City. And although Mercer is a regular public school, they've found the same answer to the same problems as the charter schools I've visited. Not surprisingly, the principal at Mercer was a former teacher at a NYC charter school.

What this shows is that there's no secret to successful schools. Nor is there a shortcut.

It also shows what happens when we learn from what works - no matter where it's working - and apply it to other schools. 

Our students deserve no less.