We’ve done the thank yous, and had the celebrations, but what do we do next? HB2261 is a historic piece of legislation, and if all goes well it will dramatically improve education in the State of Washington.
But it all seems like it is so underground now. What do we advocates do? Is our job done? Do we just wait and see and figure out if we need to advocate? Do we take a passive role or an active role? If we are active, what do we do?
We know that the Quality Education Council (QEC) workgroup comes into being on July 26, 2009. And we know that the QUC will have representatives from:
- Office of Financial Management (OFM)
- Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
- Legislators – 2 from each caucus
- State Board of Education (SBE)
- Professional Educators Standards Board (PESB)
- Department of Early Learning (DEL) (this is too funny, since early learning was vetoed by the Governor)
The first thing the QEC must do is submit a report to the Governor and the legislature by January 1, 2010, addressing the following:
- 1. Recommendations for any decisions requiring legislative action in the 2010 session
- 2. Consideration for a statewide beginning teacher mentoring and support system
- 3. Seek federal approval of the state’s accountability system
- 4. Use the prototypical school funding model as a reporting tool
Most of the above 4 issues weren’t on my top 10 list of ideas for improving education, except for number 4. I can get excited about number 4. If the QEC implements number 4 right now, it could help us raise revenue for schools. It would make the funding model transparent, and we’d be able to show the voters just what gets funded or not funded.
So, right now I’m waiting. There is a meeting of key players in passing HB2261 in July. At that point maybe we’ll have more of a plan. As soon as I better understand what we think we’ll happen, I’ll tell you. In the meantime, I’m sending interesting articles out for people to read, and I’m going into school districts trying to find people who would be willing to help.
My gut tells me that we have a lot of work ahead of us. It’s still all too murky to get much clarity. So I’m recruiting, teaching and waiting. As soon as there is more information, I’ll let you know.
I agree with Kelly that we are in a holding pattern for the time being, but not for long. Now is the time to start organizing around the deliverables of 2261. One way to do this is to look at the proposed revision of the WSPTA # 1 issue, Basic education Funding, and start thinking about how we can work on making the seven things enumerated happen, on time.
This is a clean and pared down version that will have a pro statement and resource material with it. It sets out the key actions that must be taken, and allows us to put the weight of the organization behind implementation efforts, assuming approval of this new language at the Legislative Assembly the first weekend in October. As we did in the legislature this year to get 2261 passed, LEV and Stand and others can use the WSPTA issue as a focal point. Here is the issue statement:
1. Basic Education Funding:
The Washington State PTA shall initiate and/or support legislation and/or policies that advance the Education Finance reform legislation, ESHB 2261, passed in 2009, and restore both the early learning component and the highly capable safety net, including:
1. the formation of the Funding Working Group Report with recommendations due by December 1, 2009;
2. the formation of the K-12 Data Governance Group with initial report due by November 5, 2009 and follow up by Sept. 1, 2010;
3. the completion of the accountability proposal by the State Board of Education with report due by December 1, 2009;
4. the completion of work charged to the Professional Educator Standards Board to address teacher standards and certification with initial recommendations due January, 1, 2010 and subsequent reports in 2011;
5. the formation and preliminary report answering specified questions of the Quality Education;Council by January 1, 2010;
6. the addition of targeted early learning to the definition of basic education; and
7. the addition of a highly capable safety net process for districts that can demonstrate significant need.
In addition, there is also the Teacher Compensation issue piece that reads as follows:
5. Support Rational Approaches to Teacher Certification and Compensation
The Washington State PTA shall initiate and/or support legislation and/or policies that advance the achievement of the stated goals of ESHB 2261 relating to teacher standards, certification and compensation to include:
1. the completion of work charged to the Professional Educator Standards board to adopt performance standards for effective teaching and continuous student improvement calibrated for each level of certification and along the entire continuum; to continue work on the Professional Certification assessments; to develop a definition of master teacher that includes teachers with National Board certification; to recommend a proposal for a classroom-based means of evaluating student-teacher effectiveness which includes multiple measures of performance; and
2. the formation of the Compensation work group by the Office of Financial Management in July, 2011 to recommend the details of an enhanced salary allocation model that aligns educator development and certification with compensation.
I am working with Kim Howard and Bill Williams of WSPTA on how to include some language that also recognizes that these basic concepts are applicable and necessary for administrators as much as possible, within the context of what is first a teacher compensation issue.
John Stokes
I have lots of questions about the prototypical school model as a reporting tool in 2010. Will the tool be used as a comparitive to the current funding levels? For the future,does the model itself cap how many students can be housed in schools, if so will we have funding to build additional schools, or will there be an increase in teacher and staff hirings to match the ratios within the existing student capacities at our schools? I ask these things because in the Central Valley School District in Spokane Valley our schools on the east end have well over 500 elementary students, nearly 700 middle students and just shy of 2000 high school students in each of our schools. The more I look at implementation the more overwhelming it seems to me.
As for the Teacher Compensation Issue, I have no clue as to what is necessary. My basic thoughts and I do mean basic, about the topic are to let teachers teach in their own most effective style and give them the funding and support to do so. A question that I do have is how is PTA going to have input into these things if there are no parent components to the workgroups?