Remarks of Secretary Duncan at the Askwith Forum, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

I was pleased to hear that today’s event in the Askwith lecture series was sold-out. But I hope that no one here today is under the impression that they are going to hear from Lady Gaga. I’m the warm-up act—she is later this month.

All kidding aside, it’s great that Lady Gaga is striving to reduce the serious problem of bullying in schools, especially for LBGT youth. She has a true passion and commitment to protecting children, and to reducing violence and abuse, that I absolutely applaud.

I want to speak to you today not about Lady Gaga’s advocacy, but rather about well-intentioned advocacy that goes awry.

I want to talk about advocacy that inadvertently becomes less about helping children and making tough choices—and becomes more about maintaining ideological purity and making false choices.

The dysfunctional gridlock in Congress today is no secret. Reauthorization of ESEA, or the No Child Left Behind Act, has been stalled for years—even though no one thinks the law is acceptable as it is. We all know it is fundamentally broken.

But I am not just talking about the politics of paralysis in Washington. In schools of education, in the blogosphere, in school board meetings, in superintendent’s offices, in union halls, and in think tanks, too many educators, researchers, parents, and advocates are fighting the wrong battles.

The wrong education battles tend to follow a pattern. You can almost close your eyes and still know exactly how things will unfold, as everyone plays according to type.

Well-intentioned advocates on both sides present policy choices as an either-or choice—not as a “both-and” compromise, however imperfect, that needs to be ironed out.

So, being “for” more state flexibility means you must be “against” accountability.

Supporting the use of student achievement data in English and Mathematics as one element in assessing school performance means you must oppose teaching a well-rounded curriculum.

Being in favor of high-quality career and technical education means you must oppose giving those students a high-quality college-prep education.

In the wrong education battles, tough-minded collaboration gets dismissed as weakness, not as a way to work out a breakthrough win for children.

In the wrong education battles, the perfect, too often, becomes the enemy of the good. And the dysfunctional status quo persists, hurting children and teachers—and ultimately, our country’s economic competitiveness as we continue to under-educate far too many of our nation’s youth.

Today, I want to talk about two challenges that, too often, end up as the wrong education battles. The first is the debate over the impact of in-school influences, like teachers and principals, on student achievement, versus the impact of out-of-school influences, like poverty and poor health.

The second, related battle is over reforming teacher evaluation systems and the use and misuse of student achievement data in teacher evaluation.

Before diving into those debates, I want to make a couple of points.

I’m not in any way opposed to vigorous debate. In fact, I welcome it. I recognize these are issues that stir strong passions and opposing viewpoints. There’s a good reason why these controversies are referred to as “the education wars.”

I want to hear from teachers, and principals, and lawmakers, and union heads who disagree with me. That’s the democratic process at work, and I treasure it. The best way to sharpen your understanding of complex issues is to have your ideas challenged.

I’m so grateful to Harvard professor Monica Higgins for bringing many of the smartest minds and most accomplished practitioners to meet with our management team for a wide-ranging series of listening and learning sessions. There is lots of spirited debate in those discussions.

Now, while I welcome debate, I don’t find that debate which is detached from real-world challenges, or driven primarily by ideology, advances the interests of children. And unfortunately, those distorted debates happen too often in the field of education.

In 2012, our nation has urgent educational problems. In a globally-competitive, knowledge-based economy, it is a stain upon our nation that one in four American students fails to finish high school on time or drops out. In many of our black and Latino communities, 40 to 50 percent of students are dropping out. That is morally unacceptable and economically unsustainable.

In a single generation, the U.S. has gone from having the highest college attainment rate in the world among young adults to being 16th. And in international comparisons, our performance is mediocre at best. It’s telling that the only thing our students lead the world in is self-esteem. The hard truth is that many nations are out-performing and out-educating us. It is this compared-to-what litmus test that educators, school leaders, and parents must constantly keep in mind. Someone once complained to Voltaire that “life is hard”—to which Voltaire replied, “compared to what?”

Educational failure is hard, too. But the first question we should ask of reforms is, would these changes significantly, even dramatically, enrich and accelerate learning for students and teachers?

We shouldn’t be asking “is this a perfect solution?” We should be asking “is this a much-better solution?” Does it help us challenge the status quo and accelerate student achievement?

For me, this sense of urgency about dramatically improving our educational system comes from personal experience. It is deeply ingrained in me.

From the time we were born, my brother, my sister, and I all went to my mother’s after-school program every day on the South Side of Chicago, which she began 50 years ago, in 1961.

When we were little, the older students tutored the younger kids. As we grew up, we tutored the younger students. My mom always tried to have students teach and be taught at the same time.After we were done our studies and chores, we played basketball. Everyone knew our program was a safe haven where kids were nurtured, respected, challenged, and taught right from wrong.

The students and my peers in my mother’s program lived in a poor community plagued by violence and many faced severe challenges at home. Yet because of the opportunities my mother and others created, we saw remarkable success stories bloom.

The teenager who tutored my group when we were growing up, Kerrie Holley, today is an IBM engineer who was named one of the 50 most important black research scientists in the country. Corky Lyons, one of nine children, became a surgeon. He was raised by his grandmother—and never met his father.

Michael Clarke Duncan pursued his dreams in Hollywood, where he starred in “The Green Mile.” And Ron Raglin eventually helped me manage the Chicago Public Schools. Building upon the experiences that shaped him, Ron brought the AVID program to Chicago to strengthen the vital, non-cognitive skills of disadvantaged students.

I know what’s possible when we give young people long-term guidance, educational opportunities, and the commitment and connection of a caring adult. I know our students can be successful, regardless of their zip code and background.

What drives me every day is the recognition that we have this huge untapped academic and social potential that our nation is leaving on the table. I absolutely believe that education is the civil rights issue of our generation.

When I became CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, I tried to take that lifetime of lessons to scale.

Everyone who has worked with poor children knows that poverty matters and affects school performance. But everyone who has witnessed the life-altering impact of great teachers and great principals knows that schools matter enormously too.

Boosting student achievement is not an either-or solution. Educators and the broader community should be attacking both in-school and out-of-school causes of low achievement.

I am a big believer in high-quality out-of-school programs, including full-service community schools. When I was CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, the city became the national leader in large-scale adoption of community schools. By the time I left, Chicago had more than 150 community schools—the most in the nation. Many of those schools—35—have full-service health clinics.

It never made sense to me that poor children should be expected to learn just as readily as other students when they couldn’t see the blackboard, or when their mouths ached from untreated cavities and gum disease. So we dramatically expanded our free vision and dental programs in the schools.

Six years ago, about 12,500 students in the Chicago Public Schools received free vision services—and roughly 10,000 students got prescription eyeglasses.

Three years later, the number of students receiving free vision services and eyeglasses had both more than doubled. The dental care program grew even more dramatically, going from treating 1,250 students to more than 50,000 students. Obviously the need didn’t increase at that pace; it was simply beginning to be addressed.

Since taking office, the Obama administration has also rapidly expanded funding for out-of-school supports for students. Starting with the Recovery Act, the Administration invested $5 billion in growing Head Start and Early Head Start. That expanded access to quality child care for 150,000 additional children.

This December, we invested another $500 million through an unprecedented Early Learning Race to the Top competition. For the first time, states are designing comprehensive plans, not just to increase access to high-quality early learning but to better coordinate the patchwork of programs that now exist in every state. I congratulate Massachusetts. It was one of nine states to win a Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grant.

And don’t forget President’s Obama’s health care legislation. Under the new law, the administration has provided more than 275 school-based health clinics with about $100 million to provide more health care services at schools nationwide. Those grants will enable school-based health clinics to serve an additional 440,000 patients—a jump of over 50 percent.

In short, from day one, we have pursued a cradle-to-career education agenda. And it is very much epitomized by our Promise Neighborhood grants, which support a program of high-quality wraparound services and strong neighborhood schools modeled after the Harlem Children’s Zone.

I want to underline that great schools and great teachers are the most effective anti-poverty tool of all. And that’s why a good school is at the heart of every Promise Neighborhood.

Even back in Chicago, people used to warn me that we could never fix the schools until we ended poverty. As I say, I am a huge fan of out-of-school anti-poverty programs. I was raised in one. But I absolutely reject the idea that poverty is destiny. Despite challenges at home, despite neighborhood violence, and despite poverty, I know that every child learn and thrive. It’s the responsibility of schools to teach all children—and have high expectations for every student, rich and poor.

Geoff Canada, the founder of the Harlem Children’s Zone and one of my heroes, discovered firsthand that even a continuum of high-quality wraparound services isn’t enough to dramatically boost student achievement. You have to have a great school to close the opportunity gap.

HCZ’s parenting classes, their first-rate preschool program, and the supplemental services inside Harlem’s schools—the tutors, the computer labs, the after-school reading programs—collectively they weren’t doing nearly enough to boost student achievement. So Geoff Canada decided he had to create an outstanding school.

Then he did something else—he commissioned a rigorous study of the Harlem Children’s Zone by Roland Fryer, a brilliant young economist here at Harvard.

Fryer’s research showed that while support services helped increase student achievement for children in the neighborhood, it was Canada’s school, Promise Academy, which dramatically boosted student learning and closed achievement gaps.

Professor Fryer didn’t stop there. He asked, what are the characteristics of high-performing charter schools—and can they be applied in traditional public schools? We must stop being satisfied with pockets of excellence—and start taking to scale what works.

Roland’s question wasn’t an ivory-tower, academic exercise. Instead, he went to Terry Grier, Houston’s superintendent of public schools, and said, ‘let’s try adopting the practices of high-performing charter schools in Houston’s lowest performing public schools and see if they work.’

The preliminary results of the Houston experiment, which affects more than 7,000 students in nine schools, are now coming in—and the results are encouraging.

After just a year of implementation, student achievement in math is up dramatically, and reading scores are increasing. Enrollment in four-year colleges is up by about 40 percent.

Even more encouraging, Roland Fryer’s Houston experiment is just part of a body of exciting new research on a new generation of gap-closing schools.

Rigorous research that uses random assignment comparisons is documenting that high-poverty schools can dramatically narrow achievement and attainment gaps.

The Boston Foundation has documented the big impact on student learning of great schools here in Boston. Mathematica has documented the large gap-narrowing impact of 22 KIPP middle schools from around the nation.

Harvard’s Tom Kane has documented the benefits of KIPP Lynn for English language learners and special needs students. Other researchers have found that new, small high schools in New York City are boosting student learning and narrowing the attainment gap.

Now, if a curious visitor from another country plunked down in the midst of our education debates, he would likely find this new generation of gap-closing schools to be very exciting news. He would find them a wonderful testament to the power of outstanding teachers, great principals, and strong community partners to transform the life chances of children.

But in fact the response of some in the U.S. education establishment to schools that produce dramatic gains in student learning has been much more critical, even dismissive.

That curious visitor would be puzzled by those who respond to successful no-excuses schools by making excuses for why they don’t really matter.

Of course, no one should object to understanding the limitations and strengths of this new research on gap-closing schools. But the skeptics of successful schools have jumped from critique to critique, none of which have found much confirmation in rigorous research.

It is telling that advocates wedded to the idea that school achievement is simply a reflection of poverty seem determined to diminish the value of great teachers and great schools. That disrespects the hard work, talent, and tremendous commitment of the teachers and principals at these schools, who dedicate their lives to working with disadvantaged children because they know they can make that special connection that changes children’s lives.

You don’t have to look any further than Massachusetts’ excellent educational system to see that in-school and out-of-school challenges can be tackled at the same time. Over the years, Massachusetts has deeply invested in school reform. It has created rigorous assessments. It created college and career-ready academic standards, instead of dummying down standards, as many other states did. Academic achievement and attainment has gone up substantially. And in many respects, Massachusetts is the highest-performing state in the entire country.

But Massachusetts also addressed out-of-school factors that impede student learning. Under the courageous leadership of Governor Deval Patrick, it has invested in creating the largest extended learning time experiment in the country. It has one of the best-coordinated early learning systems in the nation.

In 2010, the Massachusetts legislature passed a law that calls for chronically underperforming schools to have a significant health and social services components in their turnaround plans. To better integrate social service supports, the state established a Child and Youth Readiness Cabinet, co-chaired by the secretary of health and human services and Secretary of Education Paul Reville.

The both-and solutions can and must be done—and they are being done, right here in Massachusetts. Instead of resting on its laurels, Massachusetts is helping to lead the country where we need to go.

Now, the second, false choice that I want to talk about today is the debate over whether teacher evaluation should include measures of student achievement and growth.

Again, I reject the idea that this should be an either-or debate. Critics of standardized testing make a lot of good points. It is absolutely true that many of today’s tests are flawed. They don’t measure critical thinking across a range of content areas. They are not always aligned to college and career-ready standards. They don’t always accurately measure individual student growth.

And they certainly don’t measure qualities of great teaching that we know make a difference—things like classroom management, teamwork, collaboration, and individualized instruction. They don’t measure the invaluable ability to inspire a love of learning.

As I have said, over and over again, teacher evaluation should never be based only on test scores. It should always include multiple measures, like principal observation or peer review, student work, student surveys, and parent feedback.

That’s one reason why we’re putting real resources into moving beyond fill-in-the-bubble tests. Our $350 million Race to the Top assessment competition is funding two large state consortia, covering 44 states and the District of Columbia, to develop a new and much-improved generation of assessments.

Massachusetts, thanks to Commissioner of Education Mitchell Chester, is helping lead one of those efforts. For the first time, teachers will consistently have timely, high-quality formative assessments that are instructionally useful and document student growth.

And for the first time, the new assessments will better measure the higher-order thinking skills so vital to success in the global economy.

Still, the shortcomings of today’s tests don’t mean that we should simply abandon the use of standardized testing in schools and teacher evaluation.

In the last decade, I have talked to literally thousands of teachers and school leaders. I have yet to speak to one who thinks teacher evaluation in America works well today.

Let me be clear: Teacher evaluation today is largely broken and dysfunctional. No one can say who the great teachers are, how teachers in the middle can improve, or which teachers should be dismissed if they fail to improve, even after receiving help and support.

California has 300,000 teachers. It’s top 10 percent of teachers—30,000 teachers—are world-class teachers and some of the best in the world. Its bottom 10 percent of teachers should probably not be in the classroom. But today, no one knows who is in which category.

Again, we have to ask the compared-to-what question. Is an evaluation system that uses at least some measure of student achievement and growth, even if imperfect, preferable to an evaluation system that takes no account of student learning? I’ve learned a lot in Washington. But I was literally stunned when I discovered that several states had laws on the books that actually prohibited using student achievement in teacher evaluation. Think about how crazy that is—and what a perverse signal that sends about the entire teaching profession. Thanks in part to Race to the Top, those laws are now all gone.

The use of value-added analysis to measure student growth is still very much a work in progress. But it is, with all its imperfections, a big improvement over a system that takes no account of student growth in the classroom.

Thanks to groundbreaking research by Raj Chetty and John Friedman here at Harvard and their colleague at Columbia, Jonah Rockoff, we know now that the long-term impact of good teachers on students in adulthood is profound. Their study was not about good teachers creating short-term bumps in test scores; it demonstrated how teachers, for better or worse, literally altered the trajectory of their pupils’ lives.

Their analysis of the long-term impact that teachers had on 2.5 million children found that simply replacing a teacher in the bottom five percent for advancing student growth with an average teacher would increase the students’ lifetime income in that classroom by more than $250,000.

And improvements in teacher quality also significantly reduce the chance of having a child while a teenager and increase college matriculation. Want to increase earnings potential, decrease poverty, and reduce teen pregnancy? Then please spent a lot of time thinking how to attract, retain, and reward great teachers, particularly in disadvantaged communities.

We’re still learning about how to improve teacher evaluation and incorporate measures of student learning. But the work of Tom Kane at Harvard and the MET project, which is based on classroom observations of 3,000 teachers, is the largest study of instructional practice and its relationship to student outcomes ever undertaken. As a result, we know much more today about how to do teacher evaluation right than ever before.

Now, some folks will point out, correctly, that most teachers don’t teach in tested subjects. So, how can student achievement be factored in to teacher evaluation in non-tested subjects? It’s a great question. But I have every faith that teachers themselves can come up with solutions. They already are.

Just last week I met with Dru Davison, a fantastic music teacher in Memphis. Arts teachers there were frustrated because they were being evaluated based solely on school-wide performance in math and English. So he convened a group of arts educators to come up with a better evaluation system.

After Dru’s committee surveyed arts teachers in Memphis, they decided to develop a blind peer review evaluation to assess portfolios of student learning. It has proved enormously popular—so much so that Tennessee is now looking at adopting the system statewide for arts instructors. If we are willing to listen, and to do things differently, the answers are out there.

I can’t finish this discussion without recognizing the extraordinary contribution of Paul Toner, the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association. Paul courageously led his union to include three-year trends in student growth as one measure in teacher evaluation in tested subjects. And that’s just the kind of informed, carefully tailored, and localized collaboration that school districts need.

The truth is we need more labor and management leaders who are willing to engage in tough-minded collaboration and step outside their comfort zones.

I applaud those who do, like Dennis Van Roekel, the president of the National Education Association, and Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America. They are challenging the status quo, together. They recently co-authored an op-ed calling for major improvements in teacher preparation programs, many of which desperately need an overhaul.

Even though they may be at odds on a number of issues historically, they are still seeking common ground, instead of firing salvos from their separate silos. In some quarters, this simple display of mutual respect and collaboration was greeted with suspicion and disapproval. Some folks seem to prefer the Hatfield-McCoy feuds—which go on forever and accomplish nothing productive.

In my experience, tough-minded collaboration in education is typically more successful than tough-minded confrontation. And Massachusetts has helped set the example, under the leadership of Paul Reville, Mitchell Chester, and Paul Toner. I wonder if they could stand to be recognized for the tough work they have done—and will do—together on union-management issues?

I love the fact that none of them are passive or complacent. They know that Massachusetts, for all its triumphs, still has a long way to go to close achievement gaps.

Collaborating with people who you disagree with doesn’t mean you have to give up on transformational reform. You just have to give up on the idea of getting everything you want, under the terms you want.

In Chicago and in Washington, I’ve often been told: “Don’t aim too high.” “You are going too fast.” Or: “It will never happen.” But I think the skeptics underestimate the commitment to change in the classroom—and the capacity and desire of teachers and principals to advance student learning.

When the Obama administration took office, the President and I started talking about the need for states to stop dummying down academic standards. We said we had to set a higher bar for success.

Creating common, higher standards—college and career-ready standards that were internationally benchmarked—was supposed to be the third rail of education politics. It was never going to happen. But no one, not one of the experts, predicted what rapidly unfolded.

Thanks to courageous state leaders, and with federal encouragement, 45 states and the District of Columbia, in a state-led effort, have now adopted the Common Core standards. That is an absolute game-changer for our schools, our teachers—and most importantly, for our children. For the first time in our nation’s history, a child in Massachusetts and a child in Mississippi will measured by the same yardstick.

I have also talked repeatedly about the need to transform the way districts and schools did turnarounds in chronically low-achieving schools. I said school turnaround efforts had been far too timid—and that we had to stop tinkering in schools that were cheating generations of children out of their one chance to receive a quality education.

Again, I was told, “don’t aim too high. It’s impossible to turn around struggling schools at scale.”

We’re now starting to get the preliminary results from the first year of our School Improvement Grant programs. Nothing is final yet, and we obviously have a number of years to go before we can really judge the success of this effort. The hard work is just beginning.

But after just one year, I’m pleased to say that the impact on student achievement is more encouraging than the experts anticipated. Many schools, like Orchard Gardens K-8 in the Orchard Park projects near here in Roxbury, are showing double digit gains in both reading and math proficiency in their first year. Change is possible—if you are willing to do things differently.

So, in closing, I’d encourage advocates to stop fighting the wrong education battles. Seek common ground—knowing that it will both take you outside of your comfort zone and require tough-minded collaboration.

The educational challenges facing our nation are massive and urgent. But I am convinced that the capacity, the courage, and the commitment of our nation’s teachers, school leaders, parents, and students’ themselves, is up to the challenge.

Let’s stop defending the status quo when it hurts children. Let’s wage the right education battles. Together, let’s work collectively to advance achievement and a love of learning in America.

It’s that time of the legislative session. Bills need to be moving out of their committees of origin. Budget writers are teeing up the next phase of the session. And all hell is breaking loose. If the legislature were cheese, we’d be serving fondue. Because it’s meltdown city all up in here. I’m not enjoying this mess, oh, no. But I am enjoying this mess, if you know what I mean.

And how could you? I’ve not even given the news that amuses just yet. (Snark alert. Yes, it’s surprising. I know. But it was not a good week for taking all of this so very seriously. You may find your news with a little more than the average snarkicity.)

Tuna Melt on Wry:  I’ve worked the halls of a state legislative session where the only thing that stood between a bill getting passed out of committee and likely the floor of the Senate was a Senate aide who “misplaced” the formal bill documents behind a radiator in a Capitol restroom. I’ve been in the hallways at three a.m. when real compromise is being worked out because folks see a way forward through the middle. But that fish you smell is the two ed reform bills put forward by Rep. Pettigrew and Senators Tom and Litzow being held hostage by leadership that doesn’t want to upset the union. Yes. I know it’s shocking. Not that this is happening. Oh. Heck. That happens every session. No the shocker is that anyone would say it. Like Lynne Varner said it. Preach, girl! (technically, it was the Times Editorial staff, but not technically, it was deeply informed by Varner’s work.) Want some more truth with that brunch mimosa?  We can’t pass a teacher/principal evaluation bill with teeth – evaluations have meaning in terms of employment – because the bill committee leaders want to put forward is the product of some kind of deal worked out with the union and that’s the bill that the “leadership” is comfortable with. And the problem with that, friends, is that anybody gets “comfortable.” We’ve been way too comfortable for a really long time. And we have a pipeline to poverty and prison for our kids of color and disadvantaged kids to show for it. That’s not a flag I’m going to continue to salute.  No one should.

One guy who wouldn’t put up with it is former Louisiana schools chief, Paul Pastorak. He was in town this week to share the learnings from Post-Katrina New Orleans and to put a little pep in our step (and a little bit of boot in our behinds.) His words of advice: This isn’t a battle. It’s a war. A war for kids who don’t have much of a chance otherwise. Fight like it matters. (I’m paraphrasing here, but the sentiment was the same.)

As for the rest of Olympia, what’s dead and what’s alive are separated by the invisible will of a legislator who will continue to fight for something. Unless its necessary to pass the budget, in which case, it’s alive because of the invisible will of a legislator who will continue to fight for something. WaKids died an unfortunate death – the expansion statewide – due to budget concerns and other inferences from folks who either didn’t read or don’t care about the State’s application for Race to the Top  early learning funds. The quality rating system necessary to implement the Race to the Top plan is still alive (QRIS) and as long as the folks at the Department of Early Learning are still able to fog up a mirror, I think we’ll be ok. But as they say in baseball and opera, it ain’t over til the fat lady sings.

Speaking of early learning, check out the increasing awareness of the importance of PreK – 3, nationwide. Washington – commonly considered a laggard in many of the ratings on education change – leads in this area, and could be an incubator for new ideas and initiatives. (If we can get out of our own way in the statehouse.) The Education Commission of the States lists Prek-3 at the top of its 12 for 12 campaign. (The rest of the list is pretty good too.)

Whack a Mole: Bellevue schools chief, Amalia Cudeiro has resigned from her post. She originally took a leave of absence to care for her sick mother. The text messages had barely hit the inbox over rumors of Seattle’s interim chief, Susan Enfield, heading east to Bellevue when her interest in the position was confirmed. Enfield was in the running for the position when Cudeiro was hired.

Meanwhile, the Seattle School Board will vote Tuesday night on its process for hiring a permanent Superintendent. While I know these things can be sticky and difficult to orchestrate, I’m pretty sure this will look a lot like the Macarena. Forward, back, criss –cross, jump around, hands to head and big finish, everyone…. I’d prefer the Dougie, but I’m not the one choosing. (Related, RIP Don Cornelius. The creator of the one and only dance show we all – all y’all – wanted to be on, Soul Train.)

The Great Beyond:

• The growing costs of higher education received a lot of attention this week. A Senate hearing, WaPo editorial, and a reversal in position  by someone other than the Komen foundation, Sallie Mae found its heart and will no longer charge a fee to student loan borrowers in forbearance.
• Locally, the presidents of Washington’s six publicly funded universities lamented the impact of budget cuts – citing a brain drain as one of the most glaring issues.
• A new report out of Oregon shows that chronic absence is a big problem there. Nearly a quarter of the students miss close to a month of school every year.

That’s it, edu-peeps. This girl is heading to the great outdoors. Thanks for everything you do every day to help our kids. Keep up the good fight.

This editorial ran in the Seattle Times.

STATE lawmakers are again punting on sensible education reforms.

Senate education committee chair Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Bothell, and her counterpart in the House, Rep. Sharon Tomiko Santos, D-Seattle, used their gavels to doom promising legislation adding accountability to teacher evaluations and allowing a small number of charter schools into our state.

“It is discouraging that two individuals could completely block the dialogue from happening,” said Ramona Hattendorf, of the Washington state PTA. “The idea of having a good evaluation and discussing how it should be used is not radical.”

McAuliffe and Santos were aided by a stunning lack of political courage by all but a handful of Democrats.

Many thought the moment for true progress had come in the Senate, where the charter and evaluation bills have broad support.

But McAuliffe and the majority of her committee were at an impasse Friday. She refused to let her committee vote on a single education-reform bill, even canceling Thursday’s committee meeting where votes were expected. Colleagues, led by Republican Sens. Steve Litzow, R-Mercer Island, and Rodney Tom, D-Medina, refused to take a vote on any bill if McAuliffe refused to consider charters.

The governor spent Friday trying to broker an agreement.

It’s worth reviewing what’s at stake. Stronger teacher evaluations are set to go statewide in 2013 but a key ingredient, student achievement, is missing from the policy critera. Teachers like the more-robust evaluations’ inclusion of individualized development plans and training to help improve their craft.

But efforts to tie them to student growth measures — including test scores — have been rejected by the teachers union and the Democrats who do their bidding. That’s too bad. The credibility of the new evaluations hinges on the ability to hold teachers accountable.

Continue reading >>>

The House Education Committee heard testimony on bills before the legislature on establishing a statewide plan for implementing revised teacher and principal evaluations. In particular, teachers spoke up on behalf of HB 2427, which specifically includes student performance in evaluations.

Teacher Caine Lowery, whose students once said that he was “the reason [they] got out of bed in the morning,” talked about how he has been laid-off and re-hired every year for the past four years because of the current, seniority-based teacher evaluation system. He said:

As adults oftentimes we lose sight of what’s most important when we’re battling it out with each other going over these laws and these bills. Our kids are what’s most important. I feel like House Bill 2427 supports our children.

Watch Mr. Lowery and his fellow teacher Ms. Widestead’s testimony here:

Connie Gerlitz, a parent and long-time education advocate, also took the time to testify on the bills. She said “At some point we’ve got to include student improvement in our evaluations. It’s got to be there. That is [the teacher's] job.”

Watch her full testimony here:

Watch the whole hearing on TVW.

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama made some strong remarks on education. He talks about supporting and rewarding strong teachers and giving schools the flexibility they need to replace teachers who aren’t helping kids learn.

In case you missed it, you can see what he has to say on education below:

TRANSCRIPT:

But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier. For less than 1 percent of what our nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every state in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning — the first time that’s happened in a generation. But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced states to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies — just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones.

And in return, grant schools flexibility: to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn. That’s a bargain worth making.

Hope Teague-Bowling is a National Board Certified teacher at Clover Park High School in Lakewood, WA and a member of the LEV Foundation Board of Directors.

In order to understand my perspective on the issue, it’s important to understand a few premises for my thoughts.

1. What’s best for students should be at the center of education conversations.
2. What’s best for adults is usually the driving force for policy debate.
3. All children have the right to a quality education, regardless of race, sex, socioeconomic factors, special needs, etc.
4. High-performing schools rely on three things: a) strong leadership, b) sound instruction, and c) common culture of high expectations.
5. Privatization makes a few things better but NEVER a) education, b) health care, c) police services/military.
6. Change needs both internal systemic reform and external revolution.
7. All charters are not created equal.
8. Strong charter laws can protect children from being the victims of bad charter schools and the replication of current status quo practices.

I have come to these beliefs over the course of my life experiences — a product of homeschooling by two public school teachers, an undergraduate degree from a private college, a master’s in teaching from a liberal grad school, a year of working as a para in an alternative school, six years of public school teaching in both rural and urban communities, and years of reading, hearing, and living the debates about education in the United States.

Since I believe that all children deserve the right to learn in a safe environment with access to rigorous courses and high expectations, it is essential to me that schools provide this. However, the reality is that we are more segregated in public schools than ever. More children (particularly the poor, people of color, and urban – I’ve read a few things too about inequalities in very rural communities) are being tossed to the wayside by adults. Sadly, there are too few schools truly addressing the instructional needs of these students which now encompasses social and emotional factors unheard of fifty years ago. With the current economic crisis, schools are are ill-equipped financially, but most importantly school boards, district officials, and often teachers are culturally incompetent and untrained instructionally to handle the increasing diversity of student needs in their communities. To complicate matters, most districts have an insane amount of rules and regulations established to protect themselves against lawsuits. In reaction, union contracts are written to protect teachers against an unfair district. This lose-lose approach creates the biggest losers — the students. Both groups of adults are so busy worrying about their own butts, they are reluctant, often outright closed, to new ideas, particularly “non-traditional” approaches to meeting student needs. We (public education institutions) are doing the same things we’ve done for decades when our society, communities, and students’ needs have changed (quite drastically in my opinion). You cannot do the same things over and over again with the same bad methods and see improvement. It doesn’t work. If I eat crap and never work out, I will continue to get fatter and fatter. Why am I shocked when I hop on the scale? I have to change something.

In my experience, adults are the most reluctant to change, especially adults in positions of power or those benefiting from the current structure. I am heavily involved in my local union and WEA as a whole. I’m on my exec board and attend events, conferences, meetings, etc – all with the idea that I want my union to represent my beliefs about education, and more importantly, I want it improve the teaching profession. In the last three years of union activism, I almost daily encounter teachers, district employees, and others (all adults) who are threatened by anything new. You ask them to try a new food, a new strategy for teaching content, anything, it doesn’t matter. They are reluctant to even engage in possibilities.

I work in a school with what I would say are some of the most dedicated people I’ve ever worked with. We just received a state award for innovation because we are a STEM school that has a robotics program, our math team teaches to standards, and we collaborate regularly. Most of the teachers in my building are a pedagogically sound, no-excuses-mentality bunch dedicated to success of all students. That is until you start to watch classroom instruction. Or talk about how to reach the unmotivated ELL kid who is struggling to survive in an English class. Or ask build an interdisciplinary course with another teacher. Or ask a hard question about their grade book. Or discuss what real innovation might look like. This is when the status quo appears. This is when a tiny vision of learning becomes clear. Folks only want to do what makes them comfortable, what fits in an eight-hour work day schedule. Administrators and teachers are only open to creativity when it fits in a neat little package.

The last six years, I’ve obsessively read up on the subject of public charters. I’ve worked in a middle class rural-ish school, an alternative school, and a high poverty/urban school. For “fun” on my days off, I visit other schools to see what they are doing to meet their students’ needs and change their communities. I regularly kick it with teachers who teach in the Lincoln Center – a school within a school who’ve modeled their program off of high-performing charter school strategies. In the last six months, I’ve had the privilege of attending two different field trips – one to Houston and one to New York City to see an array of public charters in action. I saw KIPP, YES Prep, Green Dot (a national charter network that is unionized), Harlem Success Academy, Apollo 20 (public school that was converted, still works within district contract), and several others. After confirming my belief that high performing schools don’t have to look the same, it dawned on me that there are three consistent elements that these schools have in common. These three characteristics of high performing schools functions like a three-legged stool. Their success relies on 1) Leadership, 2) Instruction 3) Culture.

The leadership at these schools is amazing. It is shared – teachers and administrators (who often are called team leaders or some other name that changes the power structure of the relationship) and parents are teams. They actually work together. They fight for the same causes, together. They function under a social contract that all parties sign – usually to the effect of “we will work our hardest to ensure your child excels, etc.” It’s not just lip service, they do it. Together. This leadership model is the foundation for their philosophy about instruction. They utilize high-yield strategies. They differentiate for each kid. They expect all kids to achieve. They help all kids achieve. Together. Teachers watch other teachers. They have time to plan interdisciplinary instruction. They make time to address the social and emotional needs of their students. Building leaders are in the rooms of their teachers daily. When a teacher is off track, they call them out – in a straightforward, yet loving way. Why? Because it’s about the kids. Not them. Not their comfort level. Not a contract that says everything must be written down and only certain things can be said to a teacher. This brings me to the last leg of this stool – culture. The culture of these schools is insane. There isn’t a “gotta” culture amongst the leadership (teachers and principals). The buildings (in some cases schools are in one hallway or trailers!) radiate with positive messages about student achievement. Each policy, disciplinary practice, lunch schedule, extended day model, extended year model, and all the other boring stuff in a school that often gets blown off, is intentional. Every adult in that school has agreed to support that culture. My building is a classic example of lip service and limited action. I’m stressed out, overworked, and fighting for change within a system that pretends to care. There are caring, hard working adults just like me in my building, but we are all spinning our plates alone. We meet as a team and try to problem solve, but at the end of the day, few of us are carrying the load for the entire team. We are balancing a child’s future on a one-legged stool. This is unsustainable and prevents true progress.

So back to the essential question I hear often – why can’t this be done in a traditional public school? It can. But it takes all three of those elements in full force to make it happen. It takes adults who buy and promote a common culture. It takes parents, teachers, and building leaders to work as a team. It takes hard work, a desire to improve, a determination to grow, a willingness to push buttons, and uncomfortable conversations about measurements of learning.

This brings me to premise #6, how change works. Generally, people who want to improve a system work for reform from within. You organize, team with others, try to get involved in all kinds of committees/power structures, etc. But what happens? You beat your head against the same damn walls that aren’t going anywhere. So the next option is to go outside the system and try to bring actual revolution. Break the Egypt analogy or anarchist comparison or whatever. What happens there? Sometimes true change happens, sometimes it doesn’t, sometimes it goes back to the way it was.
In all cases, to bring true reform or revolution there must be a catalyst to start this change. Revolutions begin as a festering wound, an unsatisfying reform; the failed promises of leaders who pacify the masses with trite freedoms — the Band Aids for this wound. I see high performing charters as a catalyst. I view charters as approaching change internally and externally. It’s working “in the system” in terms of educating students, hiring quality teachers, using external measures (state tests, etc) to determine success. It also works “outside the system” by shining the light on the district, parents, and teachers who are in it for their summer vacations. It forces other people to go stop and go, “Hey, what are they doing over there? Can we do that here?” It allows teachers who actually want to make a difference make a significant difference!

When it comes to a charter law in WA state, here’s what I won’t support:

1. More segregation of marginalized populations.
2. Middle class/upper class kids getting more resources and fancy schools where they can be artsy (“boutique” schools as my husband call them).
3. The working class/poor, etc being left with the dregs in public schools – institutionally and financially.
4. Privatization of education.
5. No accountability to state/federal education mandates (think for second language learners, special education, etc).
6. No option for unionization if staff wants it.
7. Gate-keeping applications (I hate the idea of a lottery but it seems more equitable).
8. More mediocre schools that are failing to meet the emotional, social, and mental needs of children and youth.

And probably a couple other things I’m forgetting. I’ve seen the charter bill that is being proposed. It takes care of the above concerns I have. Is it perfect? Is there no way for anyone to manipulate it? Nothing is perfect. There are always holes that someone will find, but does that mean we shouldn’t examine it with a critical eye or accept it with reservations? Not to me.

In case you are interested in another perspective, here is a veteran teacher who agreed to travel to New York City to entertain the idea of innovative ways of doing things in education. Check back in his blog history – he was extremely against charters a few years ago, and I think he offers some unique experience/perspective.

Let’s be real – some of the research comes from think-tanks is questionably biased and funded by for-profit entities. However, their points are thought provoking and much of their research actual research. Robin Lake from the Center for Reinventing Public Education looks at the issue from a variety of angles. Additionally, this report focuses on the issue at the federal level.

If you’ve made it this far, congrats and thanks for reading. This is a hot button issue and I’m not out there to change minds. I’m more interested in open dialogue and hashing through issues than making it a for/against debate. Bottom line, I’m tired of adults making excuses at the expense of kids.

This post is republished with permission and originally appeared on Beth Sigall’s School House Wonk blog.

The Foundation for Excellence in Education and Digital Learning Now! issued digital report cards this week. These report cards assess the effectiveness of each state’s online learning opportunities for K-12 students. States earned grades of “achieved,” “partial” or “not yet achieved” for each metric measured.

The grades reflected the extent to which states have adopted policies or practices aligned with these ten elements:

• student access
• barriers to student access
• personalized learning
• competency-based advancement
• quality content
• quality instruction
• quality choices
• assessment and accountability
• funding
• infrastructure

What grade did your state earn? Click here find out. You can also compare your state to the “ideal” digital learning state (as defined by Digital Learning Now!).

***

My take – The digital report cards provide of wealth of information about the state of play of online learning in each state, including citations to authorizing laws and regulations. Policy makers and others can learn much about the depth of online learning offerings across the U.S. (e.g., access for various grade levels, caps on enrollment, funding, etc.).

One metric used that didn’t quite make sense is this one:

“State law requires students to complete at least one online course to earn a high school diploma.”

Question – How does the requirement that students complete an online course to earn a diploma measure the effectiveness of a state’s online learning programs? Requiring online learning for graduation is a policy decision, not an objective measure of the quality of a state’s digital learning opportunities.

Upshot - The report card is still worth the click for those interested in what’s happening in the world of online learning at the state level.

In the first installation of Konversations w/ Korsmo, Chris talks with Education Trust President Kati Haycock. Kati is one of the nation’s leading child advocates in the field of education. Her work with Ed Trust has her speaking up for what’s right for young people, especially those who are poor or members of minority groups. Ed Trust also provides hands-on assistance to educators who want to work together to improve student achievement, pre-kindergarten through college. Chris and Kati talk about the importance of early learning, how using assessments and data is essential to student success, and what keeps them working for reform. And, an added bonus to those dedicated listeners who pay attention to the end: banter about unicorns.

What makes a good teacher?  Although simple in phrasing, this question has no easy answer. CityClub Seattle plans to tackle this and more on Friday, September 30^th at Town Hall when they host “The Best Teachers for Our Children.”  The event will be moderated by KUOW reporter Phyllis Fletcher and will feature a panel of education activists and professionals discussing issues such as teacher compensation, Teach for America, training, evaluation and much more. The panelists are:

• Jesse Hagopian, Founding Member, Social Equality Educators; History Teacher, Garfield High School
• Erin Jones, Assistant Superintendent of Student Achievement, Washington State OSPI
• Margit E. McGuire, PhD, Program Director, Master in Teaching Program; College of Education, Seattle University
• Tom Stritikus, Dean and Associate Professor in Curriculum & Instruction, University of Washington College of Education
• Deborah Wilds, President and COO, College Success Foundation; co-chair, high school to college working group, CCER

This discussion is a part of the ongoing Education series and will be co-presented by the University of Washington College of Education and the University of Washington College of Social Work.  If you are interested in being part of the conversation, be sure to register and bring questions. More information can be found here.

What: The Best Teachers for our Children
When: Registration:  11:30 a.m. | Program: 12:00 – 1:30 p.m.
Where: Town Hall Seattle,  1119 – 8th Ave, Seattle

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will join Gov. Chris Gregoire via video teleconference on Monday to talk about the importance of education governance and leadership in education.

The education roundtable is scheduled to begin at noon in Senate Hearing Room #4 in Olympia. TVW will also televise and stream the teleconference.

This morning, LEV’s legislative director, George Scarola, testified on Gov. Gregoire’s proposal to create a Department of Education. The new department would house the entire education system from early learning through college and make it accountable to the governor.

View George’s testimony on the proposal:

Later, LEV’s co-founder Lisa Macfarlane testified on Senate Bill 5522, which would make the superintendent of public instruction a position appointed by the governor.

Lisa cited three reasons why we think this proposal has merit:

• Washington has the strongest constitutional language in the country regarding education–the person running the state should have authority over his or her paramount duty.
• We need better results for our kids–our fragmented system all but ensures gridlock.
• When everyone is accountable, no one is accountable.

View the rest of Lisa’s testimony on TVW.

This is my response after listening to testimony yesterday in the state legislature in favor of delaying measuring student achievement. LEV supports maintaining momentum for high standards for all students, and not going backward in math and science.

Members of Seattle Organizers for Community Engagement in Education (Seattle Organizers) received a briefing today about the new tentative agreement between Seattle Public Schools and its principals.

Seattle School Board member Steve Sundquist and Howard Pripas, Seattle Public Schools’ Director of Labor and Employee Relations, briefly went over the highlights and major changes of the new contract and took questions.

The new principal contract:

• Moves away from the current compensation system based on years of service and credentials;
• Adopts a new evaluation system based on performance and student achievement;
• Provides an opportunity to earn bonuses based on student achievement for the school building and receive an incentive for working in a low-growth school;
• Raises principal salaries for the current school year based on a salary survey of peer school districts;
• Eliminates the automatic salary step-increases in July in favor of compensation based on their evaluations; and
• Covers the same 3-year period as the teacher’s contract.

Sundquist said the new teacher and principal contracts represent a philosophical shift toward a more outcome-based approach to rewarding educators.

The Seattle School Board will vote on the new contact at their February 2^nd board meeting.

LEV is a member of Seattle Organizers, whose members are leaders of non-profits, school volunteers and community members working together to give every child in Seattle Public Schools a great education.

To learn more:

• School Board Action Report on the new principal contract
• View the tentative agreement between SPS and the Principals’ Association of Seattle

We’re excited to co-host a breakfast with leaders in education who are making a difference in the lives of kids.

The breakfast will feature Mary Alice Heuschel, who was just named Superintendent of the Year by the Washington Association of School Administrators.

Dr. Heuschel, who leads the Renton School District, will talk about real progress being made in boosting student achievement, dramatically increasing the graduation rate, and using data to drive results.

LEV’s executive director, Chris Korsmo, will talk about reforms and innovations that are key to improving our public schools.

The event is hosted by 41st Legislative District State Rep. Marcie Maxwell, a strong champion for public education.

Saturday, December 18th
9 a.m. to 11 a.m., program begins at 9:30 a.m.
At the home of Rep. Marcie Maxwell

Click here to register for the event.

Recent news from Seattle Public Schools about its high school graduates created a stir about the use of certain statistics related to college entry. Data published by the District in 2008, claimed that only 17% of SPS graduates had taken the coursework necessary to get into college. Turns out that the statistic was wrong. It actually measured the percentage of students who took the core courses necessary for college and achieved at least a “B” grade in those courses. What most of us would consider readiness to succeed in college – but not what it takes to get in to a four year university.   The District has released a new statistic to reflect students taking the minimum coursework necessary to apply to a four year Washington university and measured whether students received a “C” grade or higher – this was 46% of those who graduated.

It’s seriously bad news that the District used the wrong statistic to characterize our students’ capacity to even apply for college. First they measured the wrong thing and then when they reported that they made a mistake it was in a report that had slightly less readership than this blog. That is not just not enough. For a district struggling with transparency and public engagement, the best thing would have been to report the new data – or even just the mistake of the old data – as soon as it was known and as widely as feasible.  As one of the stakeholders in the community that used that statistic, I would have preferred that we got notice so that we could cease and desist with the repeating of bad data. It makes all of us look bad.

That said, it’s NOT bad news that they were using a very rigorous standard to determine whether or not the District is adequately preparing  its students for college success.  Now there’s a small tempest brewing over who’s to blame for the erroneous data and the evil plot behind releasing it, and lots of steam and smoke generally aimed in all the wrong directions. Some folks seem to think that this new statistic represents a beautiful new landmark in student achievement in Seattle. Worried that we’re making kids feel bad, they blast the use of the 17% stat as though it we were pouring petroleum into the storm drain. Lost in this maelstrom is that we only graduate about 67% of our kids. Of those kids, fewer than half have taken the courses necessary to apply to a four year college. You want to throw a party, hold a parade, pop the cork?

This new data is a critical proof point in our need to double down on the District’s strategic plan.  The goals and strategies there are sound. But they’re not enough. The devil  is in the implementation and staying with a plan long enough to see it work. Changing strategies every 18 months sets kids back while adults fight over what’s comfortable for them. Our focus needs to be based on benchmarks accepted nationwide; reading by 3^rd grade, meeting standard in science in 4^th grade, middle school math proficiency, including 8^th grade algebra and on-time graduation prepared for college success.

We need strong resolve and leadership to continue to raise the bar, hold everyone accountable, and improve student achievement for all. While Seattle kids and kids across the state struggle to get college-ready, State School Superintendent Randy Dorn is calling for a delay in our math and science requirements. Less math and science isn’t going to get your kid into UW. The last time I checked, they aren’t exactly falling all over themselves to admit kids meeting the minimum requirements.

The data used to describe SPS students’ preparedness to apply to college was wrong. But the message behind it should be a wake-up call and not swept aside as some botched report from a messed up District office. Our kids need MORE. All of our kids. They are more than numbers or data and their future is in our hands. Will we stand and deliver or fool ourselves that all is well? I know where I stand.

On the day of President Obama’s inauguration, the Parent Revolution was launched to empower parents to change education on behalf of their kids.

“I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say it’s the most radical transfer of power to parents in the history of America,” said Ben Austin, executive director of the Parent Revolution.

Austin was talking about a law passed by California called the “parent trigger,” which allows parents at any failing school to transform their school through community organizing.

The parent trigger occurs when 51% of the parents at a school sign a petition demanding change. The school district is then required to transform the school using the turnaround strategy chosen by the parents.

A parent of two children, Austin and other parents were fed up with the public schools in Los Angeles. The school district was not preparing students for success. Instead, 50% of students were not graduating from high school and 90% were not going on to college.

That’s why thousands of parents in Los Angeles joined together to launch the Parent Revolution to give power to parents. The Parent Revolution believes in three core principles:

• Accountability: All adults – principals, teachers, and everyone else – must be held accountable for student performance.
• More money in the classroom: We must drive more dollars into our classrooms for our teachers and students.
• More parent choice: Children should never be trapped in a failing school because of the zip code they were born in.

Want to learn more about Ben Austin’s work and about other ways you can get involved to improve the quality of education at your child’s school?

Join other parents and community members at Aki Kurose Middle School at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 8th to hear Ben Austin of the Parent Revolution and Trise Moore of the Federal Way School District talk about parent engagement. Click here to register.

We will be giving parents two very different views on how to get involved in their child’s education.

Austin, who has served as the executive director of the Parent Revolution since April 2008, will be talking about his bold plan to transform schools in Los Angeles. Prior to launching the Parent Revolution campaign, he directed the successful campaign to transform Locke High School from the worst high school in Los Angeles into a college preparatory model of reform.

Trise Moore will be talking about ways parents can work with the school district to improve student success. Moore is a parent of two children and the Family & Community Partnership Director for Federal Way School District. She has built a team of parents and community leaders that helped the district gain Harvard Family Research Project’s recognition as one of six exemplary family engagement programs in the nation.

This will be a great event for parents to learn how you can be a force for positive change at your child’s school. We hope to see you there.

When I was but a wee lass, I would get rather nervous on report card day. I was a decent student, but I couldn’t predict which grades would matter to my parents. The “B” in science could land me in the dog house while the “C” in math went unnoticed. The one thing I could count on though was being rewarded for bringing the report home and sharing it. They called it “honesty,” and showered me with praise. I’ll admit that while I never hid my grades from my parents, I certainly entertained the notion. I think this might be why I so appreciate the “scorecard” the Seattle School District published today. When the truth isn’t all tied up in pretty ribbons, it can be easy to keep it hidden.

The District’s Scorecard and the reports for nearly all of Seattle’s schools is a mixed bag. A dozen schools make up the lowest ranking while thirteen are in the highest. We’re getting more kids ready for college, but overall their reading scores are flat or dropping. For some parents the scorecard will be a wake-up call – from a bad dream they weren’t even sure they were having. For others, it will affirm what they already know to be true for their child. For good or bad. The data goes on and on and we’re weeding through it like eighth graders ripping through last week’s Halloween candy. One thing is clear though: These reports represent a fantastic step forward in transparency, accountability and shared goal setting.

While not all of the outcomes in the score card are of the bragging variety, at least we know what we’re dealing with. And we have a district leader who isn’t hiding behind a veneer of twisted statistics and happy anecdotes. She’s hiding right in plain sight and has the data to prove it.

While the teacher negotiations going on in Seattle are getting a lot of ink, another contract is also under discussion that arguably could have an even deeper impact on student achievement: the principals’ contract. As we’ve written in this blog, building leadership — the principal’s capacity to lead — is hugely important in student learning and building-wide performance. Great teachers can exist almost anywhere, but great schools only exist where the principal is great. If you use a sports analogy, it makes sense; great teams have great leaders.

Looking at the current contract under discussion in Seattle, it makes sense that teachers would want or even demand great principals. Whether it’s the evaluation system or professional development and mentoring, you want your boss to be able to fairly and effectively identify your strengths and weaknesses. I’ve worked for great bosses and not-so-great bosses and I know the great ones made me better. The not-so-great bosses only made me better at knowing what I didn’t want in a boss. Well, that and gaming the system. If you lack trust or respect in a boss, knowing how to move the game pieces around the board without them is a huge asset. I’m guessing this asset isn’t lost on teachers with weak principals.

The need for strong principals is (understandably) one of the big sticking points in whether to give over to a new system of evaluation, compensation, professional development and hiring. We know what those systems under consideration look like. They’ve been shared widely. It would help to know what systems of accountability, training and evaluation are being considered for the principals. How do they align with the new expectations of the (voluntary) SERVE program? Are we focused on the right skill sets in hiring our principals? The questions do go on. But one thing is clear, trust won’t be won by saying “trust me.” The more assurances we can give our teachers that they will be treated — evaluated, supported and compensated — fairly, the better. The less we hear on those assurances the easier it is to fear, distrust and dig in and the easier it is to understand that reaction.

Strong and effective leaders. What’s the plan for that?

(This blog post is written by Connie Gerlitz, one of LEV’s key activists and longtime education reform leader and activist, in response to the Seattle School Board meeting on Wednesday.)

We cannot confuse our love and respect for good teachers with the fact that their efforts are not universally replicated in our classrooms, and our children are suffering the consequences as evidenced by their inability to pass required standardized tests, graduate from high school, or take a college-level course.

Teachers and school communities need our help and support – collaboration time, clean and safe classrooms, continued monetary incentives, mentorships, remediation plans, praise and heart-felt thanks.

But students need so much more and one of those things (please notice that I said “one of those things”) is a motivated, caring, innovative, knowledgeable, and effective teacher in every one of their classrooms. We can’t fix ineffective parents. We can’t fix severe disabilities. We can’t fix poverty. We can, however, move toward providing them with teachers that prove that they have the ability to educate them. One of the ways (please note that I said “one of the ways”) is to measure student progress and use that progress as a means (please note that I said “a means”) of determining whether a teacher is effective or not.

I for one have really had it with the rhetoric that says that unless we are in a classroom we don’t understand what good teaching is. It is like saying that unless we are the chef in a restaurant we don’t understand what good food is or that unless we can wield the scalpel ourselves that we don’t know whether our appendix was removed successfully or not. Our food is nutritious and tasty. We no longer are the owners of an infected appendix. Our kids can read.

I have also have had it with the rhetoric that says that a teacher can not be held accountable for results if the student is hungry or doesn’t have a pencil or has a learning disability or is unruly. Get the kid some food – there are all kinds of agencies that will help. Get the kid a pencil – there are all kinds of agencies (PTA for one) that will help. Learn how to deal with the disability or find someone who will. Find out what it takes to get the unruly one under control or find someone who will. And, please don’t tell me that I don’t understand how impossible that is.

Here is a quick story: My mother taught school for 40 years and one of her first students was a blind child (also a neighbor). Blind children were not allowed at the time to be in normal public classrooms in the Franklin Pierce School District, but the parents really wanted him to be in my mom’s classroom. First she learned how to Braille. Then she went to the school board and petitioned to allow his entry into her class. When that was allowed, she brailled all of his needed reading material for 10 years. She opened the classroom doors in that district for blind children. He is, to this day, a highly respected and productive member of our community. That was not a part of her contract, by the way. I could go for days with the countless students our daughter has mentored in and out of foster homes, out of gangs, out of drugs, out of lethargy, out of anger management problems. Her kids move along and she would not have a problem with a test that proves it. She would welcome any help she could get if the test showed she was making no progress.

When I complained once to my mom about not liking to teach students who didn’t care about learning, she took me by the shoulders and said, “Honey, get out of teaching. They are the ones that need your help. The others will do it on their own.”

We need teachers that find a way to reach the ones that really need their help – the others will do it on their own. We don’t really need school at all for those bright, enthusiastic, healthy/wealthy, self-motivators – they will do it on their own.

And, I have had it with the rhetoric that says that a teacher’s effectiveness should not be judged on the actual educational progress of her students. What is it we don’t understand about a test that tells us what a child knows at the beginning of the year and what a child knows at the end of the year? Do teachers not give students tests to figure out if they learned a subject? Is there not a test that can tell us, in part, (please note that I said “in part”") if a teacher is successfully imparting the substance of a subject to his/her students?

I love and admire good teachers and I want to pay them and help them and honor them in every way possible and have spent almost 40 years working to improve the lot of teachers so they could properly educate our kids. The system is not working. Our kids are failing. We need change and we need it now but not the change that says that we will install an accountability system that has no teeth. Why, please tell me why, the union is not in favor of finding a way to reward effective teachers and get rid of the also-rans with a system that has some teeth – a test is just one tooth but it is one of the front ones and is noticeable and harmful when missing.

Partnership for Learning released a new report this week making some recommendations on how Washington can better hold its schools accountable for educating our kids.

“The current system falls short of the rigorous accountability requirements necessary to ensure that all students are proficient and on track to graduating college and career ready,” the report points out.

We hear that. When it comes to the term “accountability,” there is no shortage of finger pointing and assigning blame.

While recognizing the steps that the state Legislature has taken in the last couple of years, PFL says that those efforts don’t go far enough.

1. Ensure that the state’s current accountability system sets high goals, and achieves them.
This measure of proficiency must be based on college and career ready standards for all students.
2. Improvements to the state’s accountability system should include:
• Broader college- and career-ready indicators.
• Measurable performance goals based on key college and career readiness indicators.
• An effective trigger for identifying and supporting students who fall behind.
3. Allow innovative school models when schools demonstrate appropriate capacity and commitment.
Washington should provide autonomy, including freedom from the teacher union contracts, to schools that propose to replace a chronically under-performing school or that propose to locate in a high poverty neighborhood.

The full report – with the lengthy title “Accountability Systems that Measure What Matters: Incentivizing Excellence in Every Washington School” – can be viewed here.

Having sat out round one, Washington’s round two application for Race to the Top funds fell short of making it as a finalist. Disappointing? Yes. Surprising? Not so much.

While we’ve pressed hard for real change in our system statewide, Washington started well behind the most competitive states, and in a strategy that sadly mirrors our approach to catching up kids who are behind, we offered less. Last legislative session we did remove the barriers to turning around low-performing schools that prohibited state intervention, we expanded the teacher and principal evaluation system from bimodal to a four tiered system and we expanded the path for alternative certification – which would allow Teach for America trained teachers to enter our education workforce.

As good and necessary as those changes are, they can’t erase our state’s less-than-stellar student performance, especially in critical content areas like math and science.

Currently, kids in Washington have about as much chance of going to college as I do of becoming a size six by this weekend. We rank 47th out of the 50 states. We are one of the only states with a growing achievement gap (the disparity between the performance of certain groups of students, usually based on race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status). If you were looking at our math and science scores without knowing anything about our state’s economy, it would astonish you that we are home to Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon (to name a few).

I know, I know. Naysayer. Debbie Downer. Here’s a bone: White kids are average. No, that’s not a band name. It’s a fact.

Without seeing the scores, it’s hard to know where we fell short (except for the aforementioned student achievement attributes). But on the Race’s 500 point scale, a state which prohibits charter schools really starts with 460, as you give away the 40 points charters represent. We also don’t tie student achievement to teacher evaluation, don’t have a strong history of turning around under-performing schools, have a growing achievement gap and have not shown a commitment to stable funding of our education system. (Sadly, due to a lack of transparency, we can’t really say how our money has affected student achievement, which leaves the whole system open to detractors who promote the “money doesn’t matter” philosophy). Again, until we see the scoring, we don’t know exactly where we came up short, but all of the finalists had at least 400 points.

What will we learn? How will we use it? Good questions. To be continued.

Listen to Ross Reynold’s interview with Chris Korsmo on KUOW’s The Conversation about Race to the Top.

I read this morning’s Seattle Times piece on Seattle Superintendent Maria Goodloe-Johnson with interest. I guess it could have been the title of the piece – “Seattle Schools Superintendent Sets Ambitious Agenda” – OH!

How I do love an ambitious agenda. A couple of things from the article worth noting: accountability. In this new age of public school accountability, Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson does not demur. “Accountability is the key to success in anything we do….We can all dream, but if we want outcomes for kids, then we’ve got to work at it.”

I could have wept. The words “accountability” and “kids” occupying the same space? From the mouth of the school district leader? My tax dollars at work!

Anytime an adult in the system wants to hold other adults in the system accountable for the kids, I’m in.

Here’s the other thing I thought was interesting: I guess it was in the name of balance that the article focused a goodly amount on the Superintendent’s detractors. In particular concerns that “she’s shifting too much money to the lowest performing schools.” And, “her certainty that her approach is the right one.”

Um, could the folks who want her to be uncertain about her approach please raise your hands? What gives? Do you follow a leader who is rudder-less? As for investments into low-performing schools, help me find the alternatives. Additional instruction time costs money. Additional professional development costs money. New tools and technology cost money. We can continue to ignore that what we’ve been doing in the lowest-performing schools isn’t working, or we can re-shape those schools, invest in their leaders and teachers and “hold them accountable.”

Leadership is all about accountability. Setting a clear path forward, investing in people and systems and focusing on what works just might get the job done. In any case, it’s a good start.