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.

Anne, a parent of three, talked with us about her experience with Rocketship Charter Schools. She says that her two adopted children from China and her one biological child all are benefiting from the multicultural atmosphere of their school. Anne says she finds the quality of education at their charter school is “a good way to approach or maybe attain a level of education that most people associate with a private school,” for a public school cost to her family.

She also is enthusiastic about the teachers and administration at her school.

It seems like the people who have the most excitement and energy around education reform are in charter schools in leadership positions. You’re getting an administration and teachers who are ready to try something different. Their energy is infectious and their ideas are good and they are usually receptive to hearing other people’s ideas because it’s all part of this thing that’s more than just what’s happening at the school that day. It’s really about reforming all of education.

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.

After wading through a sea of year-end top ten lists (best sandwiches of 2011, anyone?), we thought it was time for a countdown that’s actually educational. The Getting Smart blog has a list of 13 great TED Talk videos on innovation in education. Hear from experts, educators, students and entrepreneurs about what they think makes effective education.

Salman Khan talks about why he started the Khan Academy. Twelve-year-old Adora Svitak makes the case for why adults should listen to and learn from kids. Elizabeth Gilbert advocates for cultivating the creativity and genius of every student.

In TED talk tradition, the videos range from 8 to 20 minutes, so you’ve got time on your lunch break to take one or two in. Check out the full list and find your favorite.

Recent data released from Seattle Public Schools uncovered achievement gap we haven’t talked about before: African American students performed significantly lower on testing than black students who speak a language other than English at home.

The results got Paul Hill, director of the Center for Reinventing Public Education, to talk about how other cities have taken this kind of disappointing information and used it to spur real change. In an editorial for the Seattle Times, he notes that the first step in making the change happen for many cities was admitting that they did not have the answers yet. He goes on:

These admissions have led other cities to open themselves up to experimentation in schools serving the most disadvantaged: longer school days and years; no-excuses instructional models; new sources of teachers; partnerships with businesses and cultural institutions that can provide enrichment and role models; use of online instruction to teach subjects like science where school staff are often not qualified; new schools run by national institutions with track records of improving achievement for the most disadvantaged.

While the achievement gap challenge remains, Hill writes that hand-wringing and good intentions will get Seattle nowhere. Instead, he advocates for an attitude of experimentation and perseverance, saying “What matters as much as what a city tries is its attitude — of determination to look for solutions anywhere they might be found, acknowledge failures and small successes, but keep searching for better.”

Read the whole editorial here.

Gov. Gregoire today unveiled her “Next Steps for Education Reform,” a list of policy and actions she intends to turn into legislation for the 2012 session. At first blush, there are encouraging pieces, as well as some warranting further scrutiny. As with any policy proposal, the devil is in the details, and we await the draft legislation to really know how Gov. Gregoire’s proposal could impact students.

The most encouraging ideas relate to teacher and principal training, professional development and evaluation. The governor would like to see all principals and administrators trained in conducting evaluations through their preparation programs, which is a good idea (and many prep programs indicated they would do once the new evaluation system is finalized). Further, her proposal lays out clearer paths of development and improvement for educators who need additional support. Although, as someone who has participated in good and bad instructional PD, I worry about a potential over reliance on web-based professional development, especially for our educators struggling with specific skills. Just as online learning works for some students, but not others, so too would be the trend of online professional development. Another possible red flag is removal of individualized learning plans for students receiving additional instructional support. Yes, each school has a program plan at the building level; however, some students will likely need additional individualization and targeted instruction.

That’s one quick take. Give the governor’s proposal a read and let us know what you like, and what causes concern. LEV will have a more formal position once we see the legislation.

Despite how it might feel, that cold nip in the air is not the consequence of anything the Kardashians are up to. It’s actually December. You might have missed that. If you live under a rock, that is. I’d love crafting ideas for the holiday catalogues that arrive uninvited to my mailbox. Also taking nominations for the most despised edu-words or phrases of 2011. You know the ones. They make you think “now why would someone take that phrase and put it into an education policy framework?” In fact, “framework” might be one of those words. Anywhooo. Here now some of what’s going on in our “space.”

That’s Entertainment: This recent piece on the effects of the newly elected Seattle School Board uncovered a few disturbing elements. Yes, yes, pink unicorns, blah, blah, blah. The bigger issue is how this board will work together to make some of the most important decisions of the past several years. What to do about hiring a permanent superintendent? Will we continue to focus on a culture of high expectations for all? Whither the next collective bargaining agreement with the teacher’s union? For those of you who like your school board to be entertaining, rejoice! For those who would rather be bored to tears by a highly effective district full of successful children, it’s go time. The district has made solid gains. The focus on instructional leadership is spot on – strong school leaders, great teachers, high quality instruction are the essentials to academic achievement.  The district’s focus on these elements is exactly where it needs to be.  Time to get busy making that kind of focus the priority for the long term.

Give Me a Z: Senator Joe Zarelli has released a bunch of government  reform ideas – including several related to education – that are sure to get folks talking. Some of the education reforms mirror legislation that Zarelli offered last session along with Senator Rodney Tom. Those ideas included changing the way layoffs are implemented to move away from seniority based decision making to performance based. Zarelli is also taking a page from Representative Ross Hunter, suggesting property tax reform to stabilize education funding. Meanwhile in special session land, not a lot to report. It’s unlikely a budget will pass before the end of the year and given the trade-offs being discussed, maybe we’re all better off if they stay at the table a while longer to sort it through.

Ch-Ch-Changes: This illuminating piece on the transformation of Kent is worth the read. It’s a myth buster of sorts, dissecting the stereotypes we have of suburbia and showing the real innards in the process. Changing demographics, suburban poverty, the challenges and opportunities that come with increasingly diverse populations. It’s a long way from the cul-de-sac fairy tale we’ve come to believe. By the way, the challenges and opportunities for the schools and districts in South King County will be laid bare next week when the Roadmap Project issues its  baseline data on the academic progress of the region next week.

Work Hard: On the heels of last week’s tour of three Seattle schools, there has been some interesting dialogue around what makes a school effective – and why we can’t translate those things to more schools. So it was interesting to see this new report that measure the impact of certain policies on student achievement; frequent teacher feedback, data driven instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time (Dear Governor and budget writers, you don’t get increased instructional time by decreasing the time in school. Sincerely, me.) and “a relentless focus on academic achievement.”  No magic. No unicorns. No fairies. Just hard work that gets results. How unentertaining is that?

Here’s more on what states are (and can do) to measure teaching effectiveness.

Shameless Plug Section:

• The LEV Budget Calculator has been hugely popular again this year, with over 3500 folks adding and subtracting and carrying the ones. How would folks solve for the budget deficit?  Most want to see revenue – an income tax on high earners to be more specific.
• LEV’s second annual activist training will take place on January 7^th.  Sign up. Speak up. I believe I said earlier it’s “go time.”
• We wish you happy holidays! LEV style. Watch and share.

Ok, here’s the part where I cheer on my Perfect Packers.  You’d think that my 27 years or so of rooting for a team that for many years could barely find their way onto the field  would be a good object lesson for me to be more patient for better outcomes for our kids. You might also think that three years of college level English would eliminate the run on sentence from my repertoire. You’d be wrong. But you’re right about  where to find me Sunday from 1:15 to 4:30.

Enjoy the almost end to the holiday shopping season. While you’re out there, do something good for kids who need it.

Today, Gov. Chris Gregoire proposed $1.7 billion in cuts to state government, while suggesting a temporary sales tax increase to prevent some of the more severe reductions, which include shortening the school year.

Eliminating four school days and slashing education funding by $508 million (early learning through higher education) puts the state on the wrong path—shortchanging students and our state’s economic future.

Cutting education is the wrong solution for our ailing economy. This will only make the problem worse.

Reducing the number of school days will force districts to carry out these cuts unevenly and unfairly across the state. Some districts will avoid cutting days by scaling back professional development days or cutting other programs; poorer districts will have no alternative but to cut instructional time.

The proposed $152 million cut in Local Effort Assistance funds will further exacerbate the growing gap between wealthy and poor communities.

This budget will hurt poor kids the most.

The governor has proposed $168 million cuts in higher education. Over the past four years the state has slashed support for our community colleges by 22 percent and our four-year institutions by nearly 50 percent. The state has authorized higher education institutions to offset the costs by raising tuition—shifting the cost of higher education dramatically to students and their families.

We can’t fix a broken education system with a broken tax system. The governor is right that the state cannot rely on an all-cuts budget to meet this crisis. However, we believe it is the duty of the Legislature to fund basic education and not shift its responsibility to a risky vote of the people.

Further, LEV would challenge the Legislature to find a less regressive approach than raising the sales tax. In 2004, LEV sponsored Initiative 884 to raise the sales tax one cent to fund education. That initiative was rejected overwhelmingly by 60 percent of voters.

On Nov. 28, the first day of the special session, LEV will launch an updated version of our budget calculator to educate Washingtonians about the hard choices being made in Olympia regarding our state’s budget. The calculator presents dozens of budget choices, from public schools to the environment, which lawmakers will consider to fund or cut in the state budget. After the governor’s announcement, it’s clear that these budget decisions are going to deeply affect our children, their futures, and the future of this state.

Further reading:

• What “basically” is at stake in the K-12 budget – A primer on what “Basic Education” actually means
• When the levy breaks – Levy Equalization 101
• The F Word – How budget cuts are affecting one PTA

Also hear in-depth interviews with superintendents on budget cuts:

• Susan Enfield, Interim Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools
• Mary Alice Heuschel, Superintendent of Renton Public Schools
• Rob Neu, Superintendent of Federal Way Public Schools

The Excellent Schools Now coalition (of which we are a member) has released a new vision for our state A+ Washington: A Way Forward for All Students. The vision focuses on bringing the input of a wide range of stakeholders to provide solutions for the challenges that face our education system today. This effort is more valuable than ever, as our state faces a deep recession with more difficult economic times looming. As we note, now is the time to focus on improving education and eliminating opportunity gaps. We know that these investments will yield a skilled, knowledgeable workforce and can help create the jobs that we need to boost our economy.

A+ Washington proposes five strategies to achieve the results we need to create a workforce ready for success:

1. Expand access to high-quality pre-kindergarten through 3^rd grade education
2. Provide all students with access to excellent teachers and leaders
3. Position the state’s students for career and college readiness
4. Implement flexible and transformative approaches to K-12 education
5. Develop effective data and accountability systems

The coalition will measure the success of these strategies by tracking specific outcomes. The outcomes include eliminating the opportunity gap between all groups of students and making sure all students enter kindergarten prepared for success. Additionally, because we are focused on students’ futures, outcomes like graduating from high school career and college ready, making sure students are internationally competitive in math and science, and increasing the number of students who achieve post-secondary degrees, like living wage certificates, associate’s degrees, industry certificates, and bachelor’s degrees are important.

A+ Washington came together after a lot of hard work with stakeholders all across education. This is a living document, where the best thinking and balanced feedback from all stakeholders can be continually incorporated.

Read the full, PDF version of the plan here.

Last week, LEV held our first-ever Tacoma event with Full Court Press with Kevin Johnson,and boy was it awesome! Setting the mood for an inspiring night were youth performers:

-Scholar Student Amara Gordon

-Tacoma Hip Hip Group AOHH (Art of Hip Hop)

-2011 YMCA Youth of the Year Sha Williams

-Lakewood Boys and Girls Club –Drama Club

-President of UW-Tacoma’s Black Student Union Anthony Brock

-Education Youth Leader Nicole Jordan

You can also spot appearances by UW Tacoma Chancellor Debra Friedman, Tacoma Mayor Marilyn Strickland, Tacoma Community Organizer Timmie Foster, Black Education Strategy Roundtable Director Rosalund Jenkins, and of course, our keynote speaker, Mayor Kevin Johnson.

David Iseminger wrote this blog post for our edCored series on education funding. Iseminger is president of the Lake Stevens School Board, sits on the WSSDA Board of Directors, and was on the Funding Formula Technical Workgroup (FFTWG). He is also a member of the Federal Relations Network (FRN), which advocates for education issues to Congress. He also sits on the Everett Community College Foundation Board, and works at Microsoft in the Server & Cloud Division. If you want to be notified when new content is published in this month-long series, please subscribe to the LEV Blog’s RSS feed or once-a-day email digest.

In a struggling economy, people are often more concerned about next month’s mortgage than next year’s initiative. It’s a natural response to immediate challenges: get past this, then worry about what’s next, about the future. But sometimes what’s next depends on what we do today, and how we prepare.

Take investing for retirement, as an example. There are always immediate pressures on our income, making retirement savings difficult to properly set aside. But if we make that investment now, for what we hope to have later, making that hope become reality is much, much more likely. It’s tough, it takes ingenuity and dedication, but it can be done.

Now let’s combine them: in a difficult economy, focusing on investing in the future is difficult. There are pressing, immediate matters to address. There are reasons to put it off, to wait, to spend our energy on current problems. Current problems seem all-consuming, all-absorbing. But Americans, and Washingtonians, have an incredible capacity to find more energy for things that are important, and amazing creativity to imagine solutions. We’re resilient, we’re unwavering, and we want a better future for ourselves and our children. We’re willing to invest our minds and our energy, if we believe the investment is worthwhile.

Here’s what I believe is a great investment: education. And not just okay education that squeaks our kids past the graduation line… great education; education that sets our children up for success in life and in the workforce, and gives them a leg up against students from other parts of the country or the world. Education that differentiates our children, enables them, encourages them. And us.

The catch is that we have to fund it. That certainly doesn’t mean throwing money at education is the end-all be-all, or that great things will happen just with that. We need to be intentional about where to invest in our education system, what will enable teachers, and students, and administrators to bring the best out in one another. You know what I mean… enable them. Encourage them. Differentiate.

Of course, to invest you must have resources available. And right now, the overall education funding system in our state doesn’t have the right levers, the appropriate balance, or enough guarantees. It falls short. The good news is this: there is a plan that can fix that system… or overhaul it… in a way that actually reduces the tax burden in many areas of the state, delivers more resources for education, maintains or even expands local control, yet enables a basic education program across the state that we all want for our children. Sound too good to be true? It’s not too good to be true, but it needs support and help to get from creative idea to reality.

Here’s the short explanation… as short as it can be, anyway. Education finance is inherently somewhat complex, so explaining this plan is a little bit like explaining how the Internet works in one sentence or less. But I’ll try, and if you have questions or want further info, feel free to get in touch with me.

Today, basic education is supposed to be fully funded by the state. Education extras, like technology that could improve a school district’s technology offerings, are supposed to be optional enhancements, in the form of levies. Sounds simple, right? The state pays for the basics (via our state-collected tax revenues), and if that’s all your community wants, no levies needed. Easy enough.

That’s not where education funding is today. If what we provide in schools is considered a basic education for today’s competitive world, the state pays about 60% of its costs. I know that some would argue we already do enough, or even too much… but given our achievement gaps, our graduation rates, our assessment scores, and international competition, that seems a hard position to fully defend. With the state at 60%, the remaining 40% is picked up mostly by local levies. A relatively small percentage (around 7%) is funded by the Federal Government, but that 7% comes with a whole lot of mandates that cost 7% or more to meet.

So to recap: 100% of basic education is supposed to be paid with state funding; 60% is currently funded, with the majority of the difference being made up in local levies. The feds essentially contribute a bunch of mandates, and pay for a portion of what they require. Here’s another catch: local levies have a cap on how much funding they can raise. In some districts, the community wants to provide more education resources but they cannot increase their levies, by law. Other communities cannot convince the majority to invest in education… often because to do so, their mil rate (the amount they individually pay in taxes, based on property tax assessment) would be untenably high. In Bellevue, a $.05 increase in property taxes raises a significant amount of revenue; in rural parts of Eastern Washington where property is spread out and not assessed at high values, $.05 might barely get you a part-time teacher.

And that fact, precisely, is why we fund education at a state level. The state should collectively pay for basic education, so that the basic education delivered in Toppenish is on par with the basic education delivered in Bellevue.

So what should we do? I believe we should change the way we fund basic education, so that the state funds 100% of basic education, and local communities can use levies (if they vote them in) for true enhancements. Here’s how we do it:

There is a five-point plan for revamping how we fund basic education. I call those five points tenets. Taken together, these five tenets can fix our education finance system, ensure equality of education delivery and equity of contribution, yet still keep local control and local involvement. I’ll explain each of the five tenets in turn.

Tenet 1: Dedicate 50% of increases in state revenues for education, for eight years straight. This provides a significant increase in revenues for education, and after eight years, the level of revenue dedicated to education can return to a level that’s more turned toward sustaining education funding that for growing it. I have an easy example, to show you how this would work: take your current salary, and give yourself a 20% raise each year, for eight years straight. So if you make 100 dollars a year, after the first year’s raise you make $120. The next year you make $144… which is $120 with a 20% raise. I’ll pause here, so you can do the math. Year eight looks pretty good, doesn’t it? In this model, after eight years of 20% raises, your $100 salary goes to $430. After eight years, the raise drops to 6% or so, which keeps you above inflation. 6% of that bigger number is still not bad, because it’s not 6% of this year’s salary… it’s 6% of year 8’s salary. In fact, that 6% raise in year 9 is $25.80 in our $100/year startup model. That’s more the first year’s 20% raise! Ah, the power of compounding.

Tenet 2: Shift those local levies to state collection, within what remains of the state’s $3.60/thousand property tax limit, and have all districts contribute. All 295 districts have levy authority, but not all districts have levies. Approximately 15 districts have no levy, many have levies somewhere between zero and their maximum, and the remaining have maximized their local levy authority. With Tenet 2, all districts are set to their levy lid maximum, but have an upper tax limit of what remains in the state’s $3.60 tax authority. The remaining tax authority varies from county to county, but its average remaining tax authority is somewhere between $1.80 and $2.10 (see my site for the exact amount in your county). For many districts, especially districts where property values are not high, shifting local levies to state collection would result in a tax bill reduction. And in some districts, that levy rate would be cut in half. Coincidentally, those are the same districts that are likely to receive the most, and earliest, increases in basic education funding… based on poverty rates, bilingual transition student percentages, so on. Said another way: many districts that are sensitive to tax increases would see an increase in education money flow, and a decrease in taxes. Not all, though… districts that have no levy would see a tax increase, because they’d be contributing to their local education system where they weren’t before. And don’t worry – I put the opportunity for local levies back into the mix in Tenet 5, but with some constraint.

Tenet 3: Use the increase in state-collected revenues to fund bonds for new schools, in districts that need help with school construction funding. When the state collects those local levies (rather, the equivalent of them), it increases state revenues. Hold on… I know, it’s dedicated entirely to education. But that flow-through still increases its revenues, and thus its bonding capacity. Think of it this way: with your current salary, you could qualify for a certain mortgage amount. It’s based on your income, or said another way, based on the revenue you bring into your family. If you increase your income, you qualify for a larger mortgage, because your ability to service that mortgage payment has increased. Those banks operate the same way with big revenue entities like states. Got more revenues? You can borrow more money, in the way of bonds. What to do with that increased borrowing capacity? Help districts build schools, as long as they can show the need to do so, and local folks contribute as well. There’s a need for this, when ample funding for basic education means all-day kindergarten (as just one example), and a school district has no classrooms to put those eager five-year-olds into.

Tenet 4: Fund the neediest children first. Some kids need more education assistance than others, it’s just a fact. And when you direct resources toward educating them early, or at the right time, you spend less money later trying to correct missed opportunities or playing catch-up. Oh, and it’s the right thing to do, too. Another analogy: fix the leaky pipe in your basement now, at a preventative cost of $20, or wait until it’s a huge hole and has flooded your basement carpet and drywall and millwork, to the tune of a $10,000 cure. Hmmm. And guess what: when you fix that leaky pipe now, and prevent it from deteriorating further, you get a more solid and powerful plumbing system throughout your whole house.

Tenet 5: Revise local levies to 10% of a district’s overall education funding, or $1/thousand mil rate, whichever is more. This tenet re-institutes the ability for local communities to contribute to their schools. Importantly, with ample funding for basic education, these levies truly should be for enhancements only, and will be collected only if the local community votes them in. Capping it at 10% makes it reasonable, in terms of how much can be asked from the community (though, keep in mind that’ll be 10% of a larger overall-education-funding amount). You might be wondering: what’s with the $1/thousand mil rate? Communities in urban areas, such as Seattle, or high assessed-value districts that have relatively few students, like Orcas Island, want to have more latitude in how their levies are capped. Their community wants to contribute more to education (because perhaps it’s more expensive in those areas to provide education enhancements), and they have the will and assessed values in their property base to support it. This approach gives them more room to raise revenues through levies, if their community wants to do so (in other words, it’s still a vote of the people).

So those are the five tenets, in a very condensed explanation.

One important requirement of this plan is its hold harmless clause. The hold harmless clause is this: during the implementation of this plan, no district shall receive less revenue than it received in the previous year. That’s important for many reasons, including assuring that all of the districts in the state move forward, collectively, to deliver an improved basic education system. Two steps forward for district A, one step back for district B, is not fair.

So let’s step forward on this, on investing in education, together. The link to this plan’s website, where lots of details are provided, is here. The plan’s site has links that will enable you to get in touch with me, if you’d like, with questions or suggestions or rants.

If you like this plan, and believe it should move ahead, contact your legislators… and then contact the leaders of each party, and the leaders of each chamber in the Washington State Legislature. And while you’re at it, contact the Governor. Tell each of them that education is our best long-term investment, and even when times are tough, we have to think about the future of our children.

This blog post originally was written for and appeared in Seattle’s Child. It is part of our edCored series on education funding. If you want to be notified when new content is published in this month-long series, please subscribe to the LEV Blog’s RSS feed or once-a-day email digest.

Back to school time is a magical blend of excitement, opportunity and optimism. As the parent of an incoming kindergartner, my own feelings of hope were palpable this year, but tinged bittersweet by the dramatic cuts school districts have been forced to make as a result of recent state budget deficits. Over the past few years, Seattle has cut summer school, counselors, nurses, and unfortunately, much more. In good years, the state has ignored its “paramount duty,” its constitutional responsibility to fully fund “basic education.” We all know that we’ve seen anything but good years of late, and state budget deficits have been closed largely on the backs of kids and the poor. Our education system has taken billions of dollars in cuts over the past three years – that’s with a “b” – and there is another budget deficit on the horizon.

Unfortunately, given the passage of Initiative 1053 in November 2010, the only tool for state lawmakers under these circumstances is the budget axe. This is because I-1053 requires super-majority votes to raise revenues or close tax loopholes.

Some folks have asked why the League of Education Voters is involved in the lawsuit against this initiative. LEV is challenging the constitutionality of I-1053 because it hamstrings the ability of our elected officials to uphold their paramount duty to invest in the quality public schools our children need to succeed in life. Even to close outdated tax loopholes, I-1053 requires a two-thirds vote. But the constitution sets the rules for the legislature, and it requires a simple majority to raise taxes or close loopholes. As long as I-1053 goes unchallenged, a minority of legislators can block the will of the majority.

In other words, solutions to the budget crisis can be held up by a minority in the legislature. In fact, that’s exactly what happened last session. One bill in the House (SHB 2078) would have eliminated a tax break for large out-of-state banks in order to fund K-3 class size reductions, which were approved by voters via Initiative 728. The bill failed to pass the House, even though it received a majority of 52 out of 98 votes. If 2078 had been about bullying, teacher preparation or reading programs, it would have passed with those 52 votes. The fact that it was about how to pay for some of those programs shouldn’t change that fact.

When it comes to budget cuts to education, we aren’t alone. In fact, according to the Center on Education Policy, 70 percent of school districts nationwide experienced cuts this past year, and 84 percent expect cuts for the new school year. As a nation, we’re divesting at exactly the moment we should be doubling down on education. It wasn’t long ago that we led the world in educational attainment. Sadly, that accomplishment has eroded under a crumbling infrastructure built on arrogance, hubris and misdirected priorities. Our kids stand to be the first generation of Americans who are less well educated than their parents – not the kind of legacy I want for my son, and certainly not a recipe for job creation and economic stability. If you doubt the value of education in this economy, take a look at the latest jobs report issued at the end of August. Unemployment rates for high school dropouts hover around 14 percent, while about 4 percent of those with a bachelor’s degree are unemployed.

Education matters. Washington’s state constitution makes it clear that it matters most – that’s why it’s the paramount duty of the state. The constitution is also clear that votes in the legislature related to raising revenue require a simple majority. Or at least we – and some pretty smart lawyers – believe that’s how it reads.

If legislators and voters in Washington want to change the constitution, there’s a process for that. It requires more than a simple majority of the people – which is how we got here. As an organization, we’ve asked voters to support education funding initiatives several times. It’s how we won the funds for class size reduction and changed the rules for passing your local levies to require a simple majority. We take the will of the people seriously. We also believe in playing by the rules. Where I-1053 is involved, it seems to us that some rules were bypassed and voters may have been misled that their votes could change a process they couldn’t by a simple majority vote alone. Either way, it’s time we find out.

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.

LEV CEO Chris Korsmo sat down with Inside Olympia host Austin Jenkins and Stand for Children WA Executive Director Shannon Campion to talk about what education reform organizations see as a priority in today’s political and economic climate.

A few months ago, a friend and I were talking about some of the challenges in education, and she gave me this little nugget to chew on: Invest in the jockey, not the horse. At first, I thought she had been watching Seabiscuit. But no; it’s taken from investors who say: Bet on the jockey, not the horse. Put that way, it makes total sense. In education, the person whom almost no one invests in is the principal. To run this little horse racing analogy into the ground, principals are treated more like the stable boy. Clean, feed, soothe, brush.

Making change at a systems level comes down to school-by-school implementation, which comes down to school-building leadership, which takes us back to the jockey. If we invested in principals like the race depended on it, we would do two things: provide excellent leadership training, and give principals far more oversight for the outcomes in their schools. Start by creating a higher standard of accountability for performance. Provide school-based incentives for academic growth. Invest in the jockey by building a leadership academy that works with school leaders and would-be and practicing principals. Highly competent people in the right place, focused on the right things can—and do—get better results.

This piece was written by LEV CEO Chris Korsmo for Seattle Magazine’s “Big Idea” series. You can read more big ideas here.

The race is on again! And this time Washington State is serious contender.

A couple of months back, Congress announced new funding for Race to the Top. In total, Congress appropriated $700 million, of which a whopping $500 million is set aside specifically for early learning – the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC). And for those of you who remember Washington’s dismal performance in the previous RTTT, don’t get yourself too down just yet. This is a  totally new competition with all new requirements, priorities, and selection criteria.

On July 1, the US Departments of Education and Health and Human Services released their draft grant details. According to the feds, the final guidelines are anticipated to be released in mid-August, applications will be due in mid-October (a maddeningly short time frame for an application of this magnitude). Winners will be announced by the end of the year and the grants will run through the end of 2015.  The size of the competitive grant amounts depends on the population of low-income children in the state and Washington is eligible for up to $60 million in funding if we win – the range runs from up to$100 million at the high end to a max of $50 million for state’s with small populations of low-income children.

But before we get into the nitty gritty details, let’s talk about what this thing is and what shot we have. RTT-ELC competition is at its core about the systems, coordination, and quality of early learning at the state level. As DEL director Bette Hyde put it in a recent email to stakeholders:

“We know that Race to the Top is not about implementing a laundry list of services, but rather promoting a cohesive, integrated, and organized system for improving quality and creating lasting outcomes for children.”

Or as our friends at the New America Foundation’s Early Ed Watch have written:

“This is not a funding stream to some new, untested program — this is a pot of money designed to prod states into networking,  leveraging and improving the programs they already have”.

We are still waiting for the final grant guidelines but the draft guidelines show two absolute priorities necessary for a state to win. States must use (1) early learning standards and kindergarten readiness assessments and (2) tiered quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) to “promote school readiness”. These are the two major areas to garner points on the application. There is one competitive priority that will also be scored: the inclusion of all early learning programs in the state’s QRIS. and Finally, there are two invitational priorities (areas which are not scored but will reflect favorably on the state): (1) sustaining effectiveness in the early grades and (2) private sector support. In addition to the priorities, the feds want applications need to address a number of requirements within four broad selection criteria:

1. Successful State Systems
2. Promoting Early Learning And Development Outcomes
3. High-Quality, Accountable Programs
4. A Great Early Childhood Workforce

So how does Washington fare at first glance  in relation to the draft  priorities and selection criteria? Pretty darn well.

• We are currently in the process of redesigning our early learning benchmarks (now called guidelines and stay tuned because a request for public input will come soon).
• We recently moved from the pilot stage to implementation with the WaKIDS kindergarten transition process – with the addition of private funds WaKIDS will serve nearly 25% of kids statewide in the coming school year.
• And while still in its infancy, our state QRIS framework is moving beyond pilot stage this year.
• We have a statewide Early Learning Plan.
• The Professional Development Consortium issued its recommendations for our early learning workforce.
• We adopted Core Competencies for both Early Learning Professionals and Child and Youth Development Professionals.
• The Early Learning Advisory Council has some new representation, is revising its role, and was awarded $1.7 million from the Federal State Advisory Council grant
• We have a very active and involved public-private partnership Thrive by Five Washington who along with DEL and OSPI have formed a joint early learning partnership.
• And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the early learning work happening all throughout Washington State at the local and state levels.

Clearly, the last two years have been busy ones for early learning planning and piloting in Washington State and now is the time for the funds to put all the thoughtful and comprehensive plans into action.

The Feds requested that states make known their intentions to apply for the grant by the beginning of this week and Washington was one of 36 states (and DC) that threw our hat in the ring. Interestingly, of the four states eligible for the top end of the grant awards only one signaled their interest by the deadline (NY). That does not mean that the other three will not apply but it makes one wonder if there might be more money to go around.

LEV is watching the developments closely and we are serving on the state application advisory team. Watch out for more news and action alerts from us as the grant is formally released, the application is written, and the decisions are announced. This is a huge opportunity for early learning in Washington State and we will need each and every one of you to support writing the best, most winningest application.

Happy Father’s Day, friends.

I heard a rumor that it’s summer. I’m having a hard time trying to convince my tomato plants. Onward.

Good Night and Good Luck: The news of the week in Washington; Chris Gregoire won’t seek a third term. After nearly 40 years in government, Gregoire’s hanging up the gloves to spend more time with family. Her departure clears the way for Congressman Jay Inslee to enter the race – state Attorney General Rob McKenna (R) announced his entry into the race last week. What role education will play in the race remains to be seen, but if McKenna’s opening salvo is anything to build on, we can expect a thorough education discussion over the next sixteen months. (Score sheet templates welcome!)

The Bold and the Brave: Speaking of education speak and politics, gubernatorial candidates (and others) will have to weigh the impact their education proposals play in the minds of voters. A new Education Week piece suggests that education reform has hurt the popularity of three republican governors.  Quick, run to the status quo! But before you lace up the Reeboks consider that the three governors discussed in the piece went full tilt at collective bargaining in the process. Their all or nothing approach wasn’t so much about leadership as it was having it their way. If you look to Illinois where major reforms were passed, the governor’s popularity grew. (albeit from a negative number to a positive number). The approach there was one of collaboration. Unlike here in Washington, where collaboration is king, they actually managed to craft and move a “landmark” bill that tackles difficult education issues with the support of the teacher’s union, business, community stakeholders and policy makers. When the goal is policy and not politics you can actually get what you want.

School Daze: A panel this week sponsored by Education Testing Services (ETS) and the Children’s Defense Fund suggested that much more attention is needed in the early years for African American boys. The focus was on how to improve outcomes for the 3.5 million black boys under nine years old. “We want to consider ways to position this vulnerable population for education success as early as possible in their lives…kindergarten and first grade have to be more like preschool,” to address children more holistically, to include social and emotional development, said Michael Nettles, a Senior Vice President at ETS. Data suggests that as young as 24 months, African American boys already lag behind their peers by half a year in cognitive development. Some solutions: better training and pay for preschool teachers, stronger training of elementary school principals to support more social, emotional development, flip the money currently used for incarceration to invest in early learning. As the saying goes, pay now, or pay later.

School Daze II: New data out this week from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) was discouraging, to say the least. American students are dreadfully lacking in history proficiency. Only 20% of fourth graders and 17% of 8^th graders ranked “proficient” or “advanced,” while 12% of high schoolers met this level.  A spot of bright news in the report showed progress for African American and Hispanic students. Both improved scores by double digits. Poor results over all will surely re-ignite the debate about whether the focus on math and reading to meet requirements from No Child Left Behind are the culprit. Doesn’t explain why we wouldn’t use history as part of the reading assignments used to improve that skill.

Show Me the Money: The New America Foundation unveiled a cool new tool, a product of their Federal Education Budget Project. The project shows comparative analysis of K-12 funding, demographics and student outcomes as well as financial aid data and results for higher education. The Washington higher education data was enough to make me wish I’d gone to brunch this morning.

Show Me the Money II: Seattle’s Families and Education Levy kicked into high gear yesterday with a campaign launch event.  The diversity of support was warming – nearly as warming as the “Baby Dangerettes” who stomped and whistled their way into the hearts of supporters. The event was held at El Centro de la Raza, and attended by dignitaries from all levels of government, including, Mayor  Mike McGinn, former Mayor Norm Rice, City Council Member Tim Burgess, Seattle School Board Member Sherry Carr, State Representative Marcie Maxwell and representatives from the Seattle Education Association, Seattle Public Schools and the Families and Education Levy Oversight and Planning committees. While not all of us agree on everything, we do agree that this levy is critical to Seattle’s children.

That’s all she wrote this week. So sorry to have nothing pithy to say about that congressman who resigned or the new “children’s” book making waves. I figure you’ll get those nuggets elsewhere – everywhere.

Kristin Bailey-Fogarty is a Seattle teacher and a LEV board member.

I’m really impressed with this post by a fellow blogger on the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession’s blog, Stories From School. To me, this piece represents a positive, cohesive direction educators can go if we choose to take the driver’s seat in education. I love how Tom puts the progressive power back in the lap of the teachers, if they choose to take it, and I love how he frames the “ed reform” issue in terms of what really matters: teaching really well.

Here’s a few paragraphs from his post – read the whole post.

Back in the 80s I drove a 1966 Plymouth Valiant. It was slow, ugly, comfortable and simple. When I looked under the hood, there were about four different items and even I could figure out what each of them was supposed to do. Now I drive a 1996 Geo Prizm. Looking under that hood is like looking into a human brain. There are at least 175 different items and I have no idea what any of them do. I’m not even sure which thing is the engine.

Cars have changed. So has teaching. Specifically, I can think of three major changes happening right now that are having – and will have – a major impact on how teachers do their jobs.

First of all, job security is over. That’s clear. When I was in college, there was an implicit bargain struck by those of us who went into teaching: we would sacrifice the opportunity to get rich and settle instead for the security of knowing that we would always have a job. And for the most part, that’s been true. No one got rich working in a classroom, and unless you get caught on video performing a felony, you’ll get to keep your job. But those days are coming to an end. That ship, if it hasn’t already sailed, is about to leave the dock. Teachers who want to keep teaching will have to keep teaching well. Thank God.

Which leads me to the second major change: teacher unions will have to either change or risk becoming completely irrelevant. Contrary to myth, teacher unions do not have an agenda separate from, and independent to, their membership. They do their members’ bidding. And their members have consistently told them to do three things: get us more pay, give us lower class sizes and help us keep our jobs no matter what. For the most part, teacher unions have been able to deliver on only one of those mandates: job security. Salaries haven’t gone up, but class sizes have. And job security is becoming a thing we remember. In the face of this reality, what use are the unions? Personally, I’d like to see the unions take the lead on teacher evaluation, accountability and professional development. Obviously, this would be a major shift, but the seeds are already there. The NEA has played a major role in developing and promoting the National Board and just last week they released a policy statement on evaluation and accountability that, for the first time, suggests the use of student performance to evaluate teachers. I don’t know much about the AMA or the ABA, but from what I do know, both organizations are run by their own members and are deeply involved with the professional development and accountability of doctors and lawyers. We need that in teaching, and the NEA needs to either step up to that plate or risk total irrelevancy.

Continue reading Tom’s post at Stories from School….

From the beginning of the session, LEV, as a member of the Excellent Schools Now coalition has supported the effort to change how layoff decisions are made – to end the Last in First Out policies that don’t take much into consideration other than longevity in the field of teaching. We also support the notion that principals and teachers in low performing schools should agree to work together – to create the best working environment for improving those schools. This hiring by “mutual consent” is supported by LEV.

Adding compensation reform to these two policy priorities not only muddies up the political waters, but jumps the gun on the work to be done (starting this summer) by the Compensation Technical Working Group. This group is tasked with studying compensation structures and making recommendations for changing the compensation system for Washington’s teachers. The specific proposals in the Zarelli/Tom bill are not grounded in evidence that they improve teacher effectiveness, attract more highly qualified people to the field of teaching or improve student achievement. The studies in this regard, are at best, mixed. Given that the evidence doesn’t support massive overhaul to the compensation system without further study – which again, is the charge of the Compensation Technical Working Group – we opposed the bill. Our concerns raised at the hearing have already helped to spur conversation and change the direction of the compensation piece of the bill. We disagreed with the speed at which this piece was moving, the lack of stakeholder engagement, and usurping the work of the Compensation Work Group.

When we passed HB2261, which overhauled the definition of basic education, we took the time to get feedback from stakeholders, including those working in schools and school district offices. Their input made the bill stronger and paved the way for its passage. We are making many changes to the education system that affects teachers, principals and district administrators. Rushing to add changes because we have a “moving vehicle” (piece of legislation) to put them on is misguided and threatens to crush the small gains we have made before we begin to see their impact in the new evaluation system, teacher preparation and principal accountability.

To be clear, we are supporters of two of the three elements of the Zarelli/Tom bill, the policy to end staffing decisions based on seniority and the policy to require agreement between the principal and teacher who might work together at a struggling school. These policies are based in research and supported by nearly every education expert in the country. While changes to the compensation system are much needed, prescribing them now, without the basis in research and prior to the examination of the Compensation Work Group would be a mistake.

Today* is the day that the House and Senate are going to be debating the WaKIDS legislation on the floors of each chamber (HB 1510 in the house and SB 5427 in the Senate). This is a program (one of LEV’s highest priority bill this session) that we have written about extensively over the past couple of week: here and here and here and here and here and here.

(*could be tomorrow too, but has to be done by cut-off: 5pm on Monday)

You have an opportunity to help the bills along today by asking your legislators to vote yes! See the action link below from our dear friends over at MomsRising:

Today our Washington State Legislature is voting on Washington kids, literally.

This week both the State Senate and the State House will vote on WaKIDS, an innovative pilot program that brings together parents, preschool teachers, and kindergarten teachers before the first day of school to help ease the transition into school and give kindergarten teachers the information they need to help kids succeed.[1]

The WaKIDS pilot was so successful at creating a great starting point for kids, families and teachers that we’ve got to roll this pilot out across the state. Everyone deserves a great start!

NOW is the time to show your support for WaKIDS!

*With one click you can tell your Washington State legislators to vote yes for WaKIDS

http://action.momsrising.org/letter/Wa_KIDS_3-2-11/?akid=2579.144388.uX2aA5&rd=1&t=1

Here’s what one mom who participated in the pilot program had to say about WaKIDS:

“Watching my child become successful in kindergarten and not struggle has been amazing. I know she has connected with her teacher, and that if there are any problems or issues, the teacher does not hesitate to talk to me. We were able to build a foundation as a working unit in the best interest of my child. ”

April, McCleary WA

WaKIDS is unique and helps maximize our current investments in early learning and kindergarten. It is the only kindergarten transition process in the country to include three fundamental components that:

1. Empower families by arranging a teacher-family meeting for every child entering kindergarten. Parents have a chance to share their child’s likes and dislikes, struggles and strengths.  Teachers have a chance to learn about every family entering their classroom.

2. Breaks down the wall between early learning and kindergarten. WaKIDS connects early learning providers (child care and preschool teachers) with kindergarten teachers so they can share information about each child entering kindergarten.

3. Provides a snapshot of Washington students entering kindergarten through an assessment of how children perform in four key areas of development (social/emotional; literacy; cognitive; physical). This information can help us identify problems and stop the achievement gap before it starts.

Every parent I know has their own personal reason for supporting WaKIDS.  For me, it’s my four-year-old son. I want to make sure he has a great start.  I don’t want this my little learner to feel alone on his first day.

Let’s make sure every little learner in Washington starts out on the right foot.

*Don’t forget to tell your Washington State legislators to vote yes on WaKIDS Today

http://action.momsrising.org/letter/Wa_KIDS_3-2-11/?akid=2579.144388.uX2aA5&rd=1&t=1

And please share this link with the people you know that would love to speak up too.

Together we’re a powerful voice for Washington families,
–Sarah, Kristin, Claire and the whole MomsRising.org team
[1] “WaKIDS Legislative Report,” Washington Department of Early Learning and the Office of the Superindentant of Public Instruction.(PDF)
P.S. Big thanks to our friends at the League of Education Voters for all the work they do for Washington kids!

Friends, my apologies: The week 6 legislative wrap-up and week 7 preview was one of the casualties of my having fallen down on the job – literally. But I am back and all is well because I have a cast on and the snow is finally beginning to melt down here in ‘SnOly’.

Week 7 In Review
Week 7 featured the “fiscal cut-off” where all bills referred to the fiscal committees had to have a hearing and be passed by the end of the day on Friday. The Senate only has one fiscal committee (Ways and Means) while the House has four – three sub appropriations committees by subject area (education, health and human services, and general government) and one main Ways and Means committee.

Note on process: Generally, only bills with significant fiscal impacts (usually over $50K) have to go through the fiscal committees – usually to one of the sub appropriations committees and then on to Ways and Means. But not always. Sometimes, in the House of Representatives bills with fiscal impacts only have to go through one of the fiscal committees – sometimes they go straight to Ways and Means and sometimes they go through a sub-appropriations committee and then pass on without getting referred to Ways and Means.

Bills that were referred to a fiscal committee but were not passed by Friday are either dead for this year or can be considered later in the session if they are considered Necessary to Implement the Budget (NTIB) – meaning that something in the biennial budget could not go into effect without passage of the bill.

Another fun little note on the process: dead bills are really just sleeping. Because we work in bienniums (two year cycles) all bills that have ‘died’ this session get resurrected at the beginning of next session – and they start from where in the process they died. For example, if your bill died because it got a hearing in a policy committee but was never voted on at the beginning of next session it starts out still waiting for that vote.

So then what? All bills pass to a committee in each chamber called the Rules Committee. The Rules Committees consider ” all bills reported from policy and fiscal committees and determines whether, and in what order, to schedule their consideration on the floor”. Basically, this is the place where bills go to wait….or die. Members of the committee or Leadership ‘pull’ bills out of rules and on to the floor of each chamber for consideration. If the bills pass on the floor they get referred to the other chamber and start the whole process over again but this time under a more condensed timeline.

What is coming up in Week 8

Next Monday, March 7 is the deadline for all bills to pass out of their chamber of origin. That means this week is all about passing bills out of the Rules Committees and off the floors of both chambers. It means a lot of dealing, speeches, and late nights, and it also means working through the weekend. Floor sessions are already scheduled for both Saturday and Sunday.

While there are still a number of NTIB bills we are following that have not yet passed out of policy or fiscal committees, here is the current status of some big bills we are following and expect to see action on this week:

• WaKIDS (HB 1510/SB 5427) – both bills waiting in Rules Committees
• High School Math Graduation Assessment (HB  1412) – Rules
• Innovation School Zones (HB 1546) – Rules
• Recognizing Innovative Schools (SB 5726) – Rules
• PASS Dropout Prevention (HB 1599) – Rules
• Alternative Principal Certification (HB 1593) – Rules
• Continuing Education Reforms – work of the QEC (HB 1443) – Rules
• The Launch Year  (Hb 1808/ SB 5616) – both bills in Rules Committees
• P-20 Education Council (HB 1849) – Rules
• School District Levy Base legislation (HB 1815) – Rules

As always, this is not a comprehensive list of bills under consideration (House and Senate) or the complete list of committee hearings this week.

This post was written by Amber Banks, a doctoral student in Education Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Washington.

One year ago, I gave up a decade’s worth of work as a teacher to pursue a career in education policy because I was tired of wondering who was responsible for designing the ineffective and unwieldy policies I was forced to implement in my classroom and/or impacted my status, paycheck or “value” as a teacher. I wanted to know who these people were so that I could tell them that what they were doing was not working. I assumed they wanted to know.

I also wondered why so many students across the nation were failing despite billions of taxpayer dollars being invested in education? I wondered why kids from different backgrounds had different qualities of education? I wanted to know how it was possible that so many students failed to be proficient in the basic subjects, yet still graduate? So I became a rogue teacher in search of answers.

What I learned about education in Washington State was consistent with nationwide trends; Growing achievement/opportunity gaps along racial/ethnic lines, varying school performance depending on neighborhood demographics and a whole lot of hard-working, passionate people on the ground fighting the good fight to bring quality education to kids, despite inadequate resources and budget cuts.

Yes, fight. There is battle raging on the streets of our own neighborhoods to ensure our kids have access to a quality education. Depending on whom you talk to, the fight is against tracking, pay cuts, layoffs, dwindling resources, the list goes on.  But, there is no question that we are in the trenches of an all out battle for our children’s futures.

Or are we? Sitting in the Washington State Senate Hearing Room on Monday, I was assured by the Senate Chair of the Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee, Senator McAuliffe that things have “changed” and schools are “working,” at least for her children and grandchildren (see video above). She went so far as to say that she “takes angst” against people saying things in education have not improved in the last 35 years.

I was shocked. I gave up my entire livelihood to dedicate myself to education reform because I lived and breathed the reality of a broken school system. Sure, there have been improvements but they have been incremental, scattered, and frankly not sufficient. Every year, abysmal test scores rein supreme and dropout rates soar across the country, especially in high poverty schools. Washington State is no exception. In fact, Washington is one of few states where the achievement gap is actually widening.

Senator McAuliffe stated on Monday that 90-95% of 10^th grade students in Washington are meeting the standards, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. According to the Washington State Report Card published by OSPI, this figure is 78% for reading and 41% for math (OSPI, 2009). She also failed to mention that 10^th grade reading scores have flat lined since 2006 and Science scores, while steadily improving, have yet to reach the 50% proficiency mark. I am appalled that the Chair of the Education Committee would misquote such an important statistic and stake the claim that schools are working. Until that figure reaches 100% for all students in all grades, we still have work to do.

My goal is simple. I will do everything in my power to remove the barriers to a quality education for children, especially children of color, because everybody has the right to reach their full potential. Knowledge is a resource that has been collected over time by all of humankind for the benefit of all humankind. It is not acceptable to have people in leadership positions in education who do not understand this and are misinformed and satisfied with the status quo, while gaps grow and we increasingly lose our youth to gangs, violence and prisons.

We need leaders who will represent the needs of all children, not just their own. I am glad that Senator McAuliffe’s children and grandchildren are doing well, but she was elected to ensure that all kids succeed. Furthermore, by advancing the idea that we are sufficiently educating our youth, she is perpetuating false information to the public. It is time for the Senator McAuliffe’s of the world to wake up or step down so that the rest of us can get to the business of fixing a system that has already failed too many kids.