I am enjoying the comments to my last post. They are very thoughtful and it is pleasing to see people share their private thoughts with passion. It is also rewarding to see the different perspectives that each brings to the issue. I find myself agreeing with parts of each and then disagreeing with other parts. It sort of sums up what I am feeling about the proposed legislation; dissonance. In leadership class I say that dissonance is a necessary component of creative tension, that time when learning is possible so I am waiting for the "answers" to become more clear.
It saddens me that all the time and effort that was placed into this report may result in no change because the writing team chose to not include the most critical component, a funding source. This after the fallout from Washington Learns and a request from the Governor is inexcusable. Now, instead of skillful discussion we hear debate not on the merits of the proposed changes to basic education, but on whether they should even be discussed due to the funding omission. Thus far, I still find myself leaning towards finding the parts of the proposal around which all parties can find consensus as opposed to a flat no, this must go until the funding is decided.
I found the site that Kristin shared interesting in that the writers are questioning the stance taken by their Association, a situation that I share as mine has not endorsed it as referenced by John in his comment. The superintendents of our ESD have in fact sent a letter of support to legislators and are in the process of continued discussions on how to proceed. I don't recall a time when there has been this level of disagreement between WASA leadership and individual members. This has added to my dissonance because it is contributing to the forming of battle lines in Olympia that will serve no useful purpose.
I also agree with John that SB 5607 is worth a look as it speaks directly to the funding issue as I shared in my response to Scott's comment. Better coordination between these two efforts might have resulted in a product that all of us could have endorsed. But, that not being the case, how should I proceed? Do I continue to promote a search for common ground or do I join in the no discussion without funding group?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mike I cannot agree more that it is unfortunate that the funding piece creates the major hurdle in these bills. I wish that the funding piece was not the issue being discussed so that all of our different associations could go to Olympia and have crucial conversations with their legislators about the other positives and negatives in the bills and we could really go down and influence change to our current archaic education system. I just cannot get over this critical missing piece of the funding source. Thank you Mike for having this form to discuss this .
I agree that we as stakeholders in education need to come together to find consensus. We have worked together to fight so many battles that to fall apart at this juncture would be a travesty. My hope at this point is that the leadership of our organizations (WEA and WASA) can get together to find commonground on these bills, bring new life to 5607, and finally do what we have been waiting for for so long: create a definition of basic education that is funded. I do not believe anyone thought it would be easy, but it does feel like we have an opportunity to change education for the better. My hope is that we find the solution to the funding piece before we are required to put any reform into action.
Post a Comment