Feeling some tension . . .

It has been a difficult two days as I struggle with whether to support a letter from our ESD superintendents to all local legislators. You may have seen the recent article in the Seattle Times about a similar letter that implied it was from superintendents across the state, but wasn’t. It came from superintendents in Island, San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties. You can read the letter here.

Though I am in agreement with much of the letter from the superintendents in those districts, I would not have been able to sign it. Why? I have two reasons with the first being the recommendation to cut the number of days in the school year from 180 to 175. For me, it is not only about shifting the burden from the state to the local district to bargain a loss of revenue. It is also about lost opportunity to prepare young people for meeting the standards imposed on them by the state and federal government. As an example, last year we moved to end of course assessments in mathematics at the secondary level. Today, end of course means 180 days for learning and for the other activities in a comprehensive school program. I don’t hear, nor am I advocating for, reducing the expectations to align with a 175 day school year. Is maintaining standards while reducing opportunity to learn fair to the students that must take the test or for the educators that make the decisions on what to do and not to do with five fewer days to learn? I don’t believe so. Yes, I know we could argue about being more efficient, focused, and not wasting days for staff development, but we are not going to change the mental model of students, parents, and staff in a short period of time that will transform how we use days.

My other reason is a struggle that I am having with making recommendations on how to do the cuts. When we talk with legislators that is always a question they ask us so sending a letter without answering that question could result in significant loss in capacity to influence. Yet, how do we reach agreement on what those recommendations should be? That is where the superintendents are at in our ESD, we are struggling as a group to find common ground on what we need to say and can support individually and collectively. I struggle because I find myself aligned with those not wanting to suggest fewer days or other specific cuts and we are in the minority.

In reflecting on this and what I am saying in this post I am beginning to realize that my biggest struggle may be with sending a letter signed by superintendents. I don’t really know what influence it would have, if any. If what we recommended aligned with a particular strategy for one or the other party it could become leverage in the debate so that could be a positive outcome. Our problem as superintendents is that our various communities, just like our schools, are diverse systems. Though I believe deeply that if we cannot unite with one voice our capacity to influence is greatly diminished, finding that one voice is proving to be very difficult. These competing beliefs are causing me tension because I want to be a part of that one voice.

Maybe the bottom line for me is that I believe that legislators listen more closely to those that vote in their district and that our ability to influence as superintendents may come more from our lobbyists and our individual efforts than a letter. Perhaps shifting my energy to encouraging those in our school community to communicate directly with their legislators is a way for me to find some resolution to this tension. Oh well, I have until tomorrow to make a final decision on whether to sign or not. I’m hopefully waiting for another revision that more closely aligns with what I believe so that I can sign, though I don’t think that will happen.

Though it is not how I prefer to work, I am moving closer to a position of enough is enough. I urge the legislators to create expectations that are achievable with the resources they choose to provide. Stop placing the burden on local districts to supplement in order to reach the identified standards. This results in increased inequities for students across our state. Our current reality is one of shifting targets as we now begin work to move from state to Common Core standards and shifting resource allocations as we prepare for year two of mid-year cuts. That is not the learning environment that will prepare our young people for success in post high school learning and work or for what our governor and legislators continue to tell us that we must do. We accept the challenge of preparing our youth to fill the jobs of the future and contribute to moving our state out of this economic mess. This high demand must be balanced with high support not shifting targets and budgets. Identify what young people need to know and be able to do and provide us with a stable and reliable funding mechanism designed to meet those expectations. With this in place, you can then hold us accountable to achieving them for all students