Not good news . . .

Iv'e been watching for information on the status of our NCLB waiver given the legislator's inability to agree on revising state law to mandate the use of state assessments in teacher and principal evaluations and the news today is not what we wanted to hear.  In this Education Week article I learned that following a phone call Tuesday with Superintendent Dorn it appears that Secretary Duncan is on the verge of pulling the waiver.  If pulled, we would be back under the penalties of NCLB adequate yearly progress mandates with an as of today unknown timetable.

UPDATE: Dorie Nolt, a spokeswoman for the department, said in an email:

"We are in touch with Washington officials on the state's request to extend Elementary and Secondary Education Act flexibility. Washington has made us aware that they are unable to meet the state's commitment to create a teacher- and principal-evaluation and -support system with multiple measures, including student growth based on state assessments and other measures of professional practice. The Department has not issued a final decision yet, but we recognize that the state needs to know soon as officials prepare local budgets for next school year."

I'm wondering . . .

I learned in this KUOW.ORG post that WEA has voted to support families in opting out of state mandated assessments including next year's common core tests from Smarter Balanced.  We have been seeing a growing trend across the country especially in New York, but other than in Seattle last year I haven't read or seen an organized opt out campaign.  Since it was a motion voted on by members I assume it took place at their annual conference.  Could this be the start of of a statewide movement? If local units follow the recommendations in the motion it very well could be.

1. Support the rights of parents/guardians to collaborate with teachers to determine appropriate options for assessment of student proficiency if opting out of statewide standardized assessments.
2. Encourage its local affiliates to work alongside student and parent leadership groups in promoting opt-out for Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC) tests whenever possible.

3. Inform members of current student and parent organizations’ opt-out efforts through existing communication vehicles. The link to the OSPI form for parents to opt-out of state tests shall be made available to members via email.

Given the current reality of mandated testing and how those that opt out influence district and school data, I find myself more aligned with the position that OSPI has already taken following this WEA decision.

At the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, spokesman Nathan Olson objected to the motion. "We think that all students should take the test," Olson said. "The feds mandate them for a reason."

Under the federal law known as No Child Left Behind, students who refuse a test earn a zero – and the federal government can penalize schools that underachieve on standardized tests.


"To refuse to take the test, I think it only hurts the school, the district, and ultimately the state," Olson said.

 So, I'm wondering how those representing TEA voted and their plans for the future?  I'm also wondering influence this vote may have over time on assessment in our state.

More High School recognition . . .

The Washington Post has once again come out with their America's Most Challenging High School index based primarily on the number of college level courses offered.  More detail on how the rankings are determined can be found here.

The index score is the number of college-level tests given at a school in the previous calendar year divided by the number of graduates that year. Also noted are the percentage of students who come from families that qualify for lunch subsidies (Subs. lunch) and the percentage of graduates who passed at least one college-level test during their high school career, called equity and excellence, (E&E). A (P) next to the school's name denotes a private school.

Once again, Tahoma High School made list with state scores in the chart below.  At the national level our index of 2.234 placed us 919th.  Congratulations to our students, staff, and leadership at Tahoma High School.  Just think, in three more years it will say MAPLE VALLEY instead of Covington!

The chart below shows the growth in our program during the years of this ranking.

The other half . . .

We sometimes forget about principal evaluation with all the attention given to the teacher evaluation component of TPEP.  This year we have two principals on comprehensive status using the framework from the Association of Washington Principals.  It too has eight criteria.

1. Creating a Culture: Influence, establish and sustain a school culture conducive to continuous improvement for students and staff.
2. Ensuring School Safety: Lead the development and annual update of a comprehensive safe schools plan that includes prevention, intervention, crisis response and recovery.
3. Planning with Data: Lead the development, implementation and evaluation of the data- driven plan for improvement of student achievement.
4. Aligning Curriculum: Assist instructional staff in aligning curriculum, instruction and assessment with state and local learning goals.
5. Improving Instruction: Monitor, assist and evaluate staff implementation of the school improvement plan, effective instruction and assessment practices.
6. Managing Resources: Manage human and fiscal resources to accomplish student achievement goals.
7. Engaging Communities: Communicate and partner with school community members to promote student learning.
8. Closing the Gap: Demonstrate a commitment to closing the achievement gap.

As with teacher evaluation our focus is on growth over time with an emphasis on criteria 5, Improving Instruction.  I am fortunate to have the opportunity to work with these two principals in this implementation year as we learn how to make this process another positive contributor to our learning organization journey.  In our effort to gain feedback we recently asked teachers working with these two principals on comprehensive evaluations to respond to the questions and information request below.  Though a small sample, the responses reflect a positive experience and suggest that we are succeeding in our effort to maintain a focus on teacher growth.

• Please share how your planning for and delivery of instruction has been influenced this year by my feedback and conversations with you.
•  I have helped you grow as a teacher by . . .
•  We know that feedback is an essential component of growth.  Please share with me any feedback that can help me grow in my capacity to support teacher growth.
•  The area of TPEP that I found most challenging this year is . . .
•  The area of TPEP that I found most rewarding this year is . . .

Below, are some of the responses taken from the most recent responses.  They reflect the tone and content of those given to me earlier with both positive and constructive feedback.  The information gives me additional insight into how these two principals are influencing planning and delivery as well as system information to consider as we review first year implementation of TPEP.  Please consider posting a comment if your are a principal or teacher on comprehensive this year sharing your experience.

Influenced this year . . .

• Through the process of the comprehensive evaluation, my planning has become even more intentional than it has been in previous years. This is especially true for me in the areas of student talk and using success criteria in my classroom. Our conversations have been guided by these areas that I have been working on, which leaves me with food for thought and allows me to further question and refine lessons and their delivery. I have greatly appreciated these focused, ongoing conversations that have occurred both formally and informally. I have implemented some new ideas as a result of our conversations as well, such as assigning A-B partners for student talk on the carpet.
• The feedback I have received as a result of his classroom visits has helped me see my teaching through the eyes of an experienced teacher/administrator. I have had both positive and constructive feedback and he has guided me to focus on a few critical areas. He has been tactful and direct so that I can efficiently focus my learning, implement strategies for improvement (e.g. how to wait when I ask questions before going right to an answer, how to randomize the process of engaging students, and how to differentiate groups to ensure fuller engagement). 

Most challenging . . .

• This has been a year/time of big changes. The most obvious challenge is the extra stress and time it takes to complete the process. Although very valuable, it is another stress on a teacher's very complex and ever changing work. There are also some challenges with the system itself, learning how to input documents and evidence, and learning the numbering system of the criteria. I am sure that with time and practice it will become a smoother process.
• The most challenging thing about TPEP was not knowing everything that needed to be done.  Even thoug I spent countless hours negotiating and sitting in meetings that gave me more information than most on comprehensive, we still did not have have all the answers at the start of the year and that was a challenge. As I reflect back I would have done a different growth goal that was not just a quick snapshot in time but rather a goal that could be measured and evaluated all year.

A bonus . . .

Winning Juniors

I had the opportunity this afternoon to work with one of our principals on a a comprehensive evaluation. During the conversation I learned that later in the afternoon he was facilitating a conversation with a group of math teachers focused on supporting students needing to meet the math graduation standard.  I decided it would be important for me to stay and observe the conversation and was awarded with a bonus because it was also the spirit assembly day where the spring sport teams are introduced.

Balloon toss - no winner

I have been at some of these assemblies over the years, but this one was different as there were many seniors not in attendance.  Some are Camp Casey counselors and others are on a European trip.  In the absence of these seniors it seemed that there was not as much energy in the room to get the students engaged and teacher Mike Seger was also missing to whip them into a frenzy.  The juniors won the competition to see what class was the loudest followed by the seniors and then the sophomores. Even without the normal numbers and noise, it was still a rewarding experience for me being in the presence of these great kids and committed adults.  And, if you are counting with me, yes it is another LAST!

Drum Line setting the tone

Flag and Rifle Team

And, the other side . . .

In a post last week I shared an article written by WASA Executive Director, Bill Keim, where he talked about the importance of voters in the education funding debate taking place in our state.  I shared the chart below that he embedded in the article comparing funding per student over time in our state.  He was using the data to suggest that taxpayers need to step up and assume more responsibility to meet the basic education funding demands in the McCleary decision.

In a blog post today, Liv Finne from the Washington Policy Center shares a different perspective on the article that captures how complex and polarizing this issue is in our state and nationally. She shares the following information to suggest that record dollars are being spent today with poor results.

At the same time, the public schools that WASA members manage often fail to educate children, contributing to the achievement gap, a high drop-out rate and diminished life chances for young people. Here are some statistics on school performance in Washington state:

● 21% of all students drop out;

● 31% of low-income students drop out;

● 58% of all tenth graders fail in math and 16% fail in reading;

● 81% of Black tenth graders fail in math and 27% fail in reading;

● 80% of Hispanic tenth graders fail in math and 26% fail in reading;

● 34% of schools rank as only Fair or Struggling on the School Achievement Index;

Mr. Keim’s response to these failures is to blame the public, and to call for even more tax money from working people.

She concludes her post with the following words.

It’s fair to say that taxpayers have done their part, especially in this economy. Instead of calling on voters to get serious about paying even more in taxes, school administrators should get serious about educating children, by improving graduation rates, closing the achievement gap, improving reading and math outcomes, encouraging innovative charter schools and other effective reforms.

School administrators appear primarily interested in boosting their own budgets, and they come across as complaining and ungrateful for the real financial sacrifices people are making now. Given record spending on public schools, Mr. Keim could at least say “thank you”.

Is one right and the other wrong?  Is one good and the other bad?  Our actions at times promote simple questions such as these that continue to polarize us.  Meeting the needs of our young people will not be realized with yes/no questions such as these.  We must instead find the question we can ask that will result in greater collaboration and problem solving instead of what we are experiencing today.

Common core conversations . . .

In a post last week I shared how Indiana has become the first state to pull back from implementation of the common core state standards, CCSS.  Last night, we had the first of two meetings in our system for parents focused on the required implementation of these same standards in our schools that was attended by 46 elementary parents. Wednesday will be an opportunity for secondary parents.  The conversation and questions last night covered much of what we are seeing and hearing around the country with some people knowing little about them and wondering why we are making the change to those more knowledgeable that are concerned with the standards for a variety of reasons and wanting us to resist the change.  We cannot, however, resist implementation and have our students as ready as possible for the state-mandated common core aligned assessments in Spring 2015. Given this, we have a moral obligation to respond to this mandate by focusing our energy on aligning what we teach to what these assessments will ask of our students.

As I shared in the previous post, only time will tell if Indiana's pull back is the beginning of a trend or an anomaly due to the political situation in that state.  The map below from Education Week shows strong support for the standards across the country.  On a related issue, still no word from the federal education department on the status of our NCLB waiver.