Common core standards, common sense . . .

I will be quiet with today’s post and share with you these words from Chester Finn over at Flypaper. He does a better job than I can of bringing some common sense to the Common Core Standards movement.

More potential ESEA reform . . .

Another part of the President’s budget proposal relating to ESEA is a move to make more of the money be driven by competition as opposed to the formula driven model embedded in the current plan. An example would be a shift of $500 million from Title II funding currently provided to states based on a formula to a competitive grant for new ways to recruit, train, compensate and evaluate teachers and principals. We use our share of the Title II money to staff two teaching positions to reduce class size and a small amount for supporting staff development. Though not a large dollar amount, it is an important source of revenue.

Once again states, locals, and collaborations will need to focus on grant writing as a priority, something that we have not done to date. I am again concerned that revenue will flow to those that have the best grant writers, a relationship with someone that can open doors, and not with those systems worthy of support because of the work they are doing and commitments they are making to reform.

I also continue to be concerned that the lure for and need of federal dollars will limit the scope of change efforts to those currently driving RttT and other federal proposals. They say they want innovation, but only within the parameters that they have identified for change; supporting teacher and principal quality, alternate routes to certification, increases in charter school numbers, using student achievement data in teacher and principal evaluations, intervening in struggling schools, and developing comprehensive statewide data systems.

I also agree with Mr. Hirsch from the New Teacher Center when he says,

“How do we take these ideas and move them from federal government to state government, to districts and schools, to teachers and into practice?” he said. “If we look at it as a game of ‘telephone,’ there are a lot of places where the messages can get miscommunicated.”

At this stage we can only hope that what emerges in ESEA reauthorization, if anything, will be supportive of our work.

Is AYP a thing of the past?

The President’s budget proposal provides some insight into revisions to ESEA being discussed with lawmakers. This Education Week article provides information though there are many more unanswered questions. One of the main changes would be replacing the current AYP measurement with a new metric focused on career and college readiness. Exactly what this means and how it would be measured is not yet known, but moving from the current focus would be a welcome change.

Below is a summary from the article.

Changing Measurements
In seeking to renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Obama administration is trying to significantly revamp the accountability system at the heart of the law’s current version, the 8-year-old No Child Left Behind Act.

NEW ACCOUNTABILITY GOALS•
Set college- and career-ready standards.•
Measure student growth over time.•
Establish a definition of “teacher effectiveness” that relies heavily on student learning.•
Track high school graduation and college-enrollment rates.

STILL UNANSWERED• Would the new system retain the current 2014 deadline for bringing all students to proficiency?•
How are “college- and career-ready” standards defined?•
How often would students be tested, using what assessment, and in what subjects?•
Would schools that fail to meet the new goals still be subject to a timetable of penalties?

We will watch this develop as it obviously has a significant influence over what we and all school systems must do to qualify for federal funding. We’ll see what emerges once both houses of Congress weigh in and all the interest groups have an opportunity to lobby for or against specific provisions. If we didn’t need the federal funding, we would have much more flexibility in how we continue our journey.

Is RttT Dead Before Mailing?

I’m back from Chicago with more information on federal grant opportunities and the potential to partner with SoL on a grant to meet some of our needs to support organizational learning through teacher and administrator leadership training, a focus on system thinking in our work, and increased capacity to develop our sustainability curriculum. I am energized by this opportunity and eager to hear what Peter and others learn in their meeting next week with Education Department officials.

In reviewing articles and sites that I place in a folder for potential blog posts I see one from last week on the state’s RttT grant process in the Seattle PI. I have posted on this many times, but this article does a god job of capturing the thinking of those closest to the process and the significant differences in opinion as on the potential for success.

On the one hand we have Superintendent Dorn saying:

“I've been asked many times if Washington has a chance to acquire a federal Race To The Top grant. My best response is that (current efforts) will move us past the starting line but will not win the race," State Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn said recently.

On the other we have Governor Gregoire saying in response to critics who say the reforms do not go far enough.

“You still have to pass reforms that actually can be submitted and perform," said Gregoire spokesman Viet Shelton. "It would be presumptuous and unrealistic to pass reform that wouldn't fit and couldn't be implementable. You need teachers and principals and parents to go along with them."

The consensus of opinion in the article is that the reforms in SB 6696 do not go far enough to position the state for a successful grant. It mentions the usual suspects in the way of change; democratic majorities who rely on and support WEA. Some interesting comments are included.

"These are the only new dollars coming into the education system and we're saying we aren't interested in getting them?" said Steve Mullin, head of the Washington Roundtable, a group representing major businesses in the state.

“The WEA has always, of course, been charged with and done a great job of protecting it's members, said Grimm, who use to chair the House Ways and Means Committee. "Generally they have been able to thwart, or impeded, or limit education reform proposals over the years based on how those proposals would affect active WEA members."

I believe that we will not get a grant because of no charter schools and lack f a plan that includes the use of student achievement data in teacher and administrator evaluations. Charters have been turned down three times by voters in our state and though WEA was in opposition I think it unfair that they would be blamed for no charters. We need to stop pointing fingers and figure out what is important as a state because the federal guidelines for this grant may become the guidelines for revision of ESEA and the dollars attached to that revenue source. If this revenue becomes competitive and we are not positioned for success, not having access to those dollars would have a negative impact on every district in the state.

Working with SMART people . . .

The SoL Education Partnership is a loosely coupled organization focused on organizational learning, sustainability, youth engagement, and systems thinking. The key players include Peter Senge from MIT and the Society for Organizational Learning, the Cloud Institute, and the Creative Learning Center. The people representing these organizations are all very bright and committed to this work. They volunteer their time and find grants to support our work. They have also been working directly with Martha Kanter the number two person in the education department. They have met twice and will be in D.C. at the end of this month to continue the conversations around grants and department goals. We are one of eight school and community organizations currently part of this work.

I continue to learn that we have much to offer with the story of our journey and the capacity that we ave developed in our system. Unfortunately, I also learned today that we will struggle to meet the i3 grant requirement of a 20% match unless the department removes that requirement before the request for proposals. We will continue our planning and hope that they do just that. The partnership is also exploring the potential for a SoL Institute to support members work around systems thinking and dynamics, education for sustainability, and school community partnerships. There are a number of grants that could potentially support this work.

I was impressed today with a presentation by Tracy from the Waters Foundation, an organization supporting systems thinking in schools. They have experienced success in Arizona and are beginning to branch out into other parts of the country and internationally with a program in India. They have many resources on their site and have collected data over time that supports learning through use of system thinking tools. Staff in both of our 10th grade integrated programs are using these tools in their sustainability work. In Water's supported schools they start in kindergarten.

Partnerships on many levels . . .

I wonder what it would be like if the United States was partnered with China and/or Denmark on an international renewable energy center as opposed to the national one between China and Denmark. I would assume that the world would see more renewable energy options in a shorter period of time than we will see emerge under the given circumstances. As this review of wind energy suggests a USA/China partnership could be impressive. What would it take for this to occur? I don't believe that we can point to any one thing that is in the way or that will create the necessary changes for this to occur. We found out how hard this is during the recent Copenhagen Conference. Perhaps today's youth will be able to overcome the obstacles that are keeping this from happening.

I'm currently in Chicago for meetings tomorrow and Tuesday with members of the SoL Education Partnership to review the potential for partnering on one of the federal education grant options. I am excited to be a part of this opportunity made possible through SoL's partnering with the private sector and foundations. I believe that our system has much to offer and I am eager to learn what they have found out in two meetings with assistant secretaries in the federal education department. I will share more after tomorrow's meetings.

More on China and renewable energy . . .

A short follow-up to my post on renewable energy work in China includes this amendment to their energy law that requires electricity grid companies to buy all the power produced by renewable energy generators. This would include power generated by wind, solar, hydropower, biomass, geothermal, and ocean energy. This is, in essence, a significant subsidy to support these new renewable energy industries and an example of the government's understanding of the need to be a leader in this area for future economic position in the world.

This is one of the few areas where their form of government can be an advantage. They can take quick and decisive action that will be followed even when, as in this case, the grid companies may not want to be forced to buy this power. This change is happening in a country where two thirds of the power is generated by coal giving them the distinction of being the world’s number one greenhouse gas emitter.


The amendment isn’t the only energy news as the Chinese have recently announced that they will team with Denmark to build a national renewable energy center.

"The project is set to combine the advantages of the two countries and promote renewable energy development fast and well in China," said Danish Minister of Climate Change and Energy Lykke Friis.

Chinese President Hu Jintao is also pushing companies to reduce operating costs through development of renewable energy sources. These changes I believe are not about global warming and the need to cut carbon emissions, though that is something they have committed to do. I believe that it is about the future, about maintaining economic growth, and understanding that power in the future will be with those countries that are no longer dependent on fossil fuels for energy. This is happening in China while in our country we read about both sides in the climate debate using the recent eastern snow storms to support their position.