Thursday, February 27, 2014
Learning that context matters . . .
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
"MUST" won't go away . . .
It didn't take long to identify the vehicle to move forward on the language change to preserve the state's NCLB waiver I blogged about here. It is a new bill being drafted by Governor Inslee and Superintendent Dorn that changes the language to force use of state test results in individual teacher evaluations. As shared in this Seattle Times piece it is expected to change enough votes for passage in the Senate where a similar bill was recently defeated.
Inslee spokeswoman Jaime Smith said the governor met Tuesday afternoon with lawmakers from both parties to hammer out a compromise that would establish the requirement to allow the state to keep its waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind law — and keep control over some $40 million that comes with the waiver.
The compromise would delay the move until the 2017-2018 school year and include a provision that voids the requirement if the state cannot retain the waiver, Smith said.
When Inslee failed to convince Secretary Duncan to continue the waiver without the language change it was only a matter of time before something emerged. The threat of losing control over $40 million was greater than the lobby effort against the change. Could I be wrong again? Could it still fail when it comes to the Senate floor for a vote? Will the House approve it? Well, I was wrong before and can be again, but I'm betting the language in the law will be amended to "must" and will have an influence on the teacher growth focus of the work when implemented. We can still hold out hope that before 2017-18 there will be a new ESEA bill that replaces the sanctions of NCLB with something that maintains a focus on achievement for all students, that has accountability for growth over time, and that results in a collaborative effort to support teachers and schools in this effort.
Inslee spokeswoman Jaime Smith said the governor met Tuesday afternoon with lawmakers from both parties to hammer out a compromise that would establish the requirement to allow the state to keep its waiver from the federal No Child Left Behind law — and keep control over some $40 million that comes with the waiver.
The compromise would delay the move until the 2017-2018 school year and include a provision that voids the requirement if the state cannot retain the waiver, Smith said.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
A welcome last . . .
If you follow the blog you are familiar with the "lasts" I am experiencing as retirement rapidly approaches. Thus far they have all been experiences that I will miss for many reasons. Tonight I'm sharing a success that will not be missed
It is now official; our operations and technology levies passed with 62.33% and 62.97% yes votes. Contrast this with four years ago when they passed with 56.56% and 54.18% yes votes. We must be doing some things well as perceived by our community. The validation on top of the bond measure success feels good, but I will not miss these campaigns. So this is possibly one of the few lasts that will end up on my glad to leave it behind me list.
It is now official; our operations and technology levies passed with 62.33% and 62.97% yes votes. Contrast this with four years ago when they passed with 56.56% and 54.18% yes votes. We must be doing some things well as perceived by our community. The validation on top of the bond measure success feels good, but I will not miss these campaigns. So this is possibly one of the few lasts that will end up on my glad to leave it behind me list.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Moving the NCLB waiver forward . . .
Governor Inslee met Sunday with Education Secretary Duncan in an effort to continue the NCLB waiver after last week's Senate vote that did not meet the Secretary's criteria for removing the at-risk label. There was a short article reporting the meeting in today's Seattle Times that I could not find online, but I found the same article in The Oregonian's OREGONLIVE.
The governor said in a statement that "there's a possibility to develop a positive path forward that has a realistic chance of success."
He says he'll talk next with state lawmakers and the superintendent of instruction about the state's options.
 |
Any speculation on what that path might be? We know that State Superintendent Dorn wanted to change language in the law to mandate use of state test scores in teacher evaluations and sponsored legislation that did not make it through the current session that would have met Duncan's criteria for continuation of the waiver. We know that the Senate voted down legislation to make the language change partly because of other requirements added to the proposed bill. So, what is the vehicle for a positive path forward?
Sunday, February 23, 2014
A humorous comparison . . .
Time for a post with a message using coverage of the Olympics compared to coverage of public education mixed with a little humor. It was delivered in a post by Karl Fisch on The Fischbowl after he read an article in The Atlantic by Richard Florida comparing our medal count to that of smaller countries. The chart is earlier in the games and the medal counts have changed, but the message is similar.
In his post Fisch takes Florida's comparisons (Above) one step further by wondering why there is no outrage over the lack of success. Considering what happened in hockey and speed skating the comparisons should take on even greater significance, but why no controversy? Yes, I know there is some discussion of the speed skating suits, but come on, can't they find a better excuse?
Where's the outrage in Washington, D.C.? Why isn't the Denver Post writing editorials decrying the state of the U.S. Olympic program? Why isn't NBC holding a day-long "Olympic Nation" (with accompanying website) to figure out what we're doing wrong? I mean, if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre Olympic performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Well, I for one will not stand idly by while our children's future slips away. Clearly we need some changes, and we need them fast. So I propose a Blue Ribbon panel to examine this issue. I think we should get someone eminently qualified to lead this panel. I propose Bill Gates, but I suppose I'd be okay with someone like Eli Broad.
This gives you a feel for his post, in fun, but it makes one wonder doesn't it? You'll enjoy the post, but in case you choose not to, you might like to see how he ends it. The post is here if you'd rather read it all.
Now these aren't my only ideas, but I don't want to dominate the conversation too much. I think we can all agree that if we would just raise the bar a little bit and hold these folks accountable, their performance would improve. (In the case of the Summer Olympics, I would suggest we literally raise the bar; perhaps to 10 feet in the high jump, and 25 feet in the pole vault. After all, our athletes should be outperforming the rest of the world.) And we should learn from those countries that are currently kicking our butt. If it works in Slovenia and Latvia (I've heard some people refer to it as the Slavic Miracle), it should work twice as well in the U.S., right?
In his post Fisch takes Florida's comparisons (Above) one step further by wondering why there is no outrage over the lack of success. Considering what happened in hockey and speed skating the comparisons should take on even greater significance, but why no controversy? Yes, I know there is some discussion of the speed skating suits, but come on, can't they find a better excuse?
Where's the outrage in Washington, D.C.? Why isn't the Denver Post writing editorials decrying the state of the U.S. Olympic program? Why isn't NBC holding a day-long "Olympic Nation" (with accompanying website) to figure out what we're doing wrong? I mean, if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre Olympic performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.
Well, I for one will not stand idly by while our children's future slips away. Clearly we need some changes, and we need them fast. So I propose a Blue Ribbon panel to examine this issue. I think we should get someone eminently qualified to lead this panel. I propose Bill Gates, but I suppose I'd be okay with someone like Eli Broad.
This gives you a feel for his post, in fun, but it makes one wonder doesn't it? You'll enjoy the post, but in case you choose not to, you might like to see how he ends it. The post is here if you'd rather read it all.
Now these aren't my only ideas, but I don't want to dominate the conversation too much. I think we can all agree that if we would just raise the bar a little bit and hold these folks accountable, their performance would improve. (In the case of the Summer Olympics, I would suggest we literally raise the bar; perhaps to 10 feet in the high jump, and 25 feet in the pole vault. After all, our athletes should be outperforming the rest of the world.) And we should learn from those countries that are currently kicking our butt. If it works in Slovenia and Latvia (I've heard some people refer to it as the Slavic Miracle), it should work twice as well in the U.S., right?
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Vote leads to weak evaluations . . .
As predicted there is an interesting follow-up to yesterday's news about the Senate vote on the teacher evaluation bill I posted about here. It comes in the form of an editorial in both the Bellingham Herald and the News Tribune. It is the same editorial in each paper under the following title.
The assumption is that not using student achievement data from state tests makes evaluations weaker. They also point to the potential loss of federal revenue if the state were to lose the NCLB waiver and to the influence WEA had on the vote.
What, education dollars are actually scarce? That makes the Senate’s rejection of a cash-preserving school bill especially bizarre.
The bill is modest, though the state teacher’s union has made opposition to it a political litmus test this election year. It would clarify that teacher evaluations must include student performance data as measured by statewide tests.
It boils down to a word: “must” vs. “can.” Right now the law allows school districts to use state tests – or select or invent their own. A hodgepodge of tests that differs from one place to another is useless as a way of holding schools and districts accountable.
The underlining above is mine - I agree that schools and districts should be held accountable for student achievement and that there is a role for state tests, even the new Smarter Balanced Assessments that will be used in Spring 2015. I struggle, however, with using them initially to hold individual teachers accountable to standards when schools and school districts have not yet had the opportunity to put in place the structures they need for success as measured by these new assessments. I am open to conversations that focus on a student growth model with the capacity to provide data that can be used over time in individual teacher evaluations, but we are not yet at that place. Until then, the accountability focus should remain on schools and school districts with a fair and equitable system that holds systems accountable to growth over time, not a benchmark percentage and one size fits all.
In the systems world we talk about "creative tension", that place between current reality and an aspiration or description of a better place. The tension lies between these two places and leads to new structures and strategies to close the gap. In the absence of tension no learning takes place and cultures are maintained. Too much tension is also counter productive and can result in unintended consequences that set the culture back increasing the gap between current reality and the aspiration. I fear that the move to use the data at this time in individual teacher evaluations will have this impact on our system where we have an aspiration of success for all students with the necessary "creative tension" to over time close the gap.
I don't agree that the defeat of this bill will result in weaker evaluations in our system. We can and are supporting teacher growth under the new evaluation model using the student growth measurements emerging from quality conversations in our schools, departments, grade levels, and class rooms. Wasn't teacher growth the intent of the new model? Isn't that what policy makers and OSPI told us? We can achieve this and improve the quality of instruction and achievement in all class rooms with the "creative tension" in our system that was reinforced by implementation of the new model. We do not need additional tension from a change to a model still in the first year of implementation for us. Another example of one size does not fit all.
I don't see the defeat of this bill as a celebration. For me, it is another example of wasted energy and inability of well meaning people with different mental models not being able to close the gap and put in place structures to listen to each other. It saddens me that we can't find the common aspiration and agree upon descriptions of our current realities that result in the "creative tension" where adaptive solutions can be found and where we can collaborate to do what is right and necessary for all young people.
Are weak teaching evaluations worth $44 million?
What, education dollars are actually scarce? That makes the Senate’s rejection of a cash-preserving school bill especially bizarre.
The bill is modest, though the state teacher’s union has made opposition to it a political litmus test this election year. It would clarify that teacher evaluations must include student performance data as measured by statewide tests.
It boils down to a word: “must” vs. “can.” Right now the law allows school districts to use state tests – or select or invent their own. A hodgepodge of tests that differs from one place to another is useless as a way of holding schools and districts accountable.
The underlining above is mine - I agree that schools and districts should be held accountable for student achievement and that there is a role for state tests, even the new Smarter Balanced Assessments that will be used in Spring 2015. I struggle, however, with using them initially to hold individual teachers accountable to standards when schools and school districts have not yet had the opportunity to put in place the structures they need for success as measured by these new assessments. I am open to conversations that focus on a student growth model with the capacity to provide data that can be used over time in individual teacher evaluations, but we are not yet at that place. Until then, the accountability focus should remain on schools and school districts with a fair and equitable system that holds systems accountable to growth over time, not a benchmark percentage and one size fits all.
In the systems world we talk about "creative tension", that place between current reality and an aspiration or description of a better place. The tension lies between these two places and leads to new structures and strategies to close the gap. In the absence of tension no learning takes place and cultures are maintained. Too much tension is also counter productive and can result in unintended consequences that set the culture back increasing the gap between current reality and the aspiration. I fear that the move to use the data at this time in individual teacher evaluations will have this impact on our system where we have an aspiration of success for all students with the necessary "creative tension" to over time close the gap.
I don't agree that the defeat of this bill will result in weaker evaluations in our system. We can and are supporting teacher growth under the new evaluation model using the student growth measurements emerging from quality conversations in our schools, departments, grade levels, and class rooms. Wasn't teacher growth the intent of the new model? Isn't that what policy makers and OSPI told us? We can achieve this and improve the quality of instruction and achievement in all class rooms with the "creative tension" in our system that was reinforced by implementation of the new model. We do not need additional tension from a change to a model still in the first year of implementation for us. Another example of one size does not fit all.
I don't see the defeat of this bill as a celebration. For me, it is another example of wasted energy and inability of well meaning people with different mental models not being able to close the gap and put in place structures to listen to each other. It saddens me that we can't find the common aspiration and agree upon descriptions of our current realities that result in the "creative tension" where adaptive solutions can be found and where we can collaborate to do what is right and necessary for all young people.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Proven wrong . . .
I am completely surprised by what happened yesterday in the State Senate when SB 5246 requiring the use of state test results in teacher evaluation failed to pass. I believed that the lobby supporting the bill would prevail because of the fear of loosing the federal NCLB waiver and control over $40 million in federal revenue across the state even suggesting it in last post. I should have listened to Senator Mullet who told us on our Olympia trip that other provisions added to the bill would make it more difficult to pass. It was also one of the few losses the majority coalition has experienced as explained in this Seattle Times article.
The proposal would require that statewide student tests be used as part of teacher and principal evaluations — a change federal officials said would be necessary for Washington to keep its waiver from some painful parts of the federal No Child Left Behind law.
It was unclear how the bill could be revived, because 5 p.m. Tuesday marked a deadline for non-budget-related legislation to make it out of at least one chamber of the Legislature. The teacher-evaluation bill was the last one the Senate considered before the cutoff.
“I thought we had it, but obviously we didn’t,” said state Sen. Bruce Dammeier, R-Puyallup, vice chair of the Senate Education Committee. “It’s very disappointing.”
Dammeier blamed the loss on Democrats who supported a nearly identical bill just weeks ago. He said the Democrats reversed course after receiving pressure from the state teachers union.
This is the second big surprise this session with the first being the restructuring and delay of the 1080 hour requirement in SB 6552 that passed the Senate and was moved to the House. In both cases, many of us were told and felt that both the implementation of the 1080 hour requirement and the change in language to keep the federal waiver were a done deal. For once, I feel good that I was wrong.
Why the change? Enough legislators were influenced by the lobby effort from multiple organizations and switched their position because of the stories that were told of how these bills would have a negative impact on our work.
State Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, the ranking Democrat on the education committee, said she and others pulled their support after hearing testimony in committee.
“We heard from parents, teachers, school boards,” said McAuliffe, D-Bothell. “They said our state tests are not designed to measure student growth,” as the bill would require.
McAuliffe said Democrats “remain committed to finding the right solution” to keep the No Child Left Behind waiver.
I also believe that we are witnessing what is happening across the country where legislators from both parties and from the right and left are forming coalitions to push back against the common core and common core aligned assessments. This coalition forming played out in the Senate vote on SB 5246.
Seven Republicans also sided with Democrats to sink the bill.
Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, who supported the bill, said some of his colleagues voted against the bill because they did not like testing imposed by the federal government.
Time to thank those legislators for taking this stand and forcing the federal education department to make a decision. Do they support the work being done in our state that Secretary Duncan has commended or do they impose the unrealistic expectations of NCLB and the penalties that go with those expectations? Your turn Secretary Duncan.
The proposal would require that statewide student tests be used as part of teacher and principal evaluations — a change federal officials said would be necessary for Washington to keep its waiver from some painful parts of the federal No Child Left Behind law.
It was unclear how the bill could be revived, because 5 p.m. Tuesday marked a deadline for non-budget-related legislation to make it out of at least one chamber of the Legislature. The teacher-evaluation bill was the last one the Senate considered before the cutoff.
“I thought we had it, but obviously we didn’t,” said state Sen. Bruce Dammeier, R-Puyallup, vice chair of the Senate Education Committee. “It’s very disappointing.”
Dammeier blamed the loss on Democrats who supported a nearly identical bill just weeks ago. He said the Democrats reversed course after receiving pressure from the state teachers union.
Why the change? Enough legislators were influenced by the lobby effort from multiple organizations and switched their position because of the stories that were told of how these bills would have a negative impact on our work.
State Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, the ranking Democrat on the education committee, said she and others pulled their support after hearing testimony in committee.
“We heard from parents, teachers, school boards,” said McAuliffe, D-Bothell. “They said our state tests are not designed to measure student growth,” as the bill would require.
McAuliffe said Democrats “remain committed to finding the right solution” to keep the No Child Left Behind waiver.
I also believe that we are witnessing what is happening across the country where legislators from both parties and from the right and left are forming coalitions to push back against the common core and common core aligned assessments. This coalition forming played out in the Senate vote on SB 5246.
Seven Republicans also sided with Democrats to sink the bill.
Senate Republican Leader Mark Schoesler, who supported the bill, said some of his colleagues voted against the bill because they did not like testing imposed by the federal government.
Time to thank those legislators for taking this stand and forcing the federal education department to make a decision. Do they support the work being done in our state that Secretary Duncan has commended or do they impose the unrealistic expectations of NCLB and the penalties that go with those expectations? Your turn Secretary Duncan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)