A take away . . .

This evening a group from our system was able to attend the E3 Washington evening with Peter Senge.  It almost didn't happen due to the extremely cold weather in Boston where he is on staff at MIT.  It seems that the plane's toilet froze up cancelling his original flight.  He was able to get the last seat on an over booked flight that got him here six hours later, but still in time to share his experience and expertise with us.

As always when I have the opportunity to be with Peter, I am impressed with his knowledge and experiences throughout the world.  Since the focus of E3 is on the economy, environment, and education Peter focused on these as well.  His passion for the environment and public education was evident in his words and the conviction that comes through as he shares his thinking and experiences.

One theme from this evening that resonated with me was that we are preparing our young people for a world that none of us has experienced and have no way of predicting out 30 to 50 years.  Given that, what is important for them to know and be able to do?  We are also leaving young people with issues that are global in nature.  Though many in our country would like us to believe that the world still revolves around us, that is no longer the case and will continue to be so into the future.  Young people need to know that what happens here is felt round the world and that resolution to the issues they are inheriting will require interdependence that we have not yet experienced.  I was both energized and reflective as I listened and most importantly thankful that I have the opportunity to be part of this most important work.

Tomorrow I have the honor for a very short period of time of hosting Peter in our system.  Unfortunately, our students will be leaving as we arrive, but he will have the opportunity to meet with teachers and administrators.

Creating an awesome burger . . .

bungalow8omahablog.com

On the 13th I did a post on the FEAR I have not of reform, but on what I see as the wrong kind of reform coming out of the current legislative session in Olympia.  Scott posted a comment sharing his thoughts through making an awesome burger, the kind that every parent and teacher wants for their children and students.

I think of it as going out for a hamburger. Patron (parents order it with a bun, patty, cheese, tomato, onion, lettuce, mayo, and why not a slice of bacon, since the expectation is that it will be the best burger. )

Now we go to the kitchen, where the burger is prepared. The person (teacher) who is making the burger is doing the best they can with what they have but they do not have bacon, cheese or mayo. Somehow though the burger comes out and the burger is not what they want. 

He then goes on to share how those that own the restaurant, the legislators, respond.

So after lots of complaints, the people who own the burger joint (legislature) decide that their burger is not that great and somehow it is the cooks fault. So rather than ensuring that their restaurants have the right funds to buy all the resources they need to create a great burger, so the cooks can make some awesome burgers, they say that the cooks are terrible and that they want to make a new burger because patrons are unhappy with the way the old burgers were being made and that the cooks obviously do not know what they are doing. 

I believe that Scott has made some good points.  What I wonder about is from the paragraph above about "lots of complaints" and where they are coming from.  Is it the parents that are driving the conversations about new reforms that must be considered before funding the McCleary decision?  Is it the business community or large non-profits that are influencing some legislators?  Or, could it be that some of our legislators, especially those that now find themselves in leadership positions, want to keep pace with the "reforms" being implemented in other states that are perceived by some as more cutting edge?  Are those in Olympia pushing for more reforms truly focused on the needs of young people or is there another for them equally important agenda driving their behavior?

Jonathan responded with a comment to the same post that I believe is important for all to consider in the current environment in Olympia.

They already passed the reforms in 2009 (ESHB 2261), including the timing of how to phase them in. The time table needs to be adjusted because they missed the schedule, and a reevaluation of the costs should take place, but the work is largely done. I remember WEA’s major objection to ESHB 2261 at the time is that it lays out reforms with no funding. They just need to get to work. 

How true!  As Scott says, provide the resources and then make judgments on how well we are doing.  Give the reforms in 2261 an opportunity to be implemented before deciding that they are out-of-date and need to be revised or replaced.  A reform agenda was passed and is now the blueprint for the future.  Allow us to move forward with this blueprint instead of more study, followed by more debate, followed by more change.  As I have shared before, we need stability and support from this legislative session, not debate and partisan political posturing.

Introducing Peter Senge . . .

Later in the week I will be attending two events sponsored by E3 Washington, an organization focused on education for sustainable communities.  Though I am not much of a "joiner", I did accept an invitation to become a board member of this organization.  Our school system has been recognized by them for our focus on sustainability and system thinking and I am honored to be in a position to support their work.

The first event is a Winter Evening With Peter Senge where Peter will engage with attendees in conversation regarding the link between the health and future vitality of our children, communities, economy, education, sustainability and systems learning.  If you follow our journey you know that my leadership beliefs have been influenced by Peter's writing and work.  I have had the opportunity to work with him as Chair of SoLEd and I am looking forward to the conversation Thursday evening.

Then, on Friday around noon I have the good fortune to bring Peter to our district for a visit.  When he committed to the E3 event he did so only after confirming that he would be able to visit Tahoma.  Unfortunately, we can't make it until about noon and with finals, early release, and needing to be back to Seattle by 4 it will be difficult for him to truly experience the quality work of our students and teachers.  It is an honor that he has chosen to spend time with us and I look forward to introducing him to our system.  Let me know if you are doing something Friday afternoon with system thinking and/or sustainability that Peter might enjoy seeing.

My concerns grow . . .

Over at Washington Policy Center, Liv Finne did a summary of the first Senate Early Learning and K-12 Education Committee meeting under the leadership of Senator Litzow.  She characterized it as a glass of cold, fresh air blowing through a Senate hearing room.

A new day is dawning for children in our state. Sound reform ideas that were denied a hearing in the past are now being included in the policy debate, thanks to the new openness of Chairman Litzow.

Some of what she sees as positive I see as a step backward.  Check the post for the short summary of eight points ranging from little correlation between revenue, class size and achievement to school employee benefits starving classrooms of needed funds.  I struggle with many of them, but in particular the following focused on the possible repeal of HB 2261, the reform bill that the Supreme Court is using as a marker for future funding under the McCleary decision.

The Legislature has the power and responsibility to define Basic Education. The Legislature can repeal HB 2261 and still comply with the McCleary court decision, said Senior Assistant Attorney General Dave Stolier;

I understand that the legislators could repeal the definition of basic education under 2261, but struggle to understand how this would be a positive step for young people.  Stepping back to create a new definition that may make it easier for this or future legislators to fund makes no sense given the current need to focus on TPEP and preparing young people for Common Core assessments or considering the great deal of time, energy, and money that went into development of this definition and funding model.  We need stability, not new studies and shifting targets.

If the point above doesn't create some concern for you, try point eight below.

HB 2261 prototype school staffing formulas are already out-of-date, as is the single salary pay scale.

I don't know what data they are using to suggest that the staffing formulas are out-of-date; I can only hope that they mean that they don't provide enough staffing support, but somehow I doubt that will become the focus.  What do you think may be the mental model behind the single salary schedule being out-of-date?   What might emerge in the conversations as a more current model?

As I shared in previous posts, it will be important to follow this session closely and to let our legislators know that we need stability with no new unfunded mandates.

Sustaining quality under difficult conditions . . .

Today, I had the opportunity once again to meet with two principals to continue our conversations about instructional practice and support for teachers.  This followed a four hour meeting last night of all building level administrators focused on what our system must do to support implementation of  the state mandated Teacher Principal Evaluation Plan.  Though our focus is on student learning and instruction, our current reality was driven home to me in all three meetings and much of that current reality is driven by the large enrollment in our buildings and what we are asking of our administrators and teachers. The stress and anxiety levels continue to rise for these people as more is asked of them while we continue to place more students into spaces designed for far fewer.

I left the meeting last night with much dissonance and the need to reflect on the mental models I hold for the work of building level administrators.  My mental models have been formed with no experience in managing and providing instructional leadership in a large building.  Principal mental models are formed and influenced by their day-to-day interactions and experiences in our buildings.  As we all seek to make sense of the world around us these experiences influence what we see, hear, and believe.  I am very thankful and blessed with the capacity of our principals to maintain a focus on instruction while they manage these large buildings.

In one meeting today with a principal, I found myself needing to apologize for the environment we have created and for the expectations that she is owning.  She continually praised the work of her teachers while questioning how one person can provide them with the support that they want and deserve.  In the next meeting I experienced the frustration that the principal and staff live with daily, partly due to the large enrollment and partly due to programs operating in inadequate physical spaces.

We are asking much of all those that work in our buildings and departments and of the students who live and learn in those buildings.  My concerns for our continued success as a school system continue to grow as I experience the stress and anxiety resulting from our over-crowded learning environments.  We are doing an exceptional job by any measure, but the capacity to sustain our success diminishes with each new program mandated from outside and with each new student that enrolls in our system.

I am so proud and thankful for the commitment and passion that our people bring to their work.  I am at the same time saddened by our inability to provide quality learning environments and by the feelings of inadequacy that I heard from our administrators over the last two days.  They deserve better and our young people deserve better.  I look forward to working collaboratively with those in our school system who share these concerns and also believe that we can do a better job in support of quality learning, every day, in every classroom, for every child.  Let me know if you want to play an active role in the process to ensure that we change our current reality and create learning environments where learning and teaching can flourish without the stress brought on by over crowding.

I don't fear reform, I fear . . .

notjustanotherjen.com

Before the game I went through the Seattle Times online.  Though I still prefer a hard copy, I am beginning to do more online reading of the paper during the weekends.  What caught my eye once again were the multiple articles on the eve of the 2013 legislative session.  What bothers me most is the call for reform before any new revenue such as this opening paragraph in a Times editorial.

LAST year the Republicans and “roadkill” Democrats who briefly took power in the Washington State Senate operated under the slogan, “Reform before revenue.” They would resist tax increases until they had money-saving reforms. They passed some reforms, and the reforms have already paid off.

The same theme can be found in the title of a second editorial.  It is very clear what position the paper has taken on education as the session begins.

Editorial: Legislature should focus first on fixing public education, then asking taxpayers for funding

While it is clear state lawmakers need to invest more in public education, their first task is to make the system efficient and effective.

Those that know me know that I believe that we must make changes if young people are to successfully meet the standards embedded in the Common Core State Standards.  I don't fear reform, I fear the wrong kind of reform.  I am concerned with many possible reform efforts that may emerge this session, but specifically with one associated with teacher evaluation.  As I have shard many times, I am not pleased with the decision to force every district to choose from one of three instructional models to meet the mandated teacher evaluation  requirement.  Today, however, I am focused on ensuring that our work with this model become another tool to support growth in instructional practice in every classroom.  

In this Times article about the education battle that looms between a Democratic House, a Republican Senate, and a new governor pledged to not raise taxes, is one line that I do fear.  

Tom and Litzow also said they will use the debate over the court ruling to push for policy changes, including, for example, even stricter teacher evaluations than the ones soon to go into effect.

I believe that changing what has been a moving target for two years will be counter productive.  There are still too many unanswered questions about the current model with the potential for difficult negotiations across the state as Associations and districts try to make sense of this moving target.  More importantly, I read this line to mean one thing and that is better alignment with other states on the use of student achievement data in the overall teacher rating.  The current model mandates the use of achievement data, but gives individual systems much autonomy on what this data will be.  This is different than many changes across the country that demand up to 50% of the overall rating be driven by achievement data and also a requirement to use state assessment results.  I believe that this would be a huge mistake.  

   

Though I think that a change to what and how assessment data is used is a remote possibility this session, I thought we would come out of the last session with the potential to use Classroom 10 as our model.  Odd things happen behind closed doors when the session moves into months four, five, and possibly six.  We must communicate to our legislators this session what we believe will be important for them to maintain and what we believe is essential for them to include if they are to create the support we need to balance the high demand they have implemented over the last few sessions.

About that game - oh so close.  Proud of the way the Hawks came back.  Funny how your emotions can change so dramatically in 30 seconds of game time.  

Supporting principal growth . .

I could argue that the most important role for a superintendent is supporting principals as we focus on instructional practice in all of our classrooms.  Of course, this is not the "traditional" role, but it is one that I take seriously and find the most rewarding of my job functions.  I believe that I have the responsibility to teach and to create a culture that promotes and supports change in instructional practices that are reflected in increased student achievement.  My classroom are the principals and central office staff that make up our Educational Leadership Team, ELT.

I have multiple opportunities each month in a variety of settings for this work and this week has been especially rewarding.  Tuesday, we had our monthly ELT meeting that has traditionally been a management meeting.  Two years ago, we added a Teaching and Learning standing item to the agenda and over time we have seen a shift from predominately management to a greater focus on instruction.  On Tuesday we spent the majority of time focused on instructional issues around Classroom 10 and both the teacher and principal components of TPEP.  I used the time to share what I was learning and to reinforce expectations for principals to use strategies that support teacher growth.

On Tuesday and Wednesday I was with three principals on my monthly learning walks in each building.  This is a combination of sharing current reality, looking at data, revisiting prior conversations and new learning, and visiting classrooms.  This year I am focusing on data and feedback, always trying to have our time together result in creative tension leading to reflection on the part of principals related to their support of teachers.  The visits this week were especially rewarding for me.  Though we didn't get into classrooms in one of the visits (first time) because of the content of our conversations, I know, through feedback, that the principal has been reflecting on the conversation.  In a drop-in during a staff meeting the next morning I asked if she would like some feedback with staff in the room and she said yes.  So, we had a brief conversation, similar to what I want between principals and teachers, with a focus on what she might do differently in planning the next meeting.  I think that it is important for teachers to see that principals are also learners and need feedback to support growth.

Following learning walks with the other two principals we talked about feedback and identifying the focus that would support teacher reflection.  We also talked about the role of the principal beyond just giving the feedback, including the importance of engaging the teacher in looking at how the identified focus area might lead to deeper understanding and additional strategies for future use.  Each principal shared with me the decision they made on a focus and that they had provided feedback.  They felt good about the process and experienced a positive interaction with a teacher focused on learning and support.  This is rewarding feedback for me as I support my classroom to increase their capacity to influence and support teacher growth.

I encourage members of our ELT or one of the principals or teachers involved in these learning walks to share their experience by commenting on this post.