Growing respect . . .

As I join with our principals in preparing summary evaluations, I find the respect I have gained over the year for their commitment to TPEP growing.  Through observations and conversations with all principals and one assistant, I have seen and heard the commitment they have made to be in classrooms and collect evidence to support their judgments.  This has been a year of new learning for all of us as we try new structures to support prioritizing time to be in classrooms and use new forms to collect and share data.

Because we are about a year behind with implementing the principal evaluation I have only two comprehensive, the fewest of the administrators in the system.  The range for others is four to twelve and may even be thirteen in one case.  I also have an added advantage with the principal model in not being required to rate each of the individual elements, it requires only a criterion rating.  I am learning, however, that rating each element may be a better approach that leads to a more accurate overall rating. Given my experience and time commitment with only two comprehensive my respect for our principals is growing as I learn about the time it is taking for each of the summary evaluations.  I am also pleased with our effort to maintain a focus on supporting teacher growth over time while being faced with the requirement of the summative evaluation.  Though we have much yet to learn, we approach the task with positive intent and continued commitment to supporting growth.

I would be remiss if I didn't also share my appreciation and respect for teachers on comprehensive who are giving of their time to provide evidence and the increased feedback conversations that accompany multiple classroom observations.  Thank you for your commitment and support of our learning as we find ways to make this required process part of our collaborative culture.

Growing push back . . .

Last week I shared a letter from David Iseminger to Secretary Duncan sharing his thinking about the loss of our state's NCLB waiver with his message basically saying it isn't worth it.  Then later in the week Danny Westneat in his Seattle Times column told Duncan to take "No Child" school testing and shove it.  As with Iseminger's letter, I find myself agreeing with Westneat's position.

I’m writing because the other day you announced that my state, alone among the 50, had run afoul of your desired standardized-testing regimen. So we’re going to be subjected to all the penalties and punishments of that 2001 law.

I remember 2001. Those were the days of you’re either with us or against us. So it’s fitting that your edict means that unless 100 percent of our students pass math and reading tests this year, all our schools will be dubbed “failing.” You’re either above average or you’re failures!

With all respect, doesn’t that seem a tad stupid? A few years ago, you yourself pronounced this top-down, testing-fueled mania to be simple-minded and broken.

“By mandating and prescribing one-size-fits-all solutions, No Child Left Behind took away the ability of local and state educators to tailor solutions to the unique needs of their students,” you told Congress, adding that the law is “fundamentally flawed.”

In a Chicago Post-Tribune article we find that Indiana may be the next state to lose a waiver as they have been asked by Duncan for updates on their teacher evaluation system and are also potentially in trouble for dumping Common Core standards and national tests.  If they were to also lose a waiver it would mean many more "failing school" letters this fall that will contribute to the push back against the federal education department's encroachment into public education and mandate for standards and testing.  Duncan may want to consider Westneat's words below.  As he flexes the federal muscle it may appear like accountability to many, but for others it may be the flame fanning the fire that consumes the department's one size fits all reform model.

I’ll close by saying I think you’re messing with the wrong state. You should try to change this “fundamentally flawed” law, rather than impose it on us out of pique. A prediction: We like to do our own thing out here anyway, and your action will only fuel more boycotts of these tests, as well as suspicion of the entire education-reform industry.

Signed, NCLB Dad in Seattle

Focusing on the future . . .

Last night we had our second Future Ready Cafe attended by over 100 people including students, parents, community members, business owners, teachers, support staff, Board members, and administrators. The focus of the evening was on our Future Ready initiative and how the system's Outcomes and Indicators are part of the foundation of this work.  In the first Cafe, we received feedback and suggestions for changes to the Outcomes and Indicators to ensure that they aligned with what we are learning are critical work related attributes necessary to ensure that all students experience success in post high school learning and work. Yesterday we shared the revised document driven by that feedback and suggestions and asked the participants for additional feedback and guidance.

The recommended changes can be seen in the picture below.  The proposal is to change the name of Collaborative Worker to Collaborative Teammate to focus on the school experience and to add Conscientious Worker to capture the attributes that we want in our schools and that employers are also seeking.  In addition, we added an outcome, Responsible Decision Maker, to reflect the need for a focus on making sound decisions related to media, technology, money, and health.

The work on Outcomes and Indicators has been and will continue to be an ongoing process engaging diverse groups of people.  The goal is to bring the revised Outcomes to the Board for approval before the end of this school year.  Last night we brought the Outcomes below for feedback and will now use that information to identify any additional changes that may be necessary.  The work on the Indicators will take place next year and involve multiple prototypes across the grades beginning at the high school level.  This will look at taking the revised Indicator language and working with students, parents, and teachers to identify the language in grade level bands that clarify the expectations of each Outcome.  Today, the majority of the revised language comes from what we have learned and what has been captured in the work of other organizations.  The result from the prototyping will be Indicators with Tahoma language.

I'll share an additional slide used last night to capture parts of our current reality and our responsibility to take this big opportunity we now have to create and implement structures and strategies to ensure success for all students in post high school learning and work.  It was for me a rewarding and energizing evening demonstrating our commitment to supporting success for ALL.  Look forward to comments from others that might have attended.

A somewhat late thank you . . .

Today is, was National Teacher Appreciation Day.  I'm a little late, but want to share my appreciation, respect, and admiration for what our teachers do everyday.  As I reflect on the day that was spent in bargaining with our teachers I am upset with myself for not acknowledging the significance of the day by openly sharing my appreciation with them. I ask myself how could that happen?  Though I have no excuses, I believe that it was partly due to being caught up in the process of working to maintain a collaborative effort while discussing sometimes difficult issues.

I feel good about the day, but find myself going back to a comment on a blog post last week from Jonathan where he shared his hope for the district bargaining team during these negotiations.

My sincere hope is that the district bargaining committee will recognize our efforts and put forth a contract offer that recognizes and respects our hard work and dedication to the Tahoma way.  

As we work to complete this process it is my hope that our language, behavior, and response to issues conveys our appreciation for the work that our teachers do.

THANK YOU TEACHERS!

Promoting student voice . . .

The Board met this evening in a work study session with the newly elected members of the High School ASB Executive Board and adviser, Dave Peters.  It was an opportunity for the Board to share their commitment to increasing opportunities for student voice in decisions that impact their school experience and for the students to provide input, feedback, and hopes or the future.  We talked about many things with a focus on school culture, their current reality, and how a shared aspiration can become the catalyst for change.  I believe that they left feeling some tension around a couple of issues in their current reality that they would like to see change.

These are committed young people wanting to support change in their school that results in a positive experience for their peers and for their teachers.  As adults, we need to reflect on our practice and create structures that identify when the student voice is value added and how that student voice will become a part of these decisions.  It was an energizing evening with both groups deciding to continue the conversation in August and then again following Homecoming.  I am pleased to have played a small role in this transition as I believe that these young people have much to offer in changing our practice as adults from what can we do to them to what can we accomplish together.

Not worth it . . .

I must once again post about our state's loss of the NCLB waiver to share the letter below written by a Lake Steven's School Board member, David Iseminger, to Secretary Duncan.   I came across it in an article by Valerie Strauss in the Washington Post.  He does an excellent job of letting the Secretary know what he and many of us feel about the recent decision to pull the waiver.  I applaud him and welcome the conversation that comes from his letter around how we will respond in August to the requirement to send the "failure" letter required in the NCLB sanctions.  Perhaps it is time to once again push back. Would the Secretary take the step to withhold funding if districts didn't send the letter required by legislation that the he has called flawed?

Many thanks for Iseminger's leadership with this letter and for setting the stage for how we should respond to the bullying from Washington D.C.  His conclusion that the waiver is not worth it is one that should be echoed by all of us as we join WSSDA in pushing our legislators in Washington D.C. to replace this broken legislation with a model that supports learning and growth and one that can support achievement gains for all students.

Though not the norm for me, I will share the entire letter as Strauss did in her article.

April 29, 2014

Dear Secretary Duncan,

Last week you revoked Washington State’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver, resulting in nearly every school in Washington being considered failing by your Department of Education. This summer, as a School Board Director in Lake Stevens, WA, you’re requiring I send a “failure letter” to parents of any school that receives your funding.

Your reason for revoking our waiver: we didn’t pass legislation you wanted. More precisely, we passed legislation, but it didn’t have the wording (actually, one specific word) you wanted.

Since you’re so distant from us – nearly 3,000 miles by one measure – let me tell you about this other Washington: We have strong leadership in our board rooms, schools, and classrooms; we have professional and effective educators; and our students are capable, confident, and work extremely hard. But don’t take my word for it – our SAT scores, among other measures, speak for us.

When NCLB was passed twelve years ago, it focused America’s resolve to elevate our children and our future. It was about accountability, about setting lofty and worthwhile goals, but it was also about believing in our educators, leaders, parents, and students. It was about what we would strive for, work toward. It was aspirational.

Today, NCLB has been subverted into a name-calling, label-applying bully pulpit. It languished in Congress, now six years stale, until failure according to its antiquated yardstick has become a certainty.

We tried to help. With input and work from many education advocates, Congress was provided an extensive list of fixes that would make NCLB workable and forward-thinking, and keep us all accountable. I was there too – as a member of the National School Boards Association (NSBA) Federal Relations Network (FRN), I made the trek to Washington D.C. multiple times to ask our members to reauthorize, year after year. While there, many of us from Washington also met with people from your Department of Education, in your building, trying to create relationships and press for a change in policy and tone: stop telling our students and educators they’re failing, I said.

In Lake Stevens — and in school districts across America — we lead by example. We create confidence, capacity, knowledge, and opportunity for everyone in our community. There is a palpable and ubiquitous culture of excellence in Lake Stevens, where it’s common knowledge that each individual is supported, challenged, engaged, and empowered. Such things don’t appear overnight, they’re not accidental, and I have no intention of having our work undermined by distant labels and bracketed explanations.

The schools you’d have us call “failing” are anything but: we have Schools of Distinction (one of them four years running), we have Washington Achievement Awards schools, and we have a Reward School.

The leaders whom you also assert are failing – me included – are not. Our school board has won the national Magna Award and is a recognized Board of Distinction. I am an elected member to the Board of Directors for our state-level Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA), and my fellow Lake Stevens Board Director is President of WSSDA.

It’s not that I don’t understand your NCLB numbers or metrics. I work in the Business Intelligence group at Microsoft, part of the Cloud + Enterprise Division, so data and analytics is what I do.

And I’ve done the analysis. I’ve weighed the cost of your revoked waiver and considered its benefits, and the conclusion is clear: it’s not worth it.

You can keep the waiver. And regarding your failure letter – I have little interest in using our Lake Stevens letterhead to tell our students and educators they’re failures, because they are not. That letter is the topic of much discussion in our state – including whether we send it at all.

Our school leaders are strong, our educators are exceptional, and our students are dedicated. Fourteen days before school, what they will hear from leaders in Lake Stevens is this: the bar this year is raised again, we believe in you, and you must continue to strive for excellence. They will hear that we are behind them, and that we believe in them without reservation, or caveat.

If you pull our funding, you’ll be forsaking Washington’s most needy students – the very students for whom the original ESEA legislation was passed 50 years ago. You’ll be abandoning those students, but we won’t. In Lake Stevens – and in everydistrict across America – we’ll do whatever we must to ensure no child is left behind, waiver or not.

The irony is not lost on me: you revoked our waiver because we didn’t pass a law that you wanted. If you’re not sure what to do with our education-related failure letter, I know 536 folks in Washington, D.C. who seem pretty deserving right now.

Sincerely,

David Iseminger

School Director, Lake Stevens School Board, Washington State

Something to get behind . . .

Mari Taylor, Washington State School Director Association (WSSDA) President, today distributed a resolution from her organization asking Congress to prioritize passage of a revision to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  Doing so would replace NCLB, a law that Secretary Duncan in 2011 said was broken.

“No Child Left Behind is broken and we need to fix it now,” said Duncan during testimony before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

“This law has created dozens of ways for schools to fail and very few ways to help them succeed. We should get out of the business of labeling schools as failures and create a new law that is fair and flexible, and focused on the schools and students most at risk,” Duncan continued.

Three years later the law is still in place and has led to the Secretary having the power to cancel our state's waiver from a law that he called broken.  This WSSDA effort makes complete sense to me and I welcome the opportunity to share it with our School Board.  This is an effort that I support, can get behind, and I thank WSSDA for taking the initiative to start this process.  The law has been in place for twelve years and should have been revised many years ago.  The time is now before other states suffer a similar fate for pushing back against a one size fits all model to school reform.