By Tom

Three important things happened in Olympia last week.

First of all, the lawmakers passed a budget bill that made tough cuts everywhere, especially in education. School administrators and classified employees had their salary reduced by 3%. Teachers, who already lost 1.1% to the previous legislative session, lost another 1.9% this time around, in order to even things out.

Secondly, when it came down to the end, the Legislature rejected the Tom/Zarelli RiF reform bill that would end the practice known as Last In-First Out. They may have decided that the carrot works better than the stick; we’re better off supporting teachers in their efforts to improve than making it easier to fire those that haven’t improved. Either that or they decided to wait until we actually have a four-tier teacher evaluation system in place before passing a law that’s predicated on the use of that system. Or they may have decided that passing a law that almost every teacher hates while cutting the salaries of those teachers might just be a bad idea. Who really knows what they were thinking.

The third important thing, though, is what’s truly remarkable: Washington’s National Board stipends survived the budget axe. Granted, they did move the payout date to July, effectively eliminated the 2011 bonus, but the fact that the program wasn’t suspended entirely surprised a lot of us, even those of us who worked hard to keep it off the chopping block. The non-elimination of the National Board stipend represents a long, exhausting , and ultimately successful effort by NBCTs to convince the Legislature that it was right to promote National Board Certification ten years ago, when the state had money, and it’s just as right to promote it now, when the doesn’t have money.

This is remarkable because it signifies the emergence of the NBCT community as a major player in education policy in our state, both within the teachers’ union and beyond. It’s been building steadily over the past decade, driven by a unique and coordinated collaboration between the Washington Education Association (WEA), the state’s education office (OSPI) and the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession (CSTP), a non-profit focused on amplifying the voice of teachers and teacher leaders in education policy. OSPI has focused on National Board candidate support and the training of candidate facilitators. The WEA has focused on National Board pre-candidacy support and pro-National Board lobbying efforts.

That’s right, the WEA. The teachers’ union. For the past ten years, the WEA has devoted an enormous amount of energy and resources to promote National Board Certification, for no other reason than because the organization values good teaching. It has also actively recruited NBCTs to leadership positions within the WEA. And for obvious reasons: NBCTs have proven their capacity to complete a complicated project, but most importantly, as accomplished teachers, they have the credibility to lead. There are now a significant number of NBCTs serving as local association presidents, including Tacoma's, one of the largest district in the state. 

And now we see the consequences of that agenda. Thanks to the WEA, OSPI and CSTP, the Accomplished Teacher community, which represents about 5% of the total teachers in Washington State, has become a real player.

So now what?

I think the true test of any movement is what happens after and beyond self-promotion. And off the top of my head, I can think of three important things that the NBCT community should focus on. (and yes, I realize that “focusing on three things” is an oxymoron.)

1. Become involved in the implementation of our new teacher evaluation system. It was piloted this year, which means now we get to work out the kinks and make it work throughout the state. This is important work; work that needs the talents and credibility of our most accomplished teachers. And having the WEA on board won’t hurt, either.

2. Help restore an effective and sustainable mentoring system. At some point we’re going to start hiring new teachers, and when we do, they’ll need mentors. This is an area that’s taken more than its share of financial hits, to the point where in many school districts there really isn’t anything left. That’s a shame, and it’s something the Accomplished Teacher community is in a perfect position to address.

3. Other stuff. Education thrives on innovation and hard work, both of which take time. Time beyond the school day. If the talk in my faculty room is any indication of the general mood among the teaching force, well… let's just say there's some angst in Washington's classrooms. People are talking a lot about "working to contract" and very little about "taking on new projects." That's not helpful. Some of us will need to step up and carry a little extra for the next couple of years.  Accomplished teachers will need to do a little more than their share of accomplishing until things get back on track.

So congratulations, NBCTs. We’ve arrived as a real force. Cool. Now get busy.

By Tom

Back in the 80s I drove a 1966 Plymouth Valiant. It was slow, ugly, comfortable and simple. When I looked under the hood, there were about four different items and even I could figure out what each of them was supposed to do. Now I drive a 1996 Geo Prizm. Looking under that hood is like looking into a human brain. There are at least 175 different items and I have no idea what any of them do. I’m not even sure which thing is the engine.

Cars have changed. So has teaching. Specifically, I can think of three major changes happening right now that are having – and will have – a major impact on how teachers do their jobs.

Continue reading →

By Tom

It’s looking more and more like teachers in Washington State will get a pay cut. It’ll either be 3%, if the Senate gets its way; or 1.9%, if the Governor prevails. Whichever way it ends up, the issue begs the obvious question: should teachers work less days if they get less pay?

On the one hand, the last thing our students need is a shorter school year. And despite the logic that the public should “feel the pain” after voting down a couple of juicy tax bills last election, the people who would feel most of that pain are the citizens not yet old enough to vote.

On the other hand, it stands to reason that if you get less money you shouldn’t have to work as much. My brother in law works in construction. Things have slowed down lately in that industry, so his salary has dropped. But so has his workload; he now works a four-day week. Teachers work 180 days. According to my math, three percent of 180 is 5.4 days. If we ran the school system like my brother in law’s construction firm, teachers would get an extra week off for the next two years.

Personally, I’d rather work those extra days. I enjoy teaching and I have a hard enough time getting everything done in 180 days.  And I’m willing to take a three percent pay cut if that’s what it takes to balance the state’s budget.

I do, however, have some conditions.

Continue reading →


By Tom

Suffice to say, this hasn’t been the easiest year to be a teacher. And with the Legislature back in session, figuring out where to make cuts, it’s likely to get even worse. To add insult to injury, our school, like many, recently learned that we’re going to lose one of our teachers. As you might expect, she’s young, talented and enthusiastic. The kids like her, the parents like her and the rest of us like her. But she was the last one in, so she’s the first one out.

Many of us would like to see her stay. We’d prefer to have someone else leave; someone who isn’t as good at teaching.

It would be nice to have the means to do so, and if certain legislators have their way, we soon will. We may end up with a law that forces districts to force the least effective teachers out during staff reductions.

But while that might sound like a good idea right now, I don’t think it’ll work out in the long run.

Continue reading →

Dear Mr. Duncan,

Thank you for the letter. It was nice to read your sincere appreciation for the people who work in our nation’s schools, and a refreshing change from the treatment we received seven years ago when one of your predecessors referred to us as “terrorists.”

Most of us genuinely believe that you and the administration are working hard for the best interests of our public schools. We feel that you value and respect America’s teachers. While we may not always agree with all of your specific strategies or policies, it’s clear that you want the best for our students.

That said; I want to discuss the eighth paragraph of your letter:

“So I want to work with you to change and improve federal law, to invest in teachers and strengthen the teaching profession. Together with you, I want to develop a system of evaluation that draws on meaningful observations and input from your peers, as well as a sophisticated assessment that measures individual student growth, creativity, and critical thinking.”

When are you planning to begin working together with us? It’s been over two years since you’ve had this job and so far we haven’t seen much change in the federal law. I’m talking about NCLB, with its onerous sanctions. Those of us in the field are watching as good schools and good teachers are being labeled “failures” due mostly to the demographics of their student population and the relentlessly rising expectation of bad legislation.

And another thing. When you say you want to “work with us to change and improve federal law,” what exactly do you mean? As teachers, we know that could mean one of two things. There’s the “working together” where teams of teachers actually work together to plan a lesson or unit. In this form of “working together” the end is unknown at the outset. The team engages in genuine collaboration in which each partner contributes to the product. This is real and authentic teamwork.

Then there’s the other kind of working together. Many of us start the year by inviting our students to “work together” to form a set of class rules and responsibilities. For many of us, this is a disingenuous exercise; a façade in which the outcome is essentially predetermined. There’s no way, for example, that the rules we end up with won’t include something about “keeping our hands to ourselves.”

It might be OK to “work together” disingenuously when the rest of the team is eight years old, but we’re much older than that. And frankly, most of us know at least as much about education as you do.  

The evaluation system you describe in this paragraph sounds pretty cool. But it sounds a lot different from the plans proposed by the states that won your “race to the top.” Most of those plans seemed to use student performance as a proxy for teacher effectiveness. There’s certainly a connection between the two, but it’s not as clear as you might think. There’s a kid in my class, for example, who is so hyperactive that his body literally vibrates all day long. But his low test scores belie the enormous amount of effort and work it has taken to get him to read and write almost at grade level, and to get him to complete his math assignments independently. At the same time, the girl who sits across from him, whose parents are both doctors, reads better than either you or I. Her high test scores represent almost none of my effort and talent. I’ll gladly take credit for them, but frankly, she would have done just as well on that test with a folding chair in charge of the class.

One more thing. Our unions have taken a beating this past year. Mostly at the state level and by members of the media and business community. But there’s a sneaking suspicion by many of us that a lot of these people have become emboldened, not so much by what you and the rest of the administration has said or done, but by what you haven’t said or done. Contrary to popular myth, most of us actually feel represented by our unions. Their policies, after all, are directed by the teachers they represent. Our unions are us. And they do a lot of great work, for both teachers and students. Would it be too much to ask to have you stick up for us every now and then? 

So anyway, thanks for the letter. It was good to hear from you as we head down the homestretch of the school year. And if you really mean that part about “working together,” give me a call. I’ve got a few other ideas.

Tom

By Tom

Thing are heading into the homestretch in Olympia. There’s sure to be a special session in which the House, Senate and Governor’s office hash out a final budget for the next two years.

No one’s going to be happy with the final outcome. That’s for sure. But depending on who prevails, there may be less unhappiness in the area of K-12 education.

Personally, I’m pulling for the House.

First of all, Washington State invested a lot of time, money and effort on National Board Certification as an effective school reform initiative. It’s been growing steadily for the past ten years, to the point where our National Board system is the envy of the nation. National Board Certification is supported by research as an effective way to increase teacher capacity and student learning. It works.

The Governor’s budget suspends both the base pay for NBCTs and the challenging schools bonus. The Senate’s budget retains the bonus, but only for the first three years of certification. The House budget retains the entire bonus system, but moves the next payment from November of this year to July of next year, effectively suspending the bonus for one year. (The Senate budget also does this.)

Looking at the three budgets in regards to the damage they would do to our state’s National Board system, the House has the clear advantage.

Looking at the broader picture, both branches propose eliminating funding for lower K-4 class sizes. Additionally, the House budget would freeze salary step increases next year to save $56 million. The Senate budget has a 3% salary reduction to save $261 million. The Governor’s budget does neither of these and she has also spoken out against the Senate’s salary cut.

 Again, the House budget seems to be a little less harsh on its impact on education. I hope they prevail.

Go House!

By Tom

There are a lot of people who look at the teachers’ salary scale and complain that it unfairly rewards teachers for simply staying on the job. They cite studies showing that after about three years, teaching experience has little impact on student achievement. They notice that 15-year veterans get the highest salaries, regardless of their performance. They can even name names, from their own school or district. These people tend to be younger teachers, and they also aren’t very good at noticing the experienced, competent veterans or the rookies who have no idea how to handle a classroom. They see what they want to see and proclaim the current salary scale unfair, obsolete and bad for students.

These people quite literally have no idea what they’re talking about.

A better way to look at the salary schedule is on an individual basis. Teachers are encouraged to grow professionally and learn from experience. And after about fifteen years, a teacher is expected to reach her peak and stay there for the rest of her career. Teachers may differ in regards to the height of that peak; one teacher may be better after two years than another teacher will ever be, but what matters is that each individual teacher continues to grow. Looking at it this way may make the teacher salary scale more palatable.

It would, however, be another completely inaccurate way to look at it. The idea of gradually giving teachers more money for each year they work was never intended to reflect the quality of their work

Here’s how you should look at it.

Continue reading →

By Tom

Senators Rodney Tom and Joe Zarelli have come up with a new bill, titled the “Excellent Teachers for Every Student Act.“ It also goes by the name SB 5914. It would do six things:

1)     Teachers will be laid off according to their evaluations, regardless of seniority.

2)      Principals in high-needs schools get to decide whether a teacher can be reassigned to their school.

3)       Teachers who don’t “show improvement” in three of their last five years can be fired if their principals determine that their performance is detrimental to student learning.

 4)      NBCTs must be evaluated in the “top tier” within two years of certifying in order to receive their stipend.

5)      Only math, science or special education teachers can get a salary increase by earning more than 45 credits. Furthermore, no teacher gets credit for more than eight years of service in regards to salary increases. The savings harvested from this change will be put into a performance pay system, based on principal evaluations.

6)      Those districts which were allowed to pay teachers over and above the state salary scale will now have to lower their salaries down to the state scale. (The state instituted a state-wide scale a number of years ago in order to give teachers in lower-paying districts a fairer wage. In doing so, they allowed a dozen or so districts to maintain a higher salary scale so that those teachers wouldn’t experience a pay cut.)

My main problem with the “Excellent Teachers for Every Student Act” is the inappropriateness of its name.

Continue reading →

By Tom

Let’s say you go out and buy a fish tank. An aquarium. You bring it home and get it all set up with gravel on the bottom, an air pump with a filter, some plastic plants and a lighted cover. You add the water and let it sit overnight, just like they told you, and then you go back to the pet store to buy some fish.

The guy at the store helps you select compatible species and explains the importance of regularly testing the water. “It has to be the right ph,” he says, “or the fish will get sick and die.” He sells you a test kit, along with some chemicals that you can use to make adjustments.

You know nothing about ph, except for the fact that it has to be just right, which for your particular fish is just slightly acidic: around 6.8.

You take seriously your role as steward of these creatures. They depend on you for survival. Besides that, they were expensive. So you diligently check the ph every three days and make adjustments as needed.

How would you go about this task? Would you employ “tricks” that you think might yield a perfect 6.8? Would you go on line to find out which part of the tank is most likely to perfect, and then use only that place to draw your test water? Would you test the tank just before the fish eat? Or just after, trying to find the time when the water was best?

Would you go so far as to buy a bottle of water that had a ph of 6.8 and use that for all your tests?

I’m guessing you wouldn’t do any of these things, and that you consider gaming your tests in an attempt to get a favorable result counter-productive. The whole point of testing the water is to see whether it’s safe for the fish or if it needs to be adjusted. You’re supposed to use the test results to that end. The results, in and of themselves matter only to the extent that they’re used to ensure that the water in the tank is healthy.

So what are we doing this spring, with standardized testing in full swing? Back in the day, tests were used as a systemic and individual check-point. We wanted accurate information so that we could see which programs, which schools and which students need to be looked at more closely. Objectivity was important. There was no “test-prep industry.” We were asked to test our class under normal conditions. We told them to skip the answers they didn’t know and do their best.

We tested our students in much the same way as any normal person would test the water in a fish tank.

Those days are well behind us. Most of you, like me, have received emails from your district administration, explaining ways in which you can enhance your students’ performance. You’ve had grade level meetings in which you’ve rearranged the math scope and sequence so that the kids get the tested stuff in a timely manner. You’ve received a few boxes of granola bars, donated by the PTA, earmarked for the “test-day nutrition break.” (If food is supposed to enhance performance, where were those snacks when the students were supposed to be learning?) Some of you have gone so far as to bring in gum, capitalizing on the myth that chewing gum increases concentration.

All of this stuff is perfectly harmless. It might be distracting, maybe a little unnecessary, but certainly not unethical.

But then there’s this. It appears that some of the schools in Washington D.C. flat-out cheated. It appears that someone went through student tests, erasing wrong answers and filing them in correctly. Coincidentally, at least one of these schools was the shining star in Michelle Rhee’s school reform campaign. In fact, the principal at that school received $10,000 because of those high test scores. The teachers got $8,000. And some of those people obviously cheated.

It’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t do it. So I’ll say it: I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t taint the results of a set of standardized tests even for $8,000. But you know something? $8,000 is a lot of money. Even for an over-paid public employee. And even though I wouldn’t do it (and you wouldn’t either, right?) it’s clear that someone would.

When we decided to focus on test results instead of education, we started ourselves down this path. This was bound to happen.

Tests are supposed to be used in the process of teaching. They were never supposed to be the product of teaching.

Some of us have forgotten that.

Some of us have never even known it.

By Tom

I agree with Mark. The study on Washington State's National Board incentive program by the Center on Reinventing Public Education is flawed and ill-timed. I have only a couple things to add:

First of all, transferring to a challenging school in the current educational climate isn't much fun. I work in a school with a fairly high poverty rate, but not high enough for me to earn the addition $5,000. If I were to move to the next school over, however, I'd get the five grand. So why don't I? As I described in a recent post, working in a high-poverty school means almost complete focus on raising achievement scores. It means teaching math, reading and little else. And not because that's what those students need, but because that's what those students will be tested on.

If the test was on health and art, they'd be learning health and art all day.

Frankly, teaching a balanced, logical curriculum is worth $5,000 a year to me. Especially when you consider the fact that NCLB and its increasingly harsh penalties on underperforming schools and the people who work there means I'd probably be transferring to a different school before too long.

Furthermore, the CRPE study makes much of the fact that many of the new NBCTs in high-needs schools are "home-grown," as opposed to new transfers. They see this as a bad thing. I attended the original summit meeting in which the whole idea of high-needs stipend was proposed. I clearly remember the assembly concluding that the best way to increase NBCTs in high-poverty schools would be for the current teachers to successfully complete the process. That's because becoming board certified is as much a professional development process as it is an assessment. And it's also because the true experts at working with high-needs students are the teachers who work with high-needs students. Supporting them in their pursuit of National Board certification made perfect sense.

It still does.