Category Archives: Education Policy

Teach to Lead: The Hidden Work We Do

Posted by on
Current Affairs, Education Policy, Teacher Leadership

This weekend in SeaTac, educators from nearly twenty states assembled for the Washington Teach To Lead Summit. Teams brought leadership ideas in various stages of incubation, and staff from ED facilitated a guided thinking and planning process to help take abstraction and organize it into more refined, defined, actionable planning.

One thing became clear very quickly: teacher leadership is messy, complicated work that often is the hidden engine driving meaningful change.

My role here has been to be a presenter and a “critical friend” for a team to assist in their thinking and project development. I had the incredible privilege of working with a team from here in Washington state as they tackle a unique but important struggle around which they want to leverage teacher leadership.

The kids and community around Marysville, Washington suffered tremendous trauma with the violence of almost a year ago. One school in particular realized that traumas such as this, as well as the often hidden and cyclical traumas that often occur in children’s lives, have a direct impact on students’ ability to succeed in school. A team from Quil Ceda Tulalip Elementary came to the Teach to Lead Summit to help refine their project, which aims to proactively equip these young students with knowledge, skills, and strategies to handle the complex emotions that come with traumas, whether connected to the recent shared community trauma or the private struggles that happen at home. These educators know that test scores, too often The Measure of school effectiveness, only tell a tiny chapter of the story: these educators know that in order for academic achievement data to show growth, a child needs to be in the physical and emotional place to even learn in the first place.

Continue reading →

Yes, Recess Does Matter

Posted by on
Current Affairs, Education Policy, Elementary

As Seattle teachers are engaged in their first strike since the 1980s, one sticking point has been the amount of time the district wants devoted to recess (hint: it’s less, not more).

If you make the mistake that I’ve made and scrolled down to read the “comments” under some of the new reporting of the strike, you’ll see the typical union- and teacher-bashing, and of course, an utter lack of civil discourse or respect for divergent points of view. You’ll also see that a few commenters hone in on the idea of recess: some brand it as an add-on the union penciled in to maintain the guise that they “care about kids,” while others agree that recess is but frivolous play time…a lost opportunity to force more learnin’ into ’em.

Spend a morning in a typical elementary classroom and you’ll start to understand that recess is far from frivolous play time. If the quivering energy of a roomful of seven-year-olds could be bottled and sold, we’d never need to drill a drop of oil again.

Yet, the “play time” that recess provides is not just about getting energy out so that the kids can focus. It’s also not just about granting the teacher the rare opportunity to sit down, return parent phone calls or emails, or (if they’re bold enough) sprint to the restroom.

Continue reading →

Charter Schools are Unconstitutional

Posted by on
Current Affairs, Education Policy, Parent Involvment

AR_Const_1878_p001By Tom White

It’s been quite a week in the world of Washington Education policy. We’ve got teacher strikes going on in Pasco and Whidbey Island, with another one looming in Seattle. Meanwhile, the State Supreme just ruled that Charter Schools are unconstitutional, three years after voters approved them, one year after the first one opened, and two weeks after eight new ones opened across the state.

The timing obviously could have been more convenient, at least for the families who are attending those charter schools. On the other hand, the court may have timed it just right, picking Labor Day weekend to send a subtle message to charter school supporters.

I have never worked in a charter school, nor will I. However, about five years ago I was part of a group that spent a week looking very closely at a handful of charter schools in and around The Bronx. I was the only teacher in the group, and as we toured each school, the others marveled at how “high-performing” everything seemed to be. And they were. Kids were working hard, adults were working really hard and test scores were great.

But there was also a sense that things were fraying around the edges. Teachers were working from 7 AM until 5 or 6 PM, and were on-call for homework assistance until 9 or 10 PM. Sick leave consisted of having your colleagues cover your classes. They worked most Saturdays, in addition to a three-week “Boot Camp” in the summer. I asked one teacher if she was planning to have a family while working in her school and she just laughed; “I don’t even have time to take care of a cat!” Worst of all, there was absolutely no job security. It was entirely up to the principal whether you returned next year.

The time and effort that these teachers put in was simply unsustainable. Consequently, the turnover rate was around fifty percent per year. In other words, these charter schools were a union waiting to happen.

But that’s the whole point of charter schools.  They’re supposed to be public schools that operate outside the jurisdiction of school districts. Which really means outside the constraints of teacher unions, since most school districts would be more than happy to have their teachers putting in the same time and energy as charter school teachers.

The State Supreme Court ruled that charter schools are unconstitutional because they aren’t “common schools.” They take public funds, yet aren’t run by elected officials. The Court obviously realizes that if they were run by elected officials (the local school board) they would become district schools and subject to the collective bargaining agreement between the district and its corresponding education association.

In other words, charter schools, which essentially operate by exploiting the talent and effort of their teachers, are not constitutional.

I’m not sure what happens next. But if I had a kid in one of those schools, I’d be studying my options.

Hiring a Teacher

Posted by on
Education, Education Policy, Elementary

Concept illustration of hiring the best candidate. The graphic shows company making a choice of the person with right skills for the job among many candidates

By Tom White

Last week I was involved with the screening, interviewing and hiring of a new teacher in our building. It was an involved process, consuming most of three days. Along the way, I learned a few things about our profession.

First of all, accurate, unbiased information about candidates is hard to come by. We basically used four sources of information during the screening process: work history, letters of recommendation, confidential reference forms and answers to five teaching-related questions. Work history is useful in determining whether or not the candidate is experienced at the given grade level, which is important. Letters of recommendation were strange; in fact, after a while they all seemed to say the same thing. At some point it occurred to me that these were letters written by close associates or colleagues on behalf of someone who assumes the writer has something positive to say about them. Which is exactly what they are. Since they all say essentially the same thing, they aren’t very useful in screening applicants. More useful are the confidential references. In fact, a surprising number of references were written by the same authors of the letters of recommendation. And a surprising number of them were completely contradictory. Suffice to say that reference forms were more useful than the letters. And then there were the answers to those questions. They were useful in weeding out those applicants who either weren’t paying attention during their college courses or haven’t figured out how to use Google.

At the end of the day, we relied mostly on experience and confidential references.

The second thing I learned was that we as a system have long ways to go in terms of bringing diversity to the profession. My school is extremely diverse; whites account for about 40% of student population and a sizable amount of that 40% comes from Eastern Europe. Yet every single interview candidate was a middle-aged white woman. I’m not sure how to change the situation. Do we need to attract more diversity into teaching programs? Colleges in general? Who knows. But I do now this: we aren’t going to address the diversity issue during the hiring process. At that point, the hiring team simply needs to select the best teacher available.

Finally, I learned that when it comes to getting a teaching job, it doesn’t matter where you went to college. Actually it does, but not in the way most people think. I’ve only worked in education, but I’m under the impression that in many fields, going to a prestigious college results in a head start in your career. But I’m not sure we even checked the names of the colleges these people attended. Most of them, I assume, did what most of us did, attending the best state college they could afford. There were a few, however, who were able to highlight the fact that they worked with a diverse population while student teaching. That’s important, especially at a school like mine. If I were to offer advice to anyone looking for a teaching college, I would suggest finding a solid school located in an inner city; someplace like Cal State Dominguez Hills, for example. It’s a great little school located just south of Compton. Teachers coming out of that school are pretty well prepared to teach anywhere.

Hiring that teacher was a lot of work. Important work. But we pulled it off. We ended up hiring an awesome teacher who’ll be working right next door to me.

What a School Could Do with $100,000 a Day…

Posted by on
Current Affairs, Education Policy, Games

Before morning recess on day two, the salaries and benefits for two experienced full-time teachers would be fully funded for the whole year.

That was my first thought when I read that the Washington State Supreme Court is fining the State of Washington $100,000 a day for failing to establish an acceptable plan to meet the 2018 deadline for fully funding schools. (Actual Court Order here.)

Since I’m in a financial position where a mere speeding ticket could put my family over the edge (and thus is enough motivation for me to ease up on the lead foot), the idea of a fine of $100,000 per day seems like it ought to inspire action. But will it? Continue reading →

The scale is not in balance

Posted by on
Education, Education Policy

The 2015-2016 school year marks my sixteenth year as a professional educator.  I’ve worked in Washington for thirteen years.  One of the draws that brought me to this state was the state salary allocation model (SAM).  As strange as that sounds, it’s absolutely true.  I taught in Illinois for three years at the second largest school district in the state.  My husband, a music teacher, taught for a company that brought in outsourced band/orchestra teachers to schools that couldn’t afford to hire their own music teacher.  We both became acutely aware of the disparity between the districts where we worked.  Because salary models are all locally negotiated and district funds are based on property taxes, property rich communities could afford to pay their teachers two to three times more than property poor districts.  The district that I worked in encompassed property rich and property poor communities, but the neighboring district housed multiple corporations and could afford to pay their teachers twice as much as the district where I worked. Districts could compete for teachers using salary as incentive.  As a result, my district saw a great deal of turnover; teachers, including one of my closest friends, became experienced in the low paying district and then moved to the higher paying districts when they had a few years under their belt. Although there were some veterans in my department, teachers who served as excellent stewards of pedagogy and their content, I was often asked when I was going to leave to move on for more pay at a neighboring district.  This mindset frustrated me.  When my district was $52,000,000 (yes, you’re reading that correctly) in the red, the solution was to cut teachers and I, like the other 1700 first, second, and third year teachers were RIFed (reduction in force).  Although I was offered my position back, I turned it down, looking to find employment in a state that created more equity.  So in the end, I left, too.

So for thirteen years, I’ve been in Washington and I don’t regret the decision to move, whatsoever.  However, I have stopped looking at the world of educational funding through rose colored glasses.  Equity doesn’t really exist, but there are attempts at it and the SAM is one attempt.  Negotiated TRI (Time, Responsibility, Incentive) pay and dollars for professional development and technology resources differ from district to district.  My husband teaches in a large district which can afford to offer TRI pay and substantial extra curricular contracts.  Some districts levy at higher percentages and others receive levy equalization.  There are districts that foot the entire cost of National Board Certification (my district is one of those) and others provide a free cohort (my district also does this).  So, back to my point—equity doesn’t really exist.  But our SAM does provide a foundation for our teachers. That foundation is solid. But maybe our state needs to reconsider adjusting the foundation a bit.

This legislative session has been noteworthy for several reasons.  Teachers have asked for the reinstatement of our COLA (cost of living allowance) and for pay increases.  While the legislators voted themselves a substantial pay raise, teachers received a 1.8% increase in pay and a 3% COLA for two years.  Does that make up for the 1.9% loss from a few years ago?  Frankly, I’m not so sure that I’m coming out ahead all that much, if at all.  Recent discussion as to whether the legislature will see the contempt charge dropped, also has me concerned.  I worry that the lawmakers will find victory and we won’t see increased dollars in our SAM or in a future COLA.   I’m disappointed.

But the SAM isn’t perfect and it doesn’t recognize veteran teachers who are continuing to improve their education.  Reality hit me about two weeks ago.  I’m on year sixteen and I’m almost at an MA+90.  I’ve officially topped out on the salary model.  I know that I should be thankful that I’ve got that extra degree plus additional credits.  Believe me, I am thankful.  I worked hard for the MA (Master of Arts) in History with a 135 page thesis to prove it.  On the other hand, I’m still working to get more education.  I’m really digging educational technology and I’ve attended several technology courses and once I hit that 90 credits mark (which is going to be in the next month) I don’t have anywhere else to go in order to earn more money.  I suppose I could coach a sport or advise a club to make more money.  I could do additional work outside of school, too.  But frankly, I wonder, why does the legislature stop providing pay increases once you hit 16 years of teaching?  Shouldn’t we want to keep veteran teachers teaching?  I keep reading articles from EdWeek and the Washington Post talking about a teacher shortage and problems with retention rates.  Maybe the place to start is at the logical first step—salary.  Let’s start recognizing veteran teachers and rewarding them for being leaders in their field.  I look at that salary schedule and feel stagnated in my income.  I wonder where my potential for income growth is at this point. What are my viable options?  I won’t avoid the cliché—I don’t teach for the income, I teach for the outcome.  However, the income does have to provide for my continuing education, mortgage, and my children’s college education.   While we could argue the merit system when it comes to teacher’s salaries and raises, under our current model, I have no where to go if I’d like to increase my income.  I’m 37 years old and I’ve topped out on the SAM.  I believe that I have the skills, the heart, the grit, and the knowledge to stay in the classroom for the next 20 years, but can I afford it?

Sadly,  I know other veteran teachers feel the same way.  Attrition in the field is on the rise.  There are myriad reasons for this and pay is a factor.  We’ve worked hard to advance our own education.  We’ve adapted, adjusted, and watched the pendulum swing in our field and we’re still in the classroom, demonstrating our grit because we love students and we want them to succeed.  But that success doesn’t always help to put dinner on the table or pay for our kids to take piano lessons.  In a field where the pressure to perform is already so high and the spotlight is always on, it might be good for state legislators to consider recognizing and rewarding the teachers who’ve decided to remain in the classroom to work with students.

 

How Will the NCLB Affect the Common Core?

Posted by on
Assessment, Education Policy

ccss2By Tom White

The big news out of Washington DC is the long-delayed rewrite of the odious NCLB bill. The House and Senate have both passed their versions, which means it’s now time for them to reconcile and send something to the president. Either bill will dramatically change the Federal Government’s role in education policy in terms of accountability and testing. But what I’m most concerned with is the status of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), since both bills prohibit the Federal Government from imposing or even encouraging states to adopt the CCSS.

This represents a sea change. Continue reading →

Washington 2015-17 Budget: The Good, the Bad, and the Disappointing

Posted by on
Current Affairs, Education Policy

8180-Olympia-Beer-Posters_largeBy Tom White

It looks like the lawmakers in Olympia have finally passed a budget. This came after a third special session, and it’s still not completely clear that they’re finished, since they haven’t decided how to handle the fact that they aren’t fully funding Initiative 1351. But let’s look at it anyway.

First the good: the budget spends an additional $47 million on Early Learning. Actually, I don’t even consider that “spending.” I call it investing. Whenever I visit my kindergarten-teacher friend (she keeps chocolate in her closet) she points out exactly which kids went to a decent preschool. They’re the ones who read and do math. The others are still learning their letters and numbers. Not surprisingly, when I get them as fourth graders, the differences are still apparent. Spending on early learning is incredibly important, and it pays off. Continue reading →

For English Language Learners, Intentional Collaboration is Key

Posted by on
Education, Education Policy, Elementary, Life in the Classroom, Literacy, Professional Development, Teacher Leadership

Tamar Krames

Guest blogger Tamar Krames is a NBCT in English as a New Language, a certified GLAD trainer, and an ELL instructional coach currently working with OSPI. Prior to her work at OSPI, Tamar worked as a district GLAD trainer and coach, taught ELL classes and co-taught sheltered ELL content classes. 

I recently sat at a table in a windowless conference room with a 3rd grade team of teachers. As you might expect, the table was covered with grade-level ELA curriculum materials, open laptops, and copies of Common Core Standards. Far less common were the open and highlighted English Language Proficiency Standards (ELP), Tier 2 vocabulary lists, and the laminated pictures piled on the table. Two teachers were pulling up engaging image files related to an upcoming unit on their personal tablets and one was searching her phone for affixes and Latin roots to support their vocabulary mini-lesson. While the driving force of the co-planning session was ELA content and standards, addressing the profound language needs of their dynamic students was inspired. This is it, I thought, this is what best practice for ELLs looks like. These teachers were clearly committed to their craft and to their multilingual students. But what made that collaborative moment so powerful was the shared focus of the whole building to best meet the needs of their particular student body. The teachers had common understanding of second language acquisition and ELP standards because a team of teachers had requested ELL training for the whole staff. The planning session had the full support of the building’s leadership. Collaboration was not happening on the fly. It was intentional and deliberately supported.

As a traveling ELL instructional coach, I visit diverse school communities across WA State. The geographic context and demographic mix varies greatly. One school community is comprised of Spanish-speaking migrant families living in a small town surrounded by orchards and mountains. Another school has no clear ethnic majority, the students speaking 15 different languages in one urban classroom. Regardless of setting, I walk into my first building visits with one central question; What might best practice for ELLs look like in this unique school community? I ask this question to school leadership right off the bat.

More often than not, the answer to this question disappoints me. Consistently the first answer points to a single focal point. “ We are so lucky to have a wonderful ELL teacher named A” or “ We just purchased this amazing online language program called B”, or “ our ELL Para has attended a training called C!”. Clearly this singular view of best practice begs the question – What happens when A, B, or C leaves the building?

As far as I can tell, there is no right answer to this question of best practice for ELLs. The learning needs of multilingual students are complex and always changing. A linguistics professor once said to my class, “ if you remember one thing about second language acquisition, remember this – language acquisition is without fail developmental”. For teachers this means that the ELLs support structures (scaffolding) must change and flex as their students’ English proficiency and content mastery develops. On top of that, the rate at which ELLs develop proficiency and mastery varies drastically in relation to a seemingly endless set of factors (literacy in first language, status of first language in the dominant culture, educational background, poverty, learning disabilities, access to quality instruction…)

If you need further proof of the complex and ever-changing learning needs of ELLs, try navigating though the English Language Proficiency (ELP) standards (An amazingly thorough matrix that outlines language development by grade level in relation to common core standards). Best practice for ELLs is truly a moving target as students trudge through the stages of second language development and academic literacy at their own unique pace.

More than a “right” answer to this question of best practice for ELLs, what I hope to hear is a plural answer that points to shared ownership instead of pointing towards one program or person. Whatever the site-based vision for ELL support entails, it must involve intentional and ongoing collaborative structures. Collaborative structure is different from collaboration as it is proactive and systematic – it implies a deeper commitment than amazing content teacher, X, that collaborates with one-of-a-kind ELL specialist, Y. Intentional collaborative structures answer questions such as, How and when do counselors, administrators, content teachers and ELL specialists work together to best schedule ELLs according to their developing proficiency level? How and when do content teachers investigate and integrate ELP standards into their grade-level planning? If the ELL specialist is ‘pushing in’ to core instruction – how and when do teachers learn about, experiment with, and reflect on co-teaching models?

Ultimately, the goal of any ELL program model is to expedite the academic English language/ literacy development of multilingual students so that they can meet grade-level standards and breeze through any gatekeepers they encounter on their path towards earning a diploma. Supporting ELLs through the K-12 system is not about finding the right teacher, program, or PD session. It is about shared ownership and commitment to refining best-practice, uniquely designed for each community, together.

TamarArt

The above drawing is an original piece done by Tamar Krames.

School Improvement?

Posted by on
Assessment, Current Affairs, Education Policy

We’re in that “waiting season” where we know the tests have been taken, but we don’t yet know what the outcomes will be. For my high school, because of a high SBAC refusal/non-participation rate, and if my reading of this somewhat convoluted document is correct, it looks like we are going to end up in Step Three of Improvement next year, despite passing rates that in the past have not only exceeded the state average but which in many cases are high enough as to be legally suppressed by privacy laws (it’d be too easy to identify the small proportion of students who didn’t pass).

Step Three of Improvement means additional professional development for teachers, offering our patrons public school choice, offering supplemental education services, and also a plan for corrective action which includes moves to “replace specific school staff, change curricula and provide professional development, decrease management authority, consult with an outside expert on your school improvement plan, and extend the school day or year” (source). Like so much around the alphabet soup of state- and national-level assessments, I’m confused by it all, and I sincerely hope that some reader who understands it better than I do will raise a red flag and point out where I’ve misunderstood this all.

Does my school have room to improve? Absolutely. Every school does.

Is the state test and SBAC participation data the data that will best inform what we need to improve upon?

Nope.