By Mark

I strongly believe that civil consideration of all sides of an issue are important for a literate society.

So let's take the Inslee/Dorn joint venture, House Bill 2800, which adds to RCW 28A.405.100 at section 2(f) a passage that begins on line 31 of page 3:

"Beginning with the 2017-18 school year, when relevant to the teacher and subject matter, student growth data elements must include results from federally mandated statewide student assessments."

This language is also inserted elsewhere in the document where it is relevant to define student growth.

Based on what I am reading, I hesitate to boil this issue down to a simple pro v. con. This issue, as are most, is more complicated that our society's convenient dualistic reduction.

Losing the waiver, sending letters, and losing control of $40+ million dollars is a consideration.

Losing control of teacher evaluation in our own state is another.

Forcing teachers' evaluation to include data from questionable assessments is a serious concern; particularly since part of our evaluation in state criteria 3 and 6 is rooted in our capacity as professionals to choose valid "high quality" assessments by which to monitor student progress. (Wouldn't it be ironic if the federal assessments failed to meet the standard for "high quality"?)

Then there's the can kicking factor. The 2017-18 school year is conveniently post-Obama and post-Duncan, and the list of post-names could go on. So this Monday morning after little sleep, I find myself drifting into Tom's rational, logical camp on this one. I need to channel my outrage toward being part of a solution, but for now, I guess I'm "disgruntledly satisfied." Inslee and Dorn's move is wrong, but it's what we have now, and if it passes, which it seems it likely will, we have until 2017-18.

Much can happen between now and 2017-18.

Scratch that: Much must happen between now and 2017-18.