Although my father was a successful city manager for over twenty-five years, he was not perfect. At one point, the city needed to replace several police cruisers. Looking to save some cash, he decided to buy and convert some used Checker Cabs from a large city on the east coast. When his police force heard about the idea, they were alarmed. Not only did they not want to be seen driving around in used taxis, they were convinced that the cars were top-heavy and would tip over. A stubborn man, my father proceeded with the purchase, ignoring the very people charged with implementing his ill-conceived plan. Sure enough, within two months, each of the cars had rolled over in the line of duty. No one was hurt, thank God, but my father learned an important lesson: when you develop a new program or idea, you need to involve the people who will actually be implementing it. Otherwise it’s doomed.

People, including cops, don’t like change unless they’re involved with the process; especially when the change comes from someone who doesn’t have a first-hand understanding of its implications.

My father learned that the hard way.

I was reminded of this story after spending a week working with a bunch of teachers in the Washington DC area. Compared to what I’m used to in the Seattle area, these teachers are demoralized, disenfranchised and de-professionalized. And these were National Board candidates, who tend to be among the most optimistic, the most enfranchised and the most professional. Teacher after teacher told about ill-conceived policy after ill-conceived policy coming from the top down, with one administrator after another telling them how they should handle the very real problems facing the region. And not once were they ever consulted.

Washington State, by and large, places much more value on teacher leadership and teacher involvement. Teachers sit on committees, make important decisions and are much more in charge of their own professional development. We don’t always agree with the outcome, but we at least feel we’ve been a part of the process. Consequently, we’re more supportive of our educational policy and less inclined to participate in “passive sabotage.”

Much will be made of Washington State’s failure to make the list of finalists in round two of the Obama Administration’s Race to the Top sweepstakes. In drafting the legislative package that preceded our application, state leaders decided to choose consensus over bold reforms. They decided to adopt reforms that most school districts, as well as the WEA, would support, instead of a package that included such things as charter schools and test-score merit pay.

Good for them. They listened to the people who have to actually implement their policies. Teachers and school-level administrators know about charter schools. They know how they can quickly become unsustainable burn-out factories that fail to deliver on their promise to show non-charter schools new and promising pedagogy. They know what happens to the overall mission of a school when an unreasonable amount of emphasis is placed on standardized test scores. That is, test scores for test scores’ sake, not as an indication of real student learning.

So we lost out on some much-needed money. That happens. I honestly believe that we’re better off making due with a little less cash than having the money to spend on policies that those of us in the field don’t really support.

Sour grapes? Maybe. Tippy police cars? Definitely.