A Small Bit of Advice for the Rob McKenna Campaign

When you go around saying that it's a shame that Washington placed so low in the Race to the Top competition, the statement assumes that Race to the Top was worth winning. When you say Yes to RttT, you're also saying yes to:

--Giving away state control of the curriculum
--Creating a reliance on impermanent federal dollars
--Embracing reform models that are anything but proven to work

If Rob McKenna thinks that Race to the Top is the model to go off of, he's a far distance away from someone we want leading the schools.

Read more here, if any.

Fun With Public Records Requests

I've been curious since the grant application fell apart to know just how much effort Randy Dorn's OSPI put into it. Here's the answer:

Good afternoon, Mr. Grant,

Thank you for contacting the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) with your request for how many hours were spent by OSPI on the Washington State Race to the Top (RTTT) application, and how many different OSPI staff members were involved in the process. Your request has been logged as public records request No.10-0330.
OSPI does not have records on the hours spent on the RTTT application or the number of specific staff assigned to work solely on the application.
OSPI does not track employee’s work by specific projects or tasks, so we are unable to determine the number of staff or hours dedicated to this project.
There were, however, four staff who were considered the "lead team" from the agency, and all of whom had multiple duties during this period, including RTTT work. Again, they did not track their hours.
I hope this information was helpful, and let me know if I can provide further assistance.

Later, I got this follow-up:

In reviewing the agency’s documentation related to the Race To The Top (RITT) application, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has found that one staff member was assigned for a short duration to assist with administrative support for the Race To The Top (RITT) application. We show she worked a total of 37.4 dedicated hours on the project.

Does it seem odd to anyone else that OSPI would know to the tenth of an hour how much time the one staff members spent on the application, but not know how much time the four highly-paid lead people spent?

Read more here, if any.

Mythbusting: We Didn't Win Race to the Top Because We Don't Have Charter Schools

It's everyone's favorite theory of the day!

Randy Dorn:

Dorn said in a telephone interview that he believed Washington was not chosen as a finalist because its application did not include a plan for allowing charter schools in the state.

Josh Feit:

While the education reform bill that passed in Olympia this session did gesture toward some of the Race to the Top goals like giving the state authority to intervene in failing schools; approving of alternative paths to teacher certification; extending teacher tenure from two years to three; and creating a new teacher and principal evaluation systems (like a four-tiered rating system instead of simply good or bad—and lowering the legal standard for getting rid of delinquent principles), it did not radically alter the teacher evaluation system—as Obama wants—by tracking evaluations to student data. Nor did it embrace charter schools, another Obama standard.

The Association of Washington Business:

Washington was not included as a Round 2 Finalist. One of the key reasons is Washington does not allow charter Schools.

The Seattle Times:

The fact that Washington wasn't a finalist didn't come as a surprise. From the beginning, many voiced concerns that Washington wasn't making the kinds of changes that would earn a high score in the competition, given the federal government's criteria.

Washington lost about 40 points off the bat, for example, because it doesn't allow the creation of charter schools.

The Politics Northwest Blog at the Seattle Times:

Washington state on Tuesday failed to advance in the competition for $3.4 billion in education grants under Race to the Top, a performance that could not been helped by voters' rejection of charter schools that are a key -- albeit not mandatory -- part of the Obama administration's reform agenda.

And first out of the gate to lay this at Governor's feet, Liv Finne of the Washington Policy Center. She brings up the charters thing, too.

---

This is all well and good, but how about we ask someone who really knows: The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Finds Eight Race to the Top Finalists Supportive of Charter Schools

Well, that's interesting, since there's 19 finalists. Let's skip ahead in their press release, but I'd encourage you to read the whole thing:

Unfortunately, three finalists fail to meet at least one Race to the Top guideline because they continue to block charter school growth. They are: Kentucky, North Carolina and Ohio. Despite education reform efforts that may exist in these states, they are keeping high-quality charter schools from bringing parents another public school option. Kentucky, in particular, has yet to pass a charter school law.

Three more states with no charter schools, and yet they made it through to round 2. If it killed us, how come it didn't kill them?

Maryland, also a finalist, was shown to have the worst charter school law in the country according to our rankings.

The worst charter school law in the country. The absolute worst. They're a finalist, too.

For more evidence, go look at the detailed scores from the first round of the Race to the Top grants. Remember there that 41 states had applied and only two (Delaware and Tennessee) were awareded the grants. Given that, you'd think from all the sturm und drang above that it must have been the charter school points that set them apart, right?

Not really. Out of 40 points, Delaware scored 31, Tennessee scored 30. 14 states scored higher than both of them. The two places that got perfect scores for charters, Colorado and DC, were only in the middle of the pack for overall score.

We won't really know what impact our lack-of charter schools law had until they release the scores at the beginning of September. I'd suspect it'll probably be a lower score than most, but we don't know what the overall impact of our "innovation schools" gambit will be until then (innovation schools like Aviation High, which Secretary Duncan visited two weeks ago. Given that, and based on the available evidence so far, it's intellectually dishonest to say that charter schools killed Washington State's application.

Read more here, if any.

The Randy Dorn Love Train...

....is steaming full-bore through the comments section of this article at the Seattle Times.

My beef with the national core standards is the loss of local control--these might compare to or even be better than we have now, but will they always?--and the constant changing of the standards dictates a constant changing of the test, which means that you lose the ability to really compare kids, schools, and teachers from year to year.

If we don't get through the Race to the Top first round tomorrow, we will have adopted these standards for *nothing*.

Read more here, if any.

Vindication

A lot of folks have been saying for quite some time that the danger with grabbing onto the federal money represented by Race to the Top is that federal money can go away at a whim.

And now it's looking like $500 million of the next round of Race to the Top is going to be cut out to make money for a jobs bill for teachers. This, after applications were submitted.

There's an analogy to the FMAP health care money that we're desparate to get to cover our budget gap--promised, not delivered, and now we're deep in the pitch.

"We have to make these changes, for the money!" only works when there is, in fact, money.

Read more here, if any.

A Question

If 41 states apply, and only 2 get the grant, is it really worth Washington's time and effort to even try?

Read more here, if any.

A Trend

From the Partnership for Learning website:

At the end of the day, these reforms are needed to ensure all Washington students receive a quality education that prepares them to succeed in college and work, and are worth implementing even if Washington did not win a single Race to the Top dollar.

From the Excellent Schools Now Coalition:

These reforms are needed to ensure all Washington students receive a quality education, and are worth implementing, even if Washington did not win a single Race to the Top dollar.

From the League of "Education" Voters:

Chasing federal money for the money’s sake usually winds up with the state budget going over a cliff. Making the changes we should be making anyway in order to give at least a few districts the chance to do things differently is the right thing. And the time is always right for that.

In the beginning the theme was that we HAD TO DO THIS because of the money and what that could mean in an era of cuts, cuts, and more cuts to the schools. Now that the money isn't adding up to the cost of the changes that the reformers want to make, the shift is to make it not about the money--instead, let's talk about change for the sake of change.

I'll post specific objections to the bill later on, but it's worth noting that the reasoning has changed. The agenda has changed. Why is that?

Read more here, if any.

The Top Washington Education Stories to Watch in 2010 (A WEW Special Edition)

If we were to label the aughts, education wise, I think it would have to be the No Child Left Behind Decade. Education reform took on a tone we've not seen before with the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that new-found emphasis on testing, gaps, and school-level accountability was certainly the defining story.

(Aside: We're sadly left to only imagine what a decade-end Bracey Report would have looked like. Dig him or dislike him, the guy was a hell of a writer.)

This decade for the schools is lining up to be every bit as breakneck as the last was, given that we're starting out with a Secretary of Education in Arne Duncan who has more authority than we've ever seen before and we have a financial crisis hovering over the state budget that has the potential to be absolutely transformative, but quite possibly not in a good way.

Here, then, are my top things to watch in the coming year. Come back next Christmas and give me a grade!

---

#10: Funding Administrative Fiddling While Rome Burns. I get that I'm just about the only person in the state whining about this, but I'll be damned if the principle isn't the most important thing. When we're talking about cutting kids health care and laying off teachers while AT THE SAME TIME funding internships for principals and leadership camps for superintendents, something has gone seriously wrong in our priorities. If you want to know why I'm so cynical about the Governor's budget boo-hooing, there it is in a nutshell.

---

#9: Election 2010. Come the end of the legislative session in March, this is where the action will be.

On the Federal level, Brian Baird stepping aside in the 3rd CD opens up a seat in the House of Representatives, and that has started a stampede. You've got Republican State Sen. Joe Zarelli thinking about it, along with Republican State Representative Richard Debolt and Democratic State Senator Craig Pridemore and a cast of at least 9 others.

It'll be really intersting to see how things shake out, particularly on the GOP side. If Debolt and Zarelli both decided to run (along with Republican State Representative Jaime Hererra, you could have a ton of open seats suddenly appear in Southwest Washington. Zarelli particularly has been the Republican voice on state budget issues for quite some time; losing him wouldn't necessarily be devastating (there's always a replacement to be found), but it would certainly leave a void until the next perosn came along.

Also at the state level you'll have every House seat and half of the Senate seats open this coming November. The general theme seems to be of a Republican resurgence and Democratic downswing, but with the Tea Party Movement saying some fairly provocative things about RINO Republicans, there's potential for some normally-staid primary campaigns to turn bloody--hell, it's already starting with Herrera.

---

#8: College Tuitions--Up! The United Faculty of Washington State run a great blog where they talk about higher education issues; one of the writers, Bill Lyne of Western Washington U, is about as well-informed on education issues as you'll ever hope to find, and a dynamic speaker to boot.

In this post they looked at how the Governor's budget would impact higher education. Put that side-by-each with what's going on in California where students are taking over buildings and forming torch-wielding mobs, which is only OK if Frankenstein's monster is on the loose.

So the trick is that, given the proper legislative authority, the colleges can raise tuition enough to ameliorate the impact of state budget cuts. That cost is then borne by the students, many of whom (particularly at the community college level) are struggling with the mortgage and unemployment problems that are effecting society writ large. Having permission to collect the money isn't the same as having the ability to collect the money, and that's what we're seeing in Cali.

---

#7: The WEA vs. The LEV: I'm not a fan of the League of Education Voters; as an organization, I think they're far more interested in change for change's sake than they are in actual school reform. The debate over HB2261 proved this to my satisfaction; some of their comments this past summer drive the point home even more clearly.

The two groups came together briefly to beat down Tim Eyman's most recent initiative, but I think that the changes required to qualify for the Race to the Top money are going to open a whole new can of worms. Throw the Washington State PTA, Stand for Children, the PSE, and all the other groups into the mix as well, and this'll be a Battle Royale.

---

#6: Financially Failing School Districts: One of the refrains oft-heard this past year was that there were 5 or 6 school district statewide in serious financial straits. If you believe Randy Dorn, that may only get worse. With pension costs set to spike and the future of levy equalization uncertain, I predict that this is the year that you'll see a school district--I'm guessing a mid-size one--drown in its own red ink. And that leads us nicely into.....

#5: School District Consolidation. When the Governor's budget came out I actually breathed a small sigh of relief, because school district consolidation wasn't nearly as promoted as it had been last year. Trick is, I was looking in the wrong place.

The place to look, oddly enough, is in the work of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC), which has on its agenda for this year a "study of the relationship between the cost and size" of school districts around the state. On a per pupil basis, those kinds of evaluations never favor small schools; it's $60,000 a year to educate a kid in Benge, versus an average of $9,700 in districts like Seattle, Kent, Puyallup, and Spokane. I've got Republican legislators telling audiences that the purge is coming; what that will look like has yet to be determined.

---

#4: The Battle Over Levy Equalization. For the districts that I work with here in Eastern Washington, this is the #1 issue with a bullet. For my own local, it's about a $1.4 million dollar impact. Conceivably, that could be 20 teaching positions. 220 of Washington's 295 school districts receive levy equalization money, but the trouble is where those districts are--when the bulk of the state's legislators are in the Seattle metro area, and those districts don't need the LEA funds to get by, I'm not sure they "get it." I think that's why we sometimes see attitudes like this.

(More levy equalization talk here)

---

#3: Randy Dorn on Standards--Does He or Doesn't He? When Randy Dorn went to the State School Directors Association meeting last month and called for yet another delay in our math and science mandates, the press, parents, and politicos all took turns beating him like a rented mule. His proposal to the legislature sounds like it's dead on arrival, but the larger issue isn't going to go away: how can we demand that kids pass a test that is constantly changing, with standards that are as ephemeral as if we had written them with our finger in the sand at the seashore?

---

#2: The Quality Education Council, McAuliffe and Oemig, and HB2261. The QEC was born out of HB2261, which Senators McAuliffe and Oemig have been traveling the state relentlessly pimping for the past 5 months. The final report from the QEC is due in a couple of weeks, and then we'll see if it's worth anything more than Washington Learns or the Basic Ed Finance Task Force were.

The pro-reform crowd will always say that it's never a bad time to do the right thing, but at the end of the day there really isn't any money--if we were still doing priorities of government, could we really justify spending millions of dollars to reform a system that's being beaten senseless by budget cuts? Right now it feels like we're piling the QEC on top of the changes from the State Board of Education and the Race to the Top, and given all that it's no wonder that teachers feel like they're under siege.

---

#1: The Race to the Top. So, how far are we going to go for $150,000,000 and 30 pieces of silver?

In at least one respect Washington is well positioned to cash in on some of Obama's Dash for the Cash--data analysis--but pieces like authorizing charter schools, linking teacher evaluation to student test data, and merit pay are going to be far more problematic. Each of them is going to be its own giant legislative battle, and each is going to expose some fascinating divides within the Democratic party, the school advocacy community, and the legislature writ large.

This is going to be particularly interesting in the run-up to the 2010 election, because these are going to be the kind of votes that many legislators would have much rather taken last year, so they could put some distance between the debate and the upcoming campaign. That could be the poison pill that stalls many of these changes in their tracks, because rushing through a reform is a sure way to get the reform wrong.

Take merit pay. We have models across the nation for how merit pay is being done, but we also have models for how merit pay has fallen apart. The bottom line is that there is no national consensus on what merit pay for teachers should, could, or would look like, and the message that I tend to get from looking at what's been done is that it would be nigh-on impossible to create one system of merit pay that would work for every school in Washington.

Look at TRI Pay, particularly what Dan Grimm wrote in his minority report coming out of the Basic Ed Finance Task Force in 2008. It's perfectly fine to say that it creates an inequitable system, but I'll argue the point until I'm blue in the face that districts NEED that flexibility to meet their needs on the ground. Now expand that out to merit pay--is excellent teaching in Bellevue the same as excellent teaching in Benge? What about our Native American students--is the work that their teachers do fully comparible to the work of teachers in other districts? Or, the extreme example, our juvenile institutions--what would merit look like for them?

And that's only merit pay. Getting everything done that Race to the Top requires by March 11th, the end of the session, will require a ramrod that won't serve the system, the students, or the process. The predictable result is that certain groups will react as their conditioned response dictates, blaming the union and the Governor, while others will again be put on the defensive. Wash, rinse, repeat.

---

But that's not the bottom of the list....

#0: The State Budget Crisis and the Public Schools. It's #0, because we have $0. That's the problem in more ways than one.

I was the lead negotiator the last time our contract with my district was up, and there's an adage that goes like this: if you can't get money, get language. With the schools in line to potentially take a $400 million dollar hit, we're not going to get money. The trouble is the language we might get instead. I think that's a big part of the reason we got stuck with HB2261 last year--the legislature couldn't cough up any money, but they could deliver this 111-page behemoth that made an awful lot of promises about how we would raise and spend money in the future. You can also look at the QEC and see how some timelines are getting moved up; my suspicion is that's mainly to give the appearance of doing something, but that the flailing around to be seen could hurt our schools in the near term.

The budget woes tie everything else together. We're being told that we have to go after Race to the Top money because of the budget crisis. School districts are being pushed to the brink because of the budget crisis. HB2261 and the QEC gain new urgency because of the budget crisis. School district consolidation started getting a fresh look because of the budget crisis. Levy equalization is at risk because of the budget crisis.

By mid-March we'll have a better idea of where we're at, but the reverbations of the budget will echo for a long time to come.

---

Thanks for reading! Please come back as the year goes on for new editions of the Washington Education Week newsletter, as well as the other fun stuff that makes a blog a blog. Happy New Year!

Read more here, if any.

Washington Education Week #3: Thanksgiving Turkeys Edition

The Race to the Top: With the lull between budget announcements and Legislative Assembly Days, most of the blog chatter this past week has been looking at how Washington State measures up in the federal Dash for the Cash Race to the Top grant program. The League of "Education" Voters has done a 6 part series on their blog that's worth your time to read; also with several blog posts that boil down to "Teachers suck, change everything" are the Partnership for Learning, here. And, just to clear out my RSS reader: Publicola.

I'm working on my own posts on each of the impacted areas, but one thing I do have to chuckle at is just how earnest some of the folks on the pro-RttT side are. "We have to allow the state to just take over failing schools!" they'll protest, without seeming to make the connection that we have laws regarding school boards and local control that are every bit as ingrained in the people of this state as dams and snowy mountain passes.

You can get an inkling of the fight if you go and look at the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's School Report Cards. Using their metrics, the worst high schools in the state are in places like Toppenish, Walla Walla, Pasco, Aberdeen, Puyallup, and Coulee City--all represented by Republicans, all places where the community will revolt if you try to send in a bunch of "outsiders" from Olympia to run their schools. "It's for the kids!" needs to be overwhelmingly supported by the evidence to make school takeovers work, and I'm not convinced in the slightest that plan that the State Board of Education has in place gets us where the LEV and SFC want to go.

---

Randy Dorn Cares for Children/Randy Dorn Hates All Children: The reaction to the recent proposal by Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn to delay the math and science graduation requirements is still bringing in a ton of reaction. Dorn tried to get out in front of the storm, and a hell of a storm it is: when papers like the Walla-Walla Union-Bulletin are saying that you "continue to undercut the effort to reform — and improve — education", you've got a publicity problem.

Personally, I think that the best, most sensible reaction came from Cliff Mass, a meteorologist of some note at the University of Washington. Keeping science and math as graduation requirements punishes the kids for the failures of adults to get the system right, whether it's the 20 different iterations of testing that we've had in the last decade or trying to define exactly what standards we want to hold them to. The failure of the kids is also the failure of the system, and right now we certainly don't have the system in place to get them all where we want them to be. This thread from the Center for Strengthening the Teaching Profession is also quite well written and on point. Check out Crosscut as well.

Also not really working in Dorn's favor: President Obama came out this week with a new initiative on expanding STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education. When the Department of Education is saying higher standards, and the President is saying higher standards, it's pretty clear that Dorn is going against the tide.

---

The State Budget: Amber Gunn of the EFF stirred up a hornet's nest over on Crosscut when she echoed Sen. Zarelli's call for a special session to start cutting into the state budget right now. You've got some elected officials in the thread saying pretty incendiary things, and that's always fun!

(Personal aside: You don't hear anyone from any of the professional school organizations talking about a special session, because in a special session there's absolutely nothing good that could happen for schools.)

Publicola has a link to a video that Governor Gregoire put out talking about just how bad things are; consider it the anesthesia before the emergency appendectomy come January. The Capital Record also has the video and some pull-out quotes, here.

---

"Merit" Pay in Action, and Inaction: The Superintendent of the Seattle Public Schools, Maria Goodloe-Johnson, met 4 of her 20 performance goals last year. That's a bad batting average, a really bad spelling test, and not exactly anything to write home about on the job.

That's also $5,280 more in her pocket, according to the Seattle Times.

The way that Goodloe-Johnson's contract is strucutred she can earn up to 10% on top of her base salary for meeting her 20 goals; that means that each goal met is worth $1,320. Under the goose/gander school of thought, if the state designed a plan to allow every teacher to earn up to 10% of their salary in incentives, the legislature would have to allocate about another $250,000,000 just to cover the costs.

---

Other bits of note from the week:

• Joanne Jacobs on Why Arts Education Isn't a Luxury. The half-time art teacher in my district already knows that she's at risk of getting cut in the budget crunch to come; hopefully, I can use this to help mount a good defense.
  
  
• I love this and want to marry it.
  
  
• The United Faculty of Washington State has put together a great blog on higher education issues here in Washington; you can check it out here.
  
  
• People are flocking to community colleges, which isn't a surprise given high unemployment and a down economy.
  
  
• This commentary on what happens when school levies fail is important, particularly given the current state budget realities.
  
  
• When the teachers take over the schools.

Read more here, if any.

There Is No Free Money

Good article in the Spokesman Review today (link to come when I can find one) about Idaho's application for Race to the Top. Money quotes:

The grant application is due Jan. 19, and Idaho's proposal will include a plan to lift the cap on charter schools and pay teachers based on performance. These are both types of education reform Idaho public schools chief Tom Luna supports but has not been able to get approval for in the past.

"Many of the things called for in the grant are things we've been working on for some time," Luna said. "With this money we'll just be able to get it done sooner."

------------

The union, however, does have concerns about what happens when the grant funding runs out, Wood said, adding that she is skeptical Idaho lawmakers will be willing to pick up the tab for a pay-for-performance plan when that happens.

As a wise man (not Tom Luna) once said, "Duh."

This is one time money. It's going to go away. Any state that pushed through a merit pay plan solely for the purpose of getting this money would be a state run by idiots, because they're going to have to pay every last cent the bill themselves as soon as the RtT cash is used up.

And let's say you use some of this one-time money to pay for the work that needs to be done to make these systemic changes--any money spent is that much less money you have to run the new programs going forward.

In three years, there's going to be a lot of states looking back on 2009 and 2010 and wondering what the hell they were thinking.

Read more here, if any.

What is National Board Certification, Anyhow?

Education expert Liv Finne doesn't really seem to know what National Board Certification is:

The Seattle Times article also reveals that, in order to qualify for these funds, the state will be attempting to describe its National Board Certification for teachers as a performance pay system. This program does not involve evaluating the individual performance of teachers for their effectiveness in the classroom. Rather, National Board Certification gives bonuses to teachers willing to take another set of classes and/or willing to work in inner-city classrooms.

"Gives bonuses to teachers willing to take another set of classes" is a real slap at the work that National Board Certified teachers have to do to get the certificate. It's not the Masters degree, Liv, it's something far beyond that. I talk pretty regularly with the teachers in my district who have gotten their certification and who are working towards it, and it's not an easy thing.

I'll be interested to see where the state's gambit on this goes, though. Remember that the HB2261, the big education reform bill from the last session, created a new definition of a master teacher that requires attaining National Certification to get to the top of the pay scale, an action that predates all of the clamor around Race to the Top, so the state could be slightly ahead of the curve.

Remember, too, that in his remarks to the NEA Representative Assembly earlier this year Secretary of Education Arne Duncan spoke highly of both the National Board program:

We also increased the number of National Board Certified teachers in Chicago to about 1,200—from about a dozen when I started. We partnered with the union and with the Chicago Public Education Fund, which is a group of business leaders. Together we grew NBC teachers faster than anywhere else in the nation.

....but he also indicated that collaboration matters:

The president and I have both said repeatedly that we are not going to impose reform but rather work with teachers, principals, and unions to find what works.

Here in Washington State you've got a system where the teachers and the WEA are working very strongly together on promoting and expanding National Certification in Washington State. If Secretary Duncan believes in the program, and if he wants to encourage that collaboration, why not have what we do count towards Race to the Top?

Read more here, if any.

Liv Finne Goes Looking for a Boogeyman, Finds the Same One She Always Does, Life Goes On

Liv, dear, if WEA President Mary Lindquist could ashcan the whole Race to the Top nonsense just by making one comment on TV Washington, then either the process itself is built on a foundation of quicksand, or we're not going to get the money and people (like, say, Liv Finne) are already looking to get the scapegoat lined up.

Liv's one of those happy hypocrites who I can't understand, the ones who'll pound the table saying that schools are amply funded, and then talk out the other side of their mouth about how we need to make wholesale changes so that we can please maybe get some of Obama's Dash to the Cash money. Note that money isn't guaranteed, and it isn't forever, but in Liv's world we need to start writing laws all the same.

Read more here, if any.

Yay, Face the Nation!

So yesterday I complained that big media seemed to be ignoring everything that was going on in education besides swine flu and Obama's speech.

Today brings a nice, long Arne Duncan interview on Face the Nation that covered Race to the Top, Merit Pay, Charter Schools, and everything else I would have asked for.

It's worth watching!

Read more here, if any.