Report: Majority Support Charter Schools

This Washington   February 23, 2012  Erica C. Barnett

A new survey commissioned by the Washington Policy Center concludes that a majority of state residents—60 percent—say they support allowing charter schools in Washington State.
Obviously, that conclusion comes with a few caveats. The WPC is a very conservative think tank—they oppose bike lanes, regulations on business, and taxes—and previous polls by the group have been almost comically skewed to produce the desired results. (A poll on transportation taxes, for example, incorporated the priority of “reducing congestion” into every single question, asking respondents, for example, if they thought reducing congestion was important).
Their education analyst, Liv Finne, has a blog where she frequently argues in favor of charter schools. And some of the language in the questions below could be viewed as favorable to charter schools (“tuition free schools that take all students,” for example). Countering that last point, though, is the fact that Washington State voters have voted on charter schools (and rejected them) three times, so they’re fairly well informed on what charter schools are.
With those caveats in mind, here are the exact questions and the results; make of them what you will.
41 states & the District of Columbia have charter public schools, independent community- based schools that are tuition-free and take all students…Currently, state law bans such schools in Washington. After hearing this, would you support or oppose changing state law so charter public schools could be opened in Washington State?

Support 60 percent
Oppose 25 percent
Don’t Know 15 percent

Would you support or oppose allowing charter public schools to open in urban neighborhoods where state officials report traditional schools are failing to adequately educate low-income and minority children?

Support 64 percent
Oppose 22 percent
Don’t Know 14 percent

A few other things that probably skew the poll in favor of charter schools: Older people, who tend to be more conservative, are overrepresented, with 60 percent of the respondents over 55. Seattle voters, who tend to be more liberal, are underrepresented, at just 9 percent of state residents surveyed.

Democrat Hanauer: On Education, "McKenna Is On the Right Track, We Are Not"

Major Democratic Party donor and education reform advocate Nick Hanauer has responded to Washington Education Association president Mary Lindquist. Lindquist wrote an open letter to PubliCola yesterdaycriticizing Hanauer for denouncing the Democrats’ position on ed reform and announcing that he planned to meet with Republican gubernatorial candidate Rob McKenna.

Here’s Hanauer’s response to teachers’ union president Lindquist.

Dear Mary,

Thank you for your recent open letter to me and PubliCola. It will not surprise you to hear that I disagreed with some of it.

As a lifelong Democrat and committed progressive, I too believe that McKenna’s reflexive Republican positions on social issues, taxation, and the role of government are deeply misguided.

But if McKenna and Republicans are wrong in some areas, it hardly excuses us Democrats from being wrong on school reform. Here at least, McKenna is on the right track, and we are not.

Looking at the student achievement data, it’s absurd to assert that our public school system in Washington is sufficiently innovative or accountable. We may be headed in the right direction, but we aren’t in the right lane.

Other states that have aggressively tackled education reform are closing their achievement gaps. Meanwhile, while we resist meaningful accountability and innovation, our achievement gaps are widening.

It is my belief that the vast majority of Washington’s teachers care deeply about student outcomes, work incredibly hard, and are constantly working to improve their instructional practices. It is not classroom teachers who are afraid of change and innovation—it is their union.

I am not a teacher and would not presume to tell you how to teach. But in my experience as a business leader and entrepreneur, I have observed that all high-performance organizations share elements that are largely missing from our State’s public education system: relentlessly high standards, a culture of excellence, and a systemic commitment to innovation.

We have many great schools and excellent teachers in Washington. But we lack a coherent system that consistently delivers a high-quality education for all of our students—particularly our low-income students and students of color. As a result, signs of excellence are temporary: a consequence of the heroic efforts of individuals rather than the inevitable outcome of an organization built to deliver excellence all the time.

Great organizations recognize and encourage excellence. Those who are either unable or unwilling to do their jobs well are moved out quickly and are replaced by those who do. The alternative is a culture in which outstanding performance is resented or even discouraged, mediocrity is accepted, and low performance is tolerated.

Our educational strategies are fragmented. Our state lurches towards high standards, and then we have to fight back efforts to water them down. Case in point: The WEA supported a bill this session that would have weakened our high school graduation requirements.

No organism or entity can long survive if it cannot adapt to changing circumstances and challenges. Indeed, the hallmark of high performing organizations is a culture where innovation isn’t just tolerated; it is required and rewarded. And any organization that is not constantly changing is dying.

Our schools are the antithesis of this. Where innovation is found, it is the result of heroism, not organizational intent. Where change happens, it is slow if at all, and is fought at every turn, usually by the teacher’s union.

The WEA can usually be counted on to resist change in most forms. Your organization has consistently defended the absurd “Last In First Out” seniority-based layoff policies. The WEA has resisted a requirement that student growth data be used in evaluations. The WEA has resisted including teacher evaluations in management decisions.

Thanks to leadership from Gov. Chris Gregoire, these provisions (that you fought two years ago when we submitted our Race to the Top application) have just been handed to you in the form of SB 5895. In testimony opposing this bill on Feb. 16th, the president of the Seattle Education Association said that students are not equipped to give feedback about teachers because some of them carry guns.

As I write, the new Seattle School Board—which WEA money championed—appears to be in the process of terminating the contract with Teach For America, a nationally acclaimed program that brings a very diverse group of the nation’s most talented college graduates to teach in low performing schools. This sort of behavior is irrational, self-destructive, and it undermines the cause that unions work to further.

12,000 students attend our South Seattle public schools. Where is the outrage about this state of affairs?

•4 out of 10 South Seattle 3rd graders meet reading standards

•2 out of 10 South Seattle black 4th graders meet math standards

•1 out 10 South Seattle black 5th graders meet science standards

•60% of South Seattle’s high school graduates need remediation when they get to community college.

Where standards are high, instruction is consistently great, and the supports are in place, poor kids are fully capable of achieving at high levels. We as a community bear responsibility for our under-performing schools: not only the parents and educators but also the politicians who create the laws that govern how we educate our children. And since in Washington State the majority of those politicians are Democrats, as a Democrat I think it is time for self-reflection. These abysmal results are difficult to frame in any other way other than abject failure. Defending the status quo that produced that failure is shameful.

This is really a moment of truth for education reform among progressives. Public schools are generally the most sustained, intimate experience people have of government, and that experience is way too often poisoned: not by teachers, but by the bureaucracy placed on educators.

Charter Schools

Public charter schools are yet another tool at our disposal for innovation and a way to put pressure on the larger institution to adapt and change. If we had real innovation in our public schools, then there might not be the need and demand for charter schools that exists today.

Business people have long had a name for this: “competing with yourself.” The best organizations do it because they know if they don’t, others will. Public charter schools are one way of doing that.

Public charter schools are not a panacea for fixing public education. But the good charter schools are successfully closing achievement gaps because that is what they are designed to do. These charter schools provide proof points that very poor kids can indeed achieve at extremely high levels. And they are enormously popular with parents.

And while it is true that many charter schools do not deliver better results than comparable public schools, it is also true that high quality charter schools run by experienced and excellent operators, like KIPP, kick the crap out of chronically low performing public schools.

It is also a fact that no urban district in the USA has closed its achievement gaps without public charter schools. Our state’s Democratic party leaders missed the memo that President Barack Obama, President Bill Clinton, the national Democratic party platform, the NEA, and the AFT all support charter schools.

You point out, correctly, that Washington voters have turned down charter schools three times. But please be honest and admit that the WEA spent massive amounts of money and organizing capital to secure these electoral defeats. In fact, in 2004 the Democratically controlled legislature passed a decent charter school bill, but the WEA could not stand that result. So you bankrolled an expensive referendum and vigorous No campaign. In a state where Eyman’s idiotic initiatives regularly garner impressive majorities, it’s clear that smart public policy isn’t always written at the ballot box.

The charter school bill that education reformers pushed this session (that the WEA and the Democratic leadership killed) was one that would have attracted high quality charter schools—the ones with an enviable record with low-income and minority kids. Can you seriously argue that the kids and families in South Seattle don’t deserve better educational opportunities?

My record as a proponent of more funding for our public schools is unassailable. I continue to believe that our public schools are grossly underfunded. But we need to invest in a system that recognizes and encourages excellence.

I have gotten lots of feedback from my recent letter and the overwhelming amount of it has been positive, particularly from public school parents. Many teachers disagree and argue that because I am not a teacher, I just don’t understand. But I have also heard from young, frustrated teachers who want to go further and faster for their students. They want to teach in a system where the needs of students—not adults—are prioritized. They want to move into the fast lane.

Washington public schools are not delivering the kind of results that families in this state deserve and our economy requires. The WEA’s efforts to stop any of the changes needed to transform our system puts you and the politicians who support and enable this intransigence on the wrong side of kids, families and history. I urge you to change course. You can be sure that I and other committed Democrats are urging the elected officials in our party to do so, with or without you.

Wealthy citizens who argue that a successful democracy is possible without them paying their fair share of taxes are self-serving and misguided. You and I will always be on the same side in our fight for equitable taxation and adequate funding for education.

But a teachers union that argues that public schools don’t need to change, that teachers should not be held accountable for student achievement, and that there is no room for competitive pressure in the education system is equally misguided and self-serving.

I hope you will consider that.

Respectfully,

Nick Hanauer

Senate Passes Stricter Teacher Evaluation Bill

Originally published by Publicola

The senate passed a compromise teacher evaluation bill this afternoon, 46-3. Republicans and moderate Democrats had been pushing a teacher evaluation bill for a couple of sessions now, but liberals had balked, echoing union concerns that it was unfair to teachers, who’ve already seen K-12 funding cut by $2.5 billion during the recession and who have already been working on district-by-district pilot projects to determine evaluation criteria.
Liberal senate education chair Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (D-1, Bothell) killed an initial pass at the bill sponsored by Republican Steve Litzow (D-41, Mercer Island) and Democratic Sen. Rodney Tom (D-48, Bellevue) earlier this session.
However,  Sen. Ed Murray (D-43, Seattle), with an eye on counting moderate Democratic and Republican votes necessary to pass his budget, resuscitated the bill, triggering negotiations between the reform contingent and the opponents.

“It used to be a debate about whether or not to use the info. Now, it’s about exactly how do we use the info. This is a huge step forward.”—Sen. Steve Litzow

The sticking point between the two sides was the use of student performance data in teacher evaluations. The so-called reformers—Litzow and Tom—wanted the legislation to mandate that student performance data be used in teacher evaluations; a reasonable metric, they contend, for a profession that’s about educating students. Opponents, backed by the teachers’ union, objected that “one size doesn’t fit all” school districts, and said there’s no uniform way to use student achievement as a metric.
The sides compromised by mandating that student data must be used while also leaving local districts in control of deciding how much weight student performance will have in evaluations. The bill does dictate some guidelines—student growth must be a “substantial factor” in at least three of the eight criteria that go into evaluating teachers on a new grading system that rates teachers from one to four. (It used to be a two-tiered system—satisfactory and unsatisfactory—by the way.)
Additionally, the evaluations themselves must be a factor in hiring and firing and placement of teachers—not just seniority. Reformers like Litzow originally wanted the evaluations to be “a primary” factor, but he was happy to compromise. “It used to be a debate about whether or not to use the info,” he said after the vote today, “now, it’s about exactly how do we use the info. This is a huge step forward.”
Rich Wood, spokesman for the teachers’ union, the Washington Education Association, complained that the union was left out of the negotiations and didn’t see the bill until a few hours before the vote.  He said: “This new legislation must not derail, short-circuit or otherwise interfere with the evaluation pilot work that is already underway, and educators must be allowed the flexibility to meet the unique needs of students in their local schools.”
However, he added diplomatically: “Some of what’s in the Senate teacher evaluation bill is good … if used correctly, student growth data can help teachers strengthen their teaching to meet the needs of their students.”
Senators from both factions voted for the bill with a note of skepticism. Sen. Tom, who wanted stricter guidelines, warned, before voting yes, that the legislature needed to oversee the local districts to make sure the evaluations were legit. And liberal Sen. Sharon Nelson (D-34, W. Seattle, Vashon), who also voted yes, warned that reforms didn’t work without funding.
The WEA’s Wood seconded that point, concluding: “This bill ignores the real crisis facing our K-12 public schools—the Legislature’s failure to amply fund K-12 schools as mandated by the state Constitution.”