Jay Inslee Unveils Education Plan - Proposes an Innovative and Accountable School System

APRIL 5, 2012
Contact:
JAIME SMITH | 253.334.5670

Renton, WA – In a speech to parents, teachers and education advocates today, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee introduced his vision for public schools and announced a plan to make Washington schools work for every child.
“If we're going to grow our economy, build on our quality of life and continue our legacy of innovation we need educated young people ready to take jobs in the knowledge economy of the 21st century,” said Inslee. “As governor, I intend to rebuild our public education system where we are currently falling short and expand on those things that we’re doing right.”
Inslee’s plan begins with two critical realities: first, a school system in which 1 in 5 of this year’s kindergartners will either not graduate or not graduate on time is not getting the job done; and second, there are innovative and effective ideas already in use that can be expanded statewide.
Inslee proposed an aggressive expansion of the successful “Innovative Schools” to create unique educational environments, public-private partnerships to expose students to real-world technology, and transitioning to online resources for curricula.
Inslee's plan also calls for better support for teachers and principals, and greater accountability as well. Under the Inslee plan, schools will establish mentorship and job-training programs so that experienced, master teachers are sharing their expertise with newer teachers or those who need help. Inslee also called for evaluation and accountability beyond the classroom, holding principals and superintendents responsible for overall performance in their schools.
Education leaders lauded Inslee’s plan.
“When it comes to educating our kids, Jay sets high standards at every level — from students and parents, teachers and principals to superintendents and school boards,” said Dr. Mary Alice Heuschel, Superintendent of Renton School District and 2011 Washington State Superintendent of the Year. “He understands we must all work together. As we have proven in the Renton School District, fostering a culture of high expectations and building effective partnerships can help us achieve results for every student. Jay's vision for our state's education system will help us get there."
“This is a plan based on high expectations. It’s a plan based on data and evidence of what works, not on ideology. And it’s a plan that is realistic based on today’s economic conditions,” Inslee said. “This is about focusing on the outcomes we want for our students and our state.”
See the complete plan online athttp://www.jayinslee.com/priorities/education-plan.

In Big Change, Inslee Backs Teacher Evaluations as “Significant” Part of Hiring and Firing Decisions

As posted online at Publicola.com
Caffeinated News & Gossip. Your daily Morning Fizz

Jay Inslee at education fundraiser at downtown Sheraton this morning.
1. At a “Conversation on Education” sponsored by the Alliance for Education this morning (AFE is a nonprofit that raises money for Seattle Public Schools), the two gubernatorial candidates, former Democratic US Rep Jay Inlsee and Republican Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, agreed that the teacher evaluations bill that passed this session, one the teachers’ union had criticized, needed to go even further.
In a big change from last summer, when Inslee told me he opposed a bill last session that linked evaluations to “reduction in workforce” (RIF) decisions, Inslee told the crowd this morning that “to ensure teacher quality … when we make staffing decisions, we [should] make that evaluation system a significant part of the decision in hiring and firing and [reduction in force] decisions.”
Education reform issues such as teachers’ evaluations have caused an internal rift in the Democratic Party, something McKenna has exacerbated by making Democratic President Obama’s education reform agenda his own while Inslee has faced criticism for moving more cautiously.
Education has been a hot issue in the gubernatorial campaign this year. (The national teachers’ union is Inslee’s biggest lifetime funder at the congressional level—and the local chapter, the Washington Education Association, has endorsed Inslee. The teachers’ union has fought many of the reforms that McKenna has pushed for, such as prioritizing teacher evaluations over seniority in personnel decisions.)
At this morning’s forum, moderated by KCTS anchor Enrique Cerna, McKenna said the next step was to “move beyond” the bill to “pay our great teachers more” based on the evaluations. “Performance in the evaluation system needs to be linked to compensation and not be based on seniority,” McKenna told Fizz afterward.

McKenna at this morning’s education fundraiser
Fizz asked Inslee why he had changed his position on ed reform. “If it’s a change,” he said, “it’s a change in the right direction.” He elaborated, saying now that he’d seen the results of the evaluation pilot projects passed in 2009, he was more comfortable moving forward with evaluations.
McKenna came out in support of the idea in his campaign kickoff speech last June.

'Creative Approach Schools' advances with union support

Seattle Public Schools' framework for Creative Approach Schools will allow those schools to opt out of many district and union requirements as long as 80 percent of their teachers sign on. Some watchdogs are concerned about lack of School Board control and the high rate of teacher agreement needed.

By Brian M. Rosenthal

Seattle Times education reporter

In the spring of 2010, leaders of Seattle's teachers union began seeing signs that reform-minded forces would soon make another big push to bring charter schools into Washington state, which the union has long opposed.
Huddled together in their Georgetown office, the leaders came up with a possible pre-emptive strike against a key argument in support of charter schools — that their use of unique methods allows them to help some students who don't succeed in normal schools.
"We wanted to be able to say that there's no reason to have charters in Seattle," union Vice President Jonathan Knapp said. "Because the thing that they always say is that charters provide flexibility. Well, we can have flexibility in public schools, too."
And so, with agreement from the Seattle Public Schools administration, the concept of a "Creative Approach School" was born.
Two years later, the union leaders, district administrators and Seattle School Board members have agreed on a framework for creation of the schools, which will be allowed to opt out of almost any district or union policy for the sake of tailoring their school to the needs of their students.
District leaders have high hopes for the agreement despite opposition from some city government officials and education activists.
80% must sign on
The framework, approved last month by the School Board, spells out how school principals — if they get 80 percent of their teachers to sign on — can apply for Creative Approach designation. The applications require approval by the superintendent and union leaders.
Fifteen schools, nearly 20 percent of the city's collection, have expressed interest in applying.
But so far, many are in wealthy parts of the city and already have an alternative bent.
Some city officials, including Councilmember Tim Burgess, believe that's due to the 80 percent threshold. Burgess and others believe that the everyday challenges of working in high-poverty schools, combined with their high turnover, make it unlikely that they will be able to come up with that much consensus.
In essence, they believe the requirement will prevent the very schools that most need Creative Approach status from getting it.
Some district watchdogs are leery for a different reason — that the new agreement would remove School Board members from policymaking decisions at Creative Approach Schools. They've filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court to stop the plan.
"Regardless of the merits of Creative Approach Schools, it's the School Board that has to make policy," said Keith Scully, a local attorney representing the activists. "They can't delegate that authority."
Short on specifics
Pressed for specifics about what Creative Approach Schools will look like, Knapp has a short response: "I don't have an answer for that."
"I'm not the one who's going to have the ideas on that," he said. "The idea is that the educators in the school working with the community in that neighborhood come up with the best ways to educate the students in that neighborhood."
Creative Approach Schools still will be required to teach to federal standards, administer state tests and provide frequent reports on their progress.
But beyond that, they could do largely what they want, as long as it is research-supported and cost-neutral to the district (schools are encouraged to seek additional funding from foundations or government entities).
Some ideas for schools
While specifics are up to schools, here are a few of the ideas that have been thrown around, according to administrators involved in the negotiations and principals considering applying:
• Modified schedule, including varied class period lengths, Saturday school, longer school days or an extended school year.
• Specialized curriculum models, such as approaches based on experiential learning or team teaching.
• Intensive partnerships with community organizations, tutoring programs or parent groups.
• Adoption of textbook and other instructional materials based on specific student needs.
• New ways of assessing students (instead of district-mandated tests).
• Distinct hiring strategies, including the right to refuse placement of teachers transferring from other schools.
• Focus on science, the arts, language immersion or something else.
"There are a lot of things that could fit in it," said Phil Brockman, executive director of schools for Northeast Seattle. "That's exactly the point."
Lawsuit filed
It's the sheer broadness of it, combined with the lack of a role for the School Board in approving Creative Approach applications, that concerns some district watchdogs.
They filed the lawsuit earlier this month after some School Board members, led by Sharon Peaslee, unsuccessfully tried to amend the framework to add in board approval of applications.
A hearing has been scheduled for October.
Board President Michael DeBell said the board's oversight role will be met through an annual review of the program.
DeBell is more worried about the other concern, the 80 percent threshold.
Holly Miller, director of Seattle's Office for Education, said the threshold is especially problematic because some struggling schools may want to reorganize themselves with a very different teaching staff — something that is unlikely to happen if the school must get 80 percent of its current staff to sign on.
Knapp said high staff buy-in is essential for any successful school initiative.
The two schools most interested in the program, Thornton Creek Elementary and Nova High School, are alternative schools in relatively wealthy areas. But John Miner, principal of Thornton Creek, said he's also heard of interest from several non-alternative schools.
DeBell said he wished the threshold was lower, but 80 percent was the lowest union officials would go. "I'm concerned, yes, but I'm interested in getting the process started and seeing what occurs," he said.
Several schools are working on applications, with decisions to take place in November and the first programs to get under way in the fall of 2013.

Gregoire signs teacher-evaluation measure

Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a measure that changes the way teachers and principals are evaluated.

By Donna Gordon Blankinship

The Associated Press


The Governor on Thursday signed a measure that will add improvement in student test scores to the list of factors that principals use to evaluate teachers.

The law also changes the way principals are evaluated, adding teacher feedback as an element of their reviews.

The measure builds on the four-level rating system established two years ago by the Legislature. But this time, the state will offer evaluation templates for school districts to choose from, instead of having teachers and administrators design local systems.

Gov. Chris Gregoire said she expected the measure to make Washington a national model in teacher evaluations. Dozens of states are working on similar systems, but many are struggling to make them work.

She said Washington state succeeded by designing the system from the ground up, involving teachers, principals, parents, administrators, education researchers, lawmakers and community groups.

"This law will help ensure every public school student has the good teacher he or she deserves, and every neighborhood school has the good principal it deserves," Gregoire said.

The measure goes into great detail about the way a poor evaluation could lead to a teacher being put on probation or losing his or her job. It also offers more specific guidelines concerning how often teachers should be observed in the classroom.

Student growth data — improvement in test scores from one period to the next — would be used in at least three of the eight criteria for both teachers and principals.

The president of the state's largest teacher's union, the Washington Education Association, expressed disappointment in the Legislature's current approach to changes in education.

Two years ago, lawmakers started a pilot project that had teachers, administrators and others work together to create a new local teacher evaluation system. This bill replaces that locally developed system with a more centralized approach, where districts can chose from a few predefined models.

School districts are required to start implementing the new system no later than the 2013-14 school year and complete implementation two years later.

"If you're going to have meaningful, sustainable change, you have got to have the people who are closest to our students involved in that change," said union president Mary Lindquist. "You can't have these reforms being development behind closed doors by people who have never stood in front of a classroom."

Gregoire said she thinks the bill is a move in the right direction.

"We think we've walked that fine line and accomplished something that respects and encourages continuing work on the evaluations and implementation, but at the same time moves us further down what we think is right for our kids and teachers and principals," she said.

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.”