STEP ONE: Realize the system. Before you get too zealous, your actions and time are valuable so consider first those things that do not hold much potential to upset the system. For starters, school supplies. Sure, items like butcher paper and photocopies and vis-a-vis pens are important, but the capable, strong teacher will find a way to impact his or her students without these items for it is this teacher who will teach through thoughtful and posing higher-level questioning strategies. This type of teacher can teach with little.

And it is just this area that you should target. The teacher. Specifically, the development of the teacher's skills. Take away the teacher's ability to evolve and grow to meet the needs of the students and you have destroyed the system; and destroyed it quickly, at one point of attack.

STEP TWO: Take away that which matters most. To do this all you need to do is underfund, or, better yet, don't fund professional development. Create a proposal filled with many, many (many) words and simply leave out any plans to continue the development of strong professionals within the education system of the state. 

When the professionals are held back from improving their ability to impact students, it will only be a short time until the system is substandard, or, better yet, ruined beyond resurrection. Bonus--the collateral damage will be great.

This is the crucial spot and to overlook this weakness would be grim.

Realize that it is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provisions for the education of its children. However, without capable, strong, enthusiastic teachers, this duty cannot be fulfilled. When it is not fulfilled, the system collapses. 

STEP THREE: The creative spin. Are you worried about the negative press? Don't be. Teachers have historically taken a great deal of abuse in the press. You can easily displace the problem from a lack of a plan to develop strong teachers, to how much money it will cost. Always talk in terms of money saved by not doing this and, if you can, throw in a few stories about how a certain amount of saved money from not funding professional development (i.e., developing strong teachers) will allow for Such-and-such-President-Named Elementary School to be able to fund an after school reading program, BUT move on quickly before someone asks the one question you do not want: from where will the highly trained reading teacher come? 

Everyone is worried about money now. Make their personal worries the reasons for tearing down the state education system. 

You will likely only have a few months so you must act fast. 

.

(Point of View Change)

Washington state is currently looking at several proposals for funding its education system for the years to come. They are all long, involved and have a vision. I do not claim to be an expert on proposal reading, but I do understand what works for a school and students. Some of the plans are more visionary than others. Some are downright scary. There is one Proposal by D. Grimm that has absolutely no professional development written into the plan. That scares me. 

I agree with Tom's post that The Full Funding Coalition  report is a good place to start for a successful education system. It is not without faults. Rep. Hunter asks that you go to his site, What It Takes For Kids, read the proposal and comments, and share your thoughts. 

To read more about the the future funding, or lack of, in Washington, I recommend Washington State Legislature. Here you can read the various proposals. Have a voice.

Want more, read Tom's post, The Good, The Bad and The Grimm.

Kelly's post, Funding: Is remediation what disadvantaged students are lacking??? Check out the comments. There is some great back-and-forth. Join in on the mix.

Richelle's post, How Will this Education Funding Proposal Impact You??? I think her hope of having a state education system is neither impossible, nor outlandish. There is the saying that you can judge a man by his friends. Well you can judge a state by its education system. What is ours saying about us? 

Comments

Thanks for clarifying your point, Travis. Two follow-up ideas:

1. What's wrong with no professional development time paid by taxpayers? Isn't PD a function, by generic definiton of professional, of the professional even though unions argue otherwise? Perhaps this topic is a separate post? :)

2. Microsoft employees I know keep themselves ahead of the curve others follow, or they seek other employment.

Note to readers: I have noted a change with a PERIOD on the left margin and a parenthetical statement noting a perspective change. The reason I want to make clear where changes occurred is that I want readers to be able to have an understanding of how the text and comments connect.

I have seen some bloggers change the post after a few comments (or even change the order of the comments or delete comments) and what happens is the comments come across as odd or take on a new meaning, other than that which the commenter intended.

While I would have enjoyed the post as is and gotten into a discussion with the author, Bob Heiny's comment makes clear a flaw the post had. In an effort to plan for a wider audience, I have made the changes. The original text was the same, save the paragraph that summarizes (Washington state is currently . . . ). What was above this is untouched. What is below this was reorganized.

@Bob, I wondered if this would offend anyone. From your sentence structure, I cannot tell if you are offended or confused. I would not peg you for the confused type so my apologies if the writing offended. However, the point was to write from a different point of view. One that is not my own. And through this point of view express what is currently a funding concern of mine for my great state of Washington. In some of the funding proposals there is little, or in the case of one, no professional development in the plan.

I think not having a plan for developing the skills of the professionals is a way to ruin the system. Think about if Microsoft (another Washington system) told its employees, "Hey, just keep doing what you are doing. I am sure that as the market changes, they will still like our skills where they are."

Again, if the tone did not work for you, sorry. It was a style choice, a risk. Something new. I thought that the perspective would get some interested comments or talk. I will see. I stand by the way it is written as interesting. I would have loved to read it and would have pursued the information further with the links at the bottom.

This all being said, I take a look at the bottom part of the post so that the point comes across more overtly. I will put in a few sentences to summarize, perhaps bring meaning to the post, in the middle. Thanks.

I will make a note of the change within the text.

What's the point of this post, Mr. Professional Teacher?