Here is some of what we heard from teachers:

• The real discussion that needs to happen is about how the state is going to revamp the tax structure in order to fund our schools better and increase revenue.

• Over the years the education budget has become a smaller percentage of the overall budget and yet schools are being asked to do more.  

• Both the professional development and certification process needs to be something that helps teachers in the classroom, not just more process and more hoops to jump through. 
  

• Evaluation needs some focus on the administrator's role rather than always focusing all the attention on the teachers.  

• Procert seems like it was a “bandaid” response to the underlying problem of lack of quality control.  One of the values of Procert is the introspective aspects of it, but that would potentially be more helpful later in the career of a teacher.
  

• An accountability system must look at all that impacts a student's learning: parental and societal responsibilities, state obligations, and federal obligations.

• Districts need some accountability in terms of how they allocate the money to the schools and how that impacts student achievement.

• Policy makers need to understand the realities of all students as you create new standards and measures of accountability — one size does not fit all.  

• Basic Education must be more broadly defined than just Math, English, and Science.  

• Smaller class sizes is the most important part of improving education in Washington.

• Teachers are not opposed to data collection or use of data, just make sure you are using and looking at the right data and that the data is accurate.

• Administrators don't have the time they need to really be an effective instructional leader and work with teachers.

• The state is accountable for funding education and shouldn't be holding teachers accountable when the state isn't giving schools the money needed to do the job.

• Need to blend the early learning programs with the K-12 system.  

• Community and parent involvement in the classroom is a valuable resource that needs to be encouraged but in a way that does not create additional burdens for teachers.
  

We have brought these thoughts, and others, back to the Quality Education Council (QEC). One of the main short term objectives is to address the "implementation" of the new definition of Basic Education and the policies and funding necessary to support it. The long-term objective of the QEC is to build the constantly evolving 10-year plan for Washington K-12 education — establishing goals and priorities for education in order to make sure all students have the opportunity to learn.  

By listening to the hundreds of teachers around the state and discussions through the QEC, we plan to move forward with the following steps:

1. Recommendations to the Legislature for how to convert the current funding formula into a prototypical school funding formula at current levels of state spending (The "Crosswalk").
2. Recommend a Program of Early Learning for at risk children.   
3. Recommend a schedule for phasing-in any increases in program requirements concurrently with increases in funding, with full implementation by 2018. 
4. Consider a phase-in schedule for a new pupil transportation funding formula.  
5. Work with the Achievement Gap Oversight Committee to integrate programs that address the achievement gap into everything we do.
6. Closely monitor work on the Accountability System and the Education Data Improvement System and consider recommendations from the QEC to the Legislature to support continued progress on these objectives. Also, monitor the development and implementation of the new certification system.
7. Consider a statewide beginning teacher mentoring and support system.  

There are many steps involved with bringing policy to practice and the above steps are just a start. As we move forward with the effort to redefine Basic Education, we want to continue engaging teachers and administrators around the state. We recognize the state needs to provide the necessary resources and tools to ensure that policy can become practice. This is a shared responsibility of everyone involved.

Warm Regards,

Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, 1st District, Chair of Early Learning & K-12 Committee

Sen. Eric Oemig, 45th District, Vice Chair of Early Learning & K-12 Committee

Comments

Senators McAuliffe and Oemig,
I admire that you've taken so much feedback and managed to narrow it down to a short list of things you're planning to accomplish. That makes sense, and fills me with hope that you will be successful.

I ask you to consider the importance of early learning for all children, not only those who are "at risk." You don't have much time to support a child before kindergarten - five quick years. The resources that would be spent identifying which children are "at-risk" and tracking the program's effectiveness in reducing those risks would be better spent providing support to every child.

Offer early learning opportunities to every child, and let parents who choose other options for their child opt out of the public pre-K program. Every child in our state deserves access to quality pre-K care.

Thank you, Senators McAuliffe and Oemig, for taking the time to understand the realities of schools and teaching.

As a teacher-librarian, I'm glad that you've looked at the educational program holistically. You seem to understand that students aren't widgets and classroom teachers aren't assembly-line workers (sadly, too many aspects of the system are still based on that industrial model). Instead, all teachers, parents, administrators, support staff, and other stake-holders must work collaboratively to ensure that our schools provide all students with 21st century skills.

I'm hopeful that the current work of the funding formula, data governance, PESB, OSPI, and other groups can build on good things already happening in schools--as well as support our efforts to improve and reform to better help our students learn.

I appreciate the comments and bulleted summaries. Thanks to a caring community. I work with middle school ELLs and see a huge challenge ahead of us to better meet their needs. I also appreciate the essential need for consistent arts education and more user-friendly texts and resources. The trend toward technology is important, but a balance is needed. I think a better funding model is critical. Relying on Campbell's soup labels (for example) is embarrassing. I think we can do better, and I will be watching to see our progress.

If you want my opinion (or even if you don't) start where it starts: Early Learning.

As a third grade teacher, I consistently see a heartbreaking gap between those students who had an adequate preschool experience and those who didn't.

From my perspective, there is no better investment in the future of our state than to provide a rich Early Learning experience to every child in Washington.

Thank you so much for your efforts, Senators, and for sharing this information. I specifically want to speak to one of the bullet points from your listening sessions:
"Evaluation needs some focus on the administrator's role rather than always focusing all the attention on the teachers." As a teacher who works with many different buildings in my district, I see the impact on teaching quality (and thus student learning) that a strong principal makes. Accountability has to start with principals and district administrators, who form the policy, distribute the funding, and determine priorities. Poor decisions leave teachers to adapt to environments that may go against their better instincts, as the ones who are in the trenches.

Thank you, Senators, for taking time to communicate directly with teachers on this forum. There is a daunting lists of tasks ahead of you, and I thank you for taking it on.

I would love to see some specific mention of arts and vocational programs in your agenda. There is a bullet point that states: Basic Education must be more broadly defined than just Math, English, and Science. However, while we need to make sure that every student has the option of college, we also need to acknowledge that for many, their formal education will end with graduation from high school. There are many skills that can be taught in high school vocational programs that will prepare our kids for the work force, but many of the students for whom those programs would be most useful are prevented from participating because the must take remedial programs that are geared towards passing a very flawed state test.

As Mark mentioned above, one of the most important things you can do is to keep teachers involved in all legislative issues that relate to public education.

Thank you again for sharing your time and information.

I think it is clear that one of the factors that can have the biggest impact on student learning is the quality of their teachers. So I think one of the most important things you heard in your listening tour was that administrators don't have the time they need to really be effective educational leaders, or to work with teachers. I would add that the desire to leave the classroom and become an administrator says something about their commitment to teaching. Maybe they aren't the people in the system who are best qualified to evaluate or mentor teachers.
So I would urge you to do more than "consider" a statewide beginning teacher mentoring and support system. I would like to see this state's growing cadre of National Board Certified Teachers used as mentors, and not just with beginning teachers. Let's use people who have demonstrated their commitment to the classroom. If the purpose of the evaluation process was to increase teacher effectiveness, rather than just check the boxes so they can keep their job another year; now that would be true reform.
Thank you for taking the time to listen. That in itself is a huge step forward.

I have no doubt that the tasks described in the post were quite the undertaking. The bulleted points and recommendations encapsulate much of what I think is important to remember as we move forward with education reform in Washington.

The tough part will be negotiating the vast array of stakeholders whose own interests and contexts create their lens for considering the funding and reform priorities you describe above.

I think the fact that we've maintained a strong set of state Standards (GLEs/EARLs) despite changes in assessment models, keeps our focus squarely on what we want students to learn, and now the rest of the system can be shifted toward a model where effective teaching can facilitate student progress toward those well-established learning outcomes.

I, for one, appreciate your emphasis on keeping teachers involved in this evolving ten-year reform process.

The recommendations you describe, especially the phased-in rollout of different parts, makes good sense. How do you foresee teachers being able to further help facilitate continued reforms?

Dear Honorable Senators,

Thank you for the concise, easy to read summary of your legislative efforts on behalf of student learning in Washington public schools. It's good to see you refer to assisting all public school students, I assume to meet state measured minimum academic performance standards. Given the sources you cite, the summary makes sense.

I note two absences in the summary. Your attention to these will assist interested parties to understand more clearly a core part of the rationale for revising funding.

1. The absence of direct references to what legislators expect students to learn. This reference will assist educators and parents to know what to watch in order to identify if revised funding accomplishes anything for students.

2. What does it cost for a student to learn /a/? This question addresses the monetization of learning, an inferred rationale teachers and others use to describe what resources they need to increase student learning. Even a quick estimation would provide a useful index against which educators can plan what and how much to adjust to fulfill state expectations from funding revisions.

Best wishes with your effort, and thank you for listening to teachers.