Change the world. Change our schools.

Posted by Bonnie.

This morning there was an interesting story on NPR on the national debate on performance pay for teachers. The story reviews Obama and McCain’s education platform and looks closely at performance pay, specifically how it has played out in Colorado. Pro-Comp is one of the newer performance pay programs and they are working hard locally to cultivate teacher buy-in, an essential ingredient to a successful performance pay program. Click here to listen to the story.

While trolling the NPR website, I also found a link to an episode of The Conversation from last month that examined pay for performance and focuses on Washington. Click here to listen to the program.

Until recently many teacher unions have adamantly opposed pay for performance. Among other things they fear teachers will be evaluated unfairly. But many of the new pay for performance programs tend to be less rigid and more inclusive. Some teacher’s unions have embraced this new breed and believe they will encourage good teachers and better support struggling teachers. Although these programs are new, several models exist. Here is a link to a chart that briefly explains some the programs in place.

Our recent proposal to the Basic Education Task Force titled A Way Forward advocates adopting a modified pay for performance system that would include a new salary schedule based on three levels of responsibility and skills (Entry, Professional, and Lead), school-based bonuses, and additional funding for hard-to-staff positions as well as National Board Certified Teachers.

Posted by Bonnie

My morning ritual always involves two things: tea and NPR. This morning I was drinking my tea, listening to NPR and heard a great piece on Sup. Maria Goodloe-Johnson celebrating her one year anniversary in Seattle (including quotes from our very own, Lisa Macfarlane). She has been praised by advocates and policy makers alike who use words like focused, courageous, and decisive. Her strategic plan is bold in its honesty – revealing that only 17 percent of high school graduates took the credits necessary to be considered for entrance at a four-year college – and goals — to increase the 17 percent figure to 40 percent by 2012. One year in, Sup. Goodloe-Johnson says that the district has had little accountability to its 45,000 students and she plans on changing that.

But, the rubber is now beginning to meet the road and unfortunately the road is a bumpy one. A tight budget, shortages in math and science teachers, and persistent declining enrollment all pose serious challenges to the path ahead. Lisa Macfarlane states, “Where the rubber is going to meet the road is how we are going to measure progress against those goals [outlined in the strategic plan]. It’s great to say that we are going to have a quality teacher in every classroom, but how are we going to measure that and how are we going to do if we are not meeting those benchmarks?”

We look forward to rolling up our sleeves in Seattle and across Washington State – and hope you’ll join in.

There’s also a great interview with Sup. Goodloe-Johnson in the Seattle P-I.
The Seattle Public Schools strategic plan can be viewed here.

Full Funding Coalition - Round Two

Time: 3:30 p.m. - 4:21 p.m.

Randy Parr starts off by expressing that their proposal is just that, a proposal. While it does outline clear benchmarks, these are explicitly stated only to provide an example of one way we could move forward in the short-term. To that end, the suggested six-year transition to the new funding plan includes:

1. The state enriches funding through the current system for the 2009-11 biennium.
2. The state would convert to the new Foundation Formula in 2011-2013.
3. The CQEW reviews initial progress and makes recommendations for subsequent additional funding.
4. The state makes additional payments on known, prioritized interventions during 2013-2015 budget cycle.
5. Some additional interventions are necessarily spread across all six years.

Sup. Bergeson asks for clarification on student-weighted formula.

Randy continues to explain the year one phase in would include: K-3 class size reduction to 1:17, ramping up the phase-in of all day kindergarten, implementing additional relevant professional development, resources for struggling students, implementing behavior support systems, increasing support staff for principals and begin phase-in for NERCs.

Year two example includes: continue to increase K-3 class size reduction, all-day kindergarten, and additional ESA’s for classified staff, adding funding for key instructional programs in core subjects, and adding campus security funds for middle and high schools.

So - the cost: $1.2 billion increase in the next biennium. The most significant portion, about a quarter, of would increase teacher COLAs.

Randy goes on to outline a few revenue source ideas that would cover the first two years worth of reform efforts:

• Capturing a portion of future growth. Transferring half of anticipated new revenue (above %5) in 09-11 would yield $500 million for public education.
• Recapture the currently uncollected regular property tax authority to provide new revenue to school districts. Currently the state has reserved a total rate of $3.60 per $1,000 of assessed value, but the state property tax rate for schools in calendar year 2010 is expected to be $2.12 per $1,000 of assessed  value

Q&A

First question is, unsuprisingly, about the price tag. Rep. Fred Jarrett asks if $1.2 billion is the total cost. Randy Parr says no. When the study was completed it recommended 45% increase (of 10 billion at the time). The study has not been updated. There is not a specific dollar amount to the proposal - but do suggest a specific amount in the short term. We’re offering more because we want to prove that it can be done.
Next, Sup. Bergeson asks about teacher compensation reform and distribution. Randy Parry points out that they advocate for a salary survey and adjustments made according to that. He also noted that they discussed some local teacher compensation experimentation, but did not develop a specific proposal to this end.

Rep. Priest asks Randy Parr and Paul Rosier if the Full Funding Coalition can have an open discussion about
any of the ideas presented to the Task Force (bargaining at the state level for example), or if the coalition partners should discuss the issues separately. Both Mr. Rosier and Mr. Parr assured Rep. Priest that they would continue to try and work together.

Sup. Kowalkowski asks how realistic the revenue source proposals are - especially the property tax increase. Randy Parr acknowledged the difficulty of the property tax increase by stating that the property tax is the tax most legislators love to hate.

And so the day - and live blogging - comes to an end.

Full Funding Coalition (WSSDA, WASA, AWSP, WEA, PSEW)

1:55p.m.  - 3: 10 p.m.

Randy Parr, WEA, illustrates our K-12 funding crisis in a few slides. First, expenditures per-student as a percent of the national average have declined since the state took over ‘full’ funding of basic education. Second, in terms of our student achievement, we are highly efficient (high performing despite low funding levels). Rep. Hunter claims ‘legislative rules’ and points out that if the chart accounted for demographics, our student achievement in terms of NAEP scores would be average by comparison.

Randy Parr moves on to state that our definition of basic education is already in place (legal and legislative reform). We simply need schools to get the resources to do the job assigned them by government.

Cutting to the chase, Mr Parr posits three funding proposals for the State to choose from: 1) students perform at higher levels, 2) students continue to perform at current levels, or 3) students perform at lower levels (Randy admits that this is their fear).

David Conely begins to answer the questions - what constitutes basic education? how much does it cost? what results can we expect if we spend the money? Answers to these questions are based in the Washington Adequacy Funding Study, published in 2007:

1. Major recommended additions: classroom-centered supports, educator supports, instructional supports, and learning environment supports
2. Creating a Commission for Quality Education in Washington, a nonpartisan commission that would determine the annual amount of money needed to make ample provision for the education of all Washington students (much like the K-12 Revenue Council proposed in A Way Forward).

Advantages of a system like this is that it is scalable and lends itself to ramping up full funding based on expected student performance levels.

Rep. Hunter interrupts to question the viability of the CQEM because we don’t have the data available to correlate spending with student achievement. David Conely points out that data now is much better than it was 15 years ago and will continue to improve. He admits that this might not be perfect - but this is a better way. This is a policy advisory tool.

Rep. Jarrret suggests that, because of our strong constitutional language, it might be difficult to move forward with a model that identifies what ample is and most likely not be able fund it.

Questions continue from Sup. Bergeson and Sup. Kowalkowski, Sen. Tom, Chair Grimm and so on. It is afternoon, after lunch, nearing the end of two long days of lots of information. It is a little hard to stay on task.

Getting back to the PowerPoint, Randy Parr underlines that they are proposing a new basic education funding structure. It is called the Foundation Formula.

• Like our proposal, local levy funds would only be used for their intended, supplemental use.
• Five categorical funds would remain: regular instruction, CTE, special education, learning assistance, and English language learners.
• Multi-Measure Accountability: multiple measures, reflection state goals, provide fair and scientifically accurate annual report cards for every school. Each school and district is held accountable fairly - in relation to student, school, and district characteristics (a growth model). Paul Rosier asks - how do we honor growth.

Time for a break… more later.

Washington School Nutrition Association

Time: 1:30 p.m.- 1:55 p.m.

The Washington School Nutrition Association started with a simple statement, hungry kids can’t learn. They recognized that the Task Forces has big issues to face and big asks - and that this would be a small ask.  Children from low-income families often still cannot afford the co-pay. Hunger is correlated with higher levels of aggression, hyperactivity and (obviously) poorer overall health.

The ask: They want the 2009 legislature to eliminate the co-pay for Pre-K and 4-12 grade reduced price students. The cost would be $9.3 per biennium.

Principal Deborah Gary from  Auburn School District, was the recipient of a USDA grant that has ensured that the school has fresh fruits every morning. Every day the grant ensures that fresh fruits and vegetables are served to every student and staff member with a message about nutrition everyday. Deborah then went on to talk about how Pioneer Elementary School’s student achievement and closing the achievement gap in several grades. She did not directly correlate the two results, but the implication was clear.

Q&A: Rep. Tom recognized the importance of school nutrition, but the questions remains for basic education, where do you draw the line?

The Nutrition Association argued that just as transportation is part of basic eduation, so should nutrition. It prepares them to learn.

Washington Head Start and ECEAP, Joel Ryan

Time: 11:35 a.m.-12:00 noon

Mr. Ryan starts off by setting the framework for including early learning in the definition of basic education. He reminds the Task Force that three other states do this: North Carolina, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Additionally, 13 other states and D.C. include early learning in their school formula.

He asks: Why early learning? Is this just day care?

No. Early learning is about brain development. Research has provided a deeper understanding of how children’s brains develop and how quickly they develop. Research shows that factors in first grade predict drop out nearly as well as risk factors in high school. (My thought: WOW!)

His key point: If a child does not have a solid foundation entering kindergarten, than other investments will not pay off.

Mr. Ryan goes on to briefly discuss several well-known early learning return on investment studies. Gains are shown for the individual (especially low-income children) and society as a whole.

So, what should we do?

Step 1: Address Quality

Fund ECEAP at Head Start levels (from $6,630 to $8,725) = $17 million per year
Step 2: Cover ALL Eligible Children

An estimated 12,500 three and four year olds are eligible to receive services and do not because of a lack of resources. The cost to this would be an addtional $109 million a year

Q & A:

Rep. Hunter begins with two great questions. First, he points out that the fact that WA Head Start is targeted would create legal problems (basic education is, by definition, for all). Additionally, the State would have problems distributing funds in a mixed delivery system (for example, funds to church-based programs). Mr Ryan points out that he supports covering all children, his specific proposal would be the first step. He admits that there are constitutional issues that we’d have to iron out (to which Rep. Hunter laughed).

Rep. Hunter then asked why early learning should be in Basic Education rather than the General Fund. Many other programs that offer positive, proven results receive funding from the General Fund. Mr. Ryan reiterates his key point, research has proven that early learning provides a huge opportunity - and we cannot miss the opportunity to take advantage of it.

Rep. Hyde, who has done amazing early learning work in Bremerton, then asked about what results would we see if Mr. Ryan’s plan was implemented. Mr Ryan points to research from Head Start to show that children would enter school more ready to learn and gains would continue through the years. Gains would be rigorously monitored.

On a side note, Joel Ryan’s proposal is included within our proposal A Way Forward.

LEV Foundation, A Way Forward Q & A

TIme: 10 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.

Our proposal is bold and proposes significant changes. Task Force members were engaged and asked questions regarding price, phasing in, accountability (chart of accounts), bargaining at the state level, and teacher/principal evaluations. There were also key questions on the 13th year and early learning. A more comprehensive overview of the Q&A exchange will be posted a little later (if you listened in, you know there is a lot to cover!).

A key highlight was when Sup. Bergeson referred to our proposal, and more specifically to the bold reform in bargaining, as ‘eye-opening.’

Eye-opening indeed. No one ever said reform was easy. Besides, it is exciting to be on a path to answering these tough questions. We’re happy to have had the opportunity to frame the conversation this morning.

League of Education Voters Foundation, A Way Forward

9 AM- 945 AM

We’re back. Today we are here in force because our proposal, A Way Forward, is the first item on the agenda. Lisa Macfarlane, George Scarola, and John Tapogna are presenting.

There is no doubt about it, A Way Forward is a bold plan. Lisa begins by asking a simple question: do we take this once in a lifetime opportunity and propose bold solutions or do we patch the system. We choose the former.

Our plan is based on five core principles that the new finance system must address:

1. The state is responsible for providing every student reasonable opportunities to meet the state’s high school graduation requirements.
2. The new finance system is organized to drive improvements in student achievement.
3. The funding responsibilities of the state and local school districts are clearly delineated and separated.
4. Local decision makers are given flexibility to determine the best use of money while being held accountable for results.
5. Revenue distribution is simplified and scull budgets are transparent.

Based on these principles, we propose five key proposals:

Redefine Washinton’s Basic Education Commitment

This is about being bold. This about giving every student reasonable opportunity to meet the state’s achievement standards and graduation requirements. Part of this is ensuring children have an opportunity to arrive to kindergarten school ready. To that end, we propose ensuring quality early learning for low-income children. We also recognize that a high school diploma is not enough education for young people today. We propose guaranteeing graduates a 13th year at the community college level.

Strengthen Accountability

Washington has some of the most burdensome and non-productive accounting practices around. Accounting system fixes and data system improvements are foundational issues for us. It’s time for an entirely new chart of accounts and to require all school districts need to use the same accounting system. When true costs are revealed, it will be crystal clear to policy makers, stakeholders, and taxpayers, what is being funded at what level and what is not being funded.

The time has come for teachers and principals and district leaders to work together to tap the full potential of using student achievement data to improve instructional practices. We propose that school districts and the state work together to establish benchmarks for spending and achievement.

We propose funding school-based performance awards. The awards, $100 or more per full-time student, would reward all the staff members of schools that meet or exceed their achievement targets, to reward collaboration.

In cases of persistent under performance, state inspections and interventions would kick in.

Core K-12 Education Fund

LEV proposes an entirely different budget development process that is more transparent and more honest. We call for a new K-12 Expenditure Council (modeled after the Revenue Forecast Council and the Caseload Forecast Council) and we suggest that policy makers develop a new tool- a K-12 Resource Model (like what is in use in Oregon).

We also call for an entirely different and much simpler way of distributing the money. We propose eliminating the many categorical programs (some of which are inside basic education and some are outside basic education) and replace them with a single, new K-12 Core Education Fund. It would essentially function as a block grant to school districts. This revenue would not be earmarked, but districts would have to account for how they spent the money and what results they achieved and they would do so using an uniform accounting system.

This new Core K-12 Education Fund would provide additional funding per student for four groups who require additional resources to meet their education needs:

• low income
• special education
• English language learners
• career & technology education

Targeted Intervention Fund

In addition to the Core K-12 Education fund, our 4th proposal calls for a new “targeted interventions” fund.

This would be the place that state policy makers could direct school districts to use new money for gold-standard-research-proven programs. Today the list of gold standard programs includes:

• one-on-one tutoring in K-3,
• class size reductions in K-1, and
• monitors for students at risk of dropping out of high school.

This fund would also invest in targeted implementation of promising practices, like Navigation 101, and would commit the state to rigorous evaluation of them.

Better Compensation System

The single best thing you can do to improve student achievement is to ensure high-quality, supported teachers.

We need to do a better job of supporting teachers as they master the skills and knowledge necessary to drive student achievement . The state needs to invest more heavily in a rigorous teacher induction program if we want the highest quality teachers to enter and stay in the profession. Too many new teachers leave the field within their first five years.

We expect a compensation survey would recommend higher compensation for hard-to-staff positions, for example in subject areas such as math, science, or special education or in schools with challenging demographics or locations that make it hard to attract talented teachers.

Because we have given the state the responsibility for funding basic education, we think the state should also have the responsibility for bargaining educator salaries.

We are also calling for renewable, three-year rolling contracts for teachers and principals. Kids are not well served when struggling teachers or principals stay in the system without the support and training they need to become effective team members in their schools. Adopting this part of the proposal would force a much needed focus on evaluation, mentoring, and professional development.

Reform + Resources = Results. If we want our kids to be competitive and qualified for the jobs of the future, then we need to infuse resources and reforms into our school finance system

League of Education Voters Foundation Proposes Major Reforms to Washington’s Education Finance System

Proposal to be presented to Basic Education Finance Task Force

SEATTLE – The League of Education Voters Foundation (LEVF) will propose major reforms to Washington’s public education system at the Basic Education Finance Task Force meeting Tuesday, June 10.

“The time for bold education reform solutions is now,” said Lisa Macfarlane, co-founder of the League of Education Voters Foundation. “We’ve got a once in a lifetime opportunity to redesign our public schools to work for the next 30 years.”

LEVF’s proposal, A Way Forward, is the culmination of a yearlong effort to develop a new education finance model that prepares all students for college and the workforce.

“We based A Way Forward on one simple premise: we need a public education system that will prepare all students to succeed in today’s competitive economy,” Macfarlane said.

A Way Forward proposes a series of reforms and investments to achieve results and boost student achievement.

“Today’s education finance system is overly complex and too prescriptive,” said Ken Hoover, superintendent of Monroe Public Schools and co-author of A Way Forward. “This proposal would give local school leaders more flexibility to solve problems and then hold them accountable.”

“The state does not provide enough funding for what it costs to educate students today. Communities have stepped up to subsidize public education through local levies.” Macfarlane said. “Our proposal redefines Washington’s commitment to public education.”

LEVF will present A Way Forward to the Basic Education Finance Task Force in Olympia on Tuesday, June 10 at 9 AM in House Hearing Room B, O’Brien Building.

Click here to view the full proposal.

###

The League of Education Voters Foundation is a 501(c)3 charitable organization dedicated to engaging ordinary citizens, educators, policymakers and the media in the effort to provide a quality education for all students in Washington State from early learning through post-secondary education.

Posted by Bonnie.

The Seattle Times took an important step today to ensuring that all students have the opportunity to attend college. Here is a link to the editorial.

The editorial, echoing many of the facts used on our Did You Know Campaign website and materials, urges the State Board of Education to adopt Core 24 and require Algebra II as the default curriculum for the third credit of math.

The state board is expected to vote on the new requirements in July. The vote should be a unanimous “yes.” Why wait? Others haven’t. The Bellingham School District changed its requirements to mirror admissions requirements at Western Washington University.

The State Board is voting on Core 24 and the content of the third credit of math at their July meeting in Vancouver.

You can urge the State Board of Education to vote YES on Core 24 and Algebra II by sending an email or attending one of their upcoming outreach meetings listed below.

Monday, June 2
4:00-6:00 PM
Spokane Community College
Littlefoot Conference Room, Student Center (Bldg. 6)
1810 N. Greene Street
Spokane, WA 99202

Tuesday, June 3
4:00-6:00 PM
Yakima Convention Center
10 North 8th Street
Yakima, WA 98901

Wednesday, June 4
4:00-6:00 PM
University Heights Center
Room 209 (Auditorium)
5031 University Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105