Guest comment from a former teacher, education leader and my Olympia roomate
Rep. Hunt is a force in education policy in Olympia
State Rep. Sam Hunt and his gracious wife Char are my generous and loving hosts when I live in Olympia during the legislative sessions for a few months per year. He is the representative from the 22nd District but more importantly a life-long friend, mentor and major thought leader on education policy in our state.
Rep. Hunt has poked me about my blog post so I asked him to write a comment I could post in response. Here is his good natured, thoughtful and insightful remarks.
“Dear Roomate:
OK, the nervous nannies of education panicked at your blog because you made a passing reference to charter schools, which you know I adamantly oppose.
HOWEVER, what you say is right on target. I spent a day last week at South Lake, Rainier Beach, Dunlap, and a neighboring elementary school. What I saw there is what we have been doing for years. As one who helped organize the first public alternative high school (alternative is now a bad word…) The principal did not seem concerned that the turnover rate at the school is something like 120% a year. She talked about the every Wednesday orientation for new students and showed some examples of student success, and there are successes–students have been refocused and gone on the get college degrees. Yes, smaller class size and a caring staff does work for some students, but I felt the school was missing the target–what needs to be done to get the students interested in school and learning and to be socialized students. They need intensive help to get out of the ruts into which they have fallen. To me it is a lot more than small class size and different desk arrangements; it is a good start but more needs to be done. I left there wanting to take over the school and make it into a real choice/alternative school. I know the principal and staff care and work hard, but I wonder if they have the tools and liberty to do what needs to be done.
Rainier Beach looks like an old factory on the outside, peeling and faded paint, aged windows, etc. Part of the inside has been renovated, but it is still a 1950s high school, tile floors and hallways lined with lockers. And the classrooms I visited have not changed much, either. The elementary schools are nice and still look like the classrooms you and I sat in. The absence of technology in the schools stood out. Yes RB has a computer classroom, but there was little sign of any technology in any other classrooms. The daily attendance at The Beach is something like 82%. And we are allowing that to happen? The principal is new, young, energized and determined to improve learning and the school. Parents told us they feel like they are left out of policy decisions and treated like minorities have always been treated. They said their recommendations and complaints seem to be ignored. We cannot continue to let this happen to our school children!
So what I have been saying is that we need three things (1) courage by our school boards and administrations, (2) leadership to make change happen, and (3) financial resources. Sounds simple and easy, but I know it is not. Too many school boards and administrators are afraid to propose major changes because they fear the levy voters and the board. Too many board members are afraid to show courage because they do not have the guts and have not been trained to push for change. Community members are complacent because they do not think the school district will embrace radical ideas or change. This is not about WEA, WSSDA, WASA, PTSA or other education alphabet groups. It is about someone leading the charge. Certainly the current SPI will not do it; he lacks all three requirements. Can we a legislators step up and try to blow the trumpet? I think we have to.
State law regarding school boards and school districts is extremely flexible. State law says, “The administration of the public school system shall be entrusted to such state and local officials, boards, and committees as the state Constitution and the laws of the state shall provide.” So school districts have the authority to create just about any school that meets the states learning and performance requirements. With more courage, leadership, and resources we can change the face of education in Washington state, and we can do it without any additional legislation or special programs.
We should keep a watchful eye on the $2 million Pettigrew put in the budget for Seattle Schools. We (Ways and Means and Education) must not sit back and let the district do as it pleases with the money. We need to keep pushing, asking, and insisting that the money be used for truly bold and innovative purposes.
We need to insist that additional funds to meet the McCleary decision not be used to maintain the status quo.
Teachers must get a COLA in the 2013-15 budget. I do not believe that we are anywhere near being able to pay for performance, and I say that as a former teacher who was the subject of a very judgmental principal. And I worked in a low income, diverse high school, and an alternative high school that was even more so. But we cannot continue to freeze pay and expect better performance or higher quality teachers!
We have a golden opportunity to push for real changes in our public schools. We cannot drop the ball.
How about challenge grants for school districts to propose and institute changes in their classrooms and schools?
What about moving toward a 200 day school year?
What about putting real technology into the hands of all students?
What about requiring the elementary schools start early in the morning and high schools start late in the morning to match students’ biological clocks?
What about telling school boards and superintendents that the gig is up; it is time for change? What about asking the front line–our teachers–to take the lead in transforming the way we teach kids. I think they would jump at the opportunity.
Please get all this done by January 1, 2013.”
(End of Rep. Hunt comment)
Your partner in service,
Reuven.
Wonderful. A delightful read after a week that included a three hour “shelter in place” with about 300 middle schoolers in our auditorium and a city-felt tragedy. Thank you, Representative Hunt.
There are so many things I want to respond to. I’m going with a bulleted list.
* Technology should be second to excellent teachers and administration. At Ingraham I had a fantastic spaceship of a cabinet, a microphone (great fun!), and a DVD player connected to my overhead projector. At Eckstein I have a slow computer, no DVD player, no microphone. I don’t miss the technology. I’d rather have another great teacher in the building, another great counselor, or for high schools to have college counselors to help disadvantaged kids navigate the college application process. The best tech is Dreambox, Khan Academy, or Ted Lectures – we don’t need fancy tech systems to access those resources. Our focus should be on smart educators who are resourceful in using the technology they have, not in investing money in technology that will soon become obsolete.
* Leadership training, yes. Conflict resolution, yes. How to get past idealogical roadblocks, yes. Who is going to take the lead on bringing in inspirational experts in these areas?
* Put professional development and innovation in the hands of teachers. Thank you. I’m sure content-area coaches, and district PD staff are really good at what they’re doing, but I cannot support that schools have part-time nurses, no college counselors, reduced counselors and part-time art and music teachers so that our districts can employ full-time specialists who train teachers a few days a week or act as resources. Sorry guys, get back into the schools and work with kids.
* COLA. Thank you. We’re a two teacher family and we’re doing just fine, but even our heating bill seems to be growing faster than we’re able to. Our dinner guests show up wearing sweaters. College is frightening. We sometimes wonder if weddings will be more affordable if our daughters marry other women and we split the costs.
* Administration, administration, administration. It’s way more about the administration than it is about the teachers. It’s way more about putting money into schools and reducing central administration. Those with power have every reason to disagree, but it’s true. Schools care for kids. Schools should have priority.
* Competitive grants. I have a problem with these. Recently, schools competed for levy dollars that I, as a Seattle resident, voted and pay for. I’d like to fund all schools. My school was one of seven competing for five grants. All seven schools have needy kids. All seven schools need extra funding to be innovative in serving those needy kids. Now, two schools are out of luck, as are their students, and five schools will get more than they really need. I’m a taxpayer, and I resent that when I voted yes on a levy that could have provided enough for everyone, it was turned into a competition to punish those not deemed worthy. All schools should get what they need to serve their students. This recent Seattle levy competition was stupid, punitive, and unnecessary. There was enough for all. Schools could have applied for funds, as teachers do for PTSA grants, and any school ready to spend funds wisely should have gotten them.
Thank you Representative Hunt for your comments. And Kristin–I agree with much of what you said in your comments:
“Technology should be second to excellent teachers and administration. . . . Our focus should be on smart educators who are resourceful in using the technology they have, not in investing money in technology that will soon become obsolete.” I could not agree more.
“Put professional development and innovation in the hands of teachers. Thank you. I’m sure content-area coaches, and district PD staff are really good at what they’re doing, but I cannot support that schools have part-time nurses, no college counselors, reduced counselors and part-time art and music teachers so that our districts can employ full-time specialists who train teachers a few days a week or act as resources. Sorry guys, get back into the schools and work with kids.” Kristin, I appreciate that you had the courage to say this.
“COLA. Thank you. We’re a two teacher family and we’re doing just fine, but even our heating bill seems to be growing faster than we’re able to . . .” We also are a two-teacher family, and I can certainly relate to what you’re saying.
“Those with power have every reason to disagree, but it’s true. Schools care for kids. Schools should have priority.” Yes they should.
Finally, I would like to see us put the question of education funding in the larger context of an economic system that has been enriching the crooks in the financial services industry. Why is there not as much emphasis on the reform of financial institutions as there is on the reform of education? The Democratic Party in general, and President Obama in particular, have failed to reform the very institutions that have landed us in the global economic crisis that is a contributing factor in the lack of funding for education.
As much as we would like to decontextualize the questions of education, we can’t escape their connections with the failures of neo-liberal policies of globalized market capitalism. We are a very long way from emerging from a condition of high unemployment and low growth. The rising costs of climate change will not help matters. We need a serious discussion about what we think education is for in the world as we think it is, in its largest contexts.
I agree with most of what the previous posters said. However, I have a couple of more specific suggestions:
1. We’ve had alternative schools and some work well and others do not. Sometimes those become warehouses for kids who can’t succeed in a tradition space. It isn’t so much the kind of school a student attends as much as is that student ready to learn. We must start educating kids earlier: we should demand early learning participation for kids whose families access any social programs. These families need help and their kids need early opportunities to succeed. Building the foundation for future success starts there.
2. I do believe in alternative schools. To explain: I believe we should focus on a student’s strengths rather than weaknesses. Yes, there are fundamental skills every child needs to master; however, most students will attend to those weaknesses as a result of the confidence and love they have for what they do well. Success generally breeds more success. We need to look at the student as a cup half full rather than half empty. The arts will fuel the success of an awful lot of kids who lag behind in other areas.
3. Change your own mindset about money. Twenty years ago I had an eight-hour operation that cost total $15,000. A few weeks ago I had one that probably lasted two hours max and so far has totaled almost $100,000. The school many of us attended had teachers, a principal, a career counselor and a nurse. Today’s schools serve students who need OT services, Speech services, Psych services, counselors, specialists in PE and probably others . Do you really think those people don’t cost money? Shouldn’t cost money? We are a social service agency as much as an educational institution.
4. Put money where it is needed. Failing schools should have very small class sizes and plenty of mentors (teachers) attending. Some classrooms are chaotic because one teacher facing twenty-to-thirty unruly kids whose behavior is rebellious simply doesn’t work. Sure, we’d all like to be Jaime Escalante. But, really, how many of him are there? Small things can be done: separating boys from girls; placing strong male teachers into classrooms that need that role model; lengthen the school day; create Saturday school for parents who will participate and hold their kids accountable; change start times to reflect biological clocks of students; work with community to get parents and arts organizations into the schools.
5. Finally (although I know I’ll think of more), no bureaucrat down in John Stanford ever created a successful student. They spend way too much money on books and programs. No programs works for every kid. That’s why teachers still matter. Whether Saxon or Discover or EDM or any other program be it math or reading, the teacher has to deliver the content to the child in a way that they get it. I’ve read of other districts having excellent outcomes with other programs. In my twenty years, I’ve seen millions and millions spent on redundancy. And we have to pay the State its share on every purchase. A million-dollar math program? The State collects ten percent: $100,000. But I can teach with readers from the 1960s and be happy. The rigidity of the current curricular demands set by Stanford is suffocating. Different schools have different needs and those schools must be given the freedom to choose but still be accountable for student achievement.
Wow! I never thought I’d say this much. We need smart curious teachers who can be flexible and model for kids what it means to learn with them rather than teach at them. Teachers must engage students. Pay them and they will come!
Sorry I didn’t proof it first!
Unfortunately, the number one problem in our public schools is our legislators’ failure to meet their constitutional obligations to adequately fund our schools.
Until they are meeting their constitutional obligations, they should not be allowed to comment on or discuss the shortcomings of others.
“We should keep a watchful eye on the $2 million Pettigrew put in the budget for Seattle Schools”
With all due respect, Within the last 3 years, Seattle Public Schools has been forced to close an $100M budget gap. $2M will not go very far in making up for enormous losses suffered by our district.
I really need to challenge this statement:
“The principal did not seem concerned that the turnover rate at the school is something like 120% a year” Really? This comment seems a bit presumptious. Did you ask the principal about this? We all know that high poverty schools have churn. I’m waiting for someone to ask the question “why”,
West Seattle High School has received dollars via the F&E Levy. I can’t help but to notice that these dollars will be used to provide support services for at risk students.
Meanwhile, SPS has been forced to eliminate funding for summer school, elementary school counselors, drug and alcohol specialists, re-entry specialists, trulancy specialists and more. This year Seattle will RIF an additional 47 positions- which include high school counselors, music teachers and supports for ELL.
Principals of our enormous middle schools are forced to decide between funding nurses or math coaches.
Yes, technology, teacher support etc. are badly needed, but it all costs dollars.
I’ve found it incredibly unfortunate that ed. reform groups have been advocating for unproven initiatives that continue to take millions of dollars per year out of our already underfunded classrooms.
I appreciate Rep. Carlyle’s work to reform structural issues with book purchases, close loop holes and provide for foster children. I understand and Rep. Carlyle’s enormous sense of concern and responsibility.
Yet,collectively elected officials and citizens have failed – miserably- at funding our educational system and addressing poverty and it’s relationship to learning. Failing to address poverty and it’s underlying issues is a dis-service to our society for generations to come.
I will agree on this point: Dollars must be wisely invested.
Jrock, I don’t think legislators know what it means to “adequately” fund schools. They are living in the past. So they starve the beast even more and then blame it for dying of hunger. Rodney Thom is one of the worst.
I read recently that the Privatization Forces who filed a last-minute, “Let’s Pay People To Gather Signatures” strategy in order to trick us into supporting charters, are going to spending at least $7 million on this effort.
Seven million dollars for this dubious and deceptive tactic?
If these exceedingly wealthy charter backers REALLY care about our children, wouldn’t it make more sense to use that $7 million to improve our schools? (The posts above list several critical areas in which that money could be put to very good use.)
Wouldn’t it make more sense to use that $7 million, for instance, restoring the physical plant of some of our schools, rather than throwing it at companies that hire people to gather signatures, or at corporations showing their “pro-charter” commercials?
Or is the charter/privatization movement not really about “helping poor kids” but something else entirely?