Reuven, forgive me, but I need some clarification here: Is there not at least one more alternative to the dichotomy you’ve set up here? Personally I’m neither “the staunchest advocate for Barack Obama education reform or an ardent believer in our current course”; so where does that put me?

And, how exactly do you define “our current course”? This is too fuzzy, too amorphous for me to determine if I support it or not. Can you describe our “current course”?

And, actually, Reuven, I will argue—quite strongly—that our state can and does “embrace an open, healthy, vibrant public dialogue about education issues without retreating into rigid stereotypes.”

It would be helpful, however, if those of us—like average income parents—had as much money to saturate the state with our views as those who oppose us and our work on behalf of our children and their teachers.

Would you support legislation mandating that all not-for-profit groups, like Stand For Children, not be permitted to use its tax-exempt status to influence elections?

“The organization totally changed from a true grass-roots volunteer decision making group to one that now pushes a national reform agenda funded by corporate and Wall Street millionaires,” semi-retired educator and Canby education consultant Tom Olson told the Portland Tribune this week.

“The central plan now is communicating that public schools don’t need additional money to help kids succeed — only more “reforms” that are thinly veiled union bashing.”http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=131105508519296400

I could write a long and detailed response to what you’ve written here. And perhaps I will in the near future. However, I will say that I’m extremely disappointed and disheartened by your piece. I’m almost stunned.

As a parent of a second grader at one of the many excellent public schools in Seattle. I love this school, its principal, its teachers and the other families who make it such a good and supportive learning environment. And I don’t want to see our school, or any other school, hurt by outside, well-funded interests—virtually none of whom send their own children to public schools.

I believe that although your intentions are good, your words will ultimately hurt public education, the teachers, the families and the students who are so invested in our community’s school.

I’m very surprised that you would cite the recent endorsement of Rob McKenna for Governor by the “education” advocacy group, “Stand for Children”. Do you know who is behind this group? It’s been described as the ultimate “Astroturf” Group, intentionally designed to look like a citizens organization of genuine, caring advocates for education.

It is, in reality, the exact opposite. “Stand For Children” is supported by a handful of extremely wealthy individuals, all of whom are bitterly hostile to both teachers and parents having any say in their child’s education—unless, of course, those teachers and parents agree with the SFC party line.

The fact that they endorsed someone like Rob McKenna—with his horrendous record on education—should be an absolute confirmation that Stand For Children is not to be trusted. Doesn’t this just confirm what so many of us have been saying: That they are a conservative group with a conservative agenda, attempting to hide behind a “non-partisan” shield. Do you actually still consider them to be credible?

If anyone still trusts “Stand For Children”, I suggest you look closely at their backers and their funders. “Follow The Money” as Watergate taught us. That will tell you all you need to know. It won’t be very surprising, at that point, why they have come out in favor of McKenna.

Will you still defend and support “Stand For Children” after their McKenna endorsement, Reuven?

With best wishes and sincere respect and acknowledgement.

I’ve never considered our educational system the sole failure for poor educational outcomes. Many students have complex psycho-social lives. How about some type of legislation that would
provide funding/ support for family and student mental health issues?

One must also consider transient populations are the ones failing through the cracks. Students are often placed into schools with little known about the individual’s educational history. How about some type of legislation that would require transcripts be sent to receiving schools? And , have an individual plan to meet student needs.

What about some type of campaign to focus to assure students are reading by 3rd grade?

There’s been a lot of talk about “accountability” in public education, but the accountability has been introduced in upside-down order.

The first people held accountable were the students, who are the people with the least amount of power to change the system. How much sense does that make? They were required to pass state tests (designed to assess schools and districts, not individual students) or be denied diplomas. That’s some pretty severe accountability for people with no authority or opportunity to change the system.

The next people held accountable have been the teachers, the people with the second-least amount of power to change the system. They have also been threatened with severe accountability – the loss of their jobs and the end of their careers.

As the Education Reform folks continue to work their way up from the bottom, the next in line for accountability will be principals.

Instead, we should have recognized that public K-12 education has systemic problems, not a collection of individual ones. The people who should be held accountable for fixing those problems are those who design and maintain the system, not the people working within it. Seriously, has no one in Olympia ever heard of W. Edwards Deming? We are not going to see systemic change until we change the system. We are not going to change the system until the people who are responsible for it are held accountable for it. Skip the accountability for the students, teachers and principals. Go straight to accountability for the OSPI, school boards, district superintendents, and district-level bureaucrats. These are the people who are making six-figure salaries. These are the people who design and maintain the system. These are the people who should be making the changes that we need, but have been refusing to do so.

Think about it. What’s the difference between a charter school and a public school? The charter school is free of state- and district-level bureaucracy. So anyone who says that charter schools are good is essentially saying that the state- and district-level bureaucracy have been holding our schools back. If freedom from these bureaucracies is the solution to our problem, then why have it for just a few schools? Why not have it for all schools? Anyone who is promoting charter schools should really prefer to advocate for the repeal of state- and district-level bureaucratic requirements for all schools. Shouldn’t they? But they aren’t doing that, are they? Why not? You really need to ponder that question.

We don’t need to make new rules or laws so much as we need to repeal many of the rules we have. Or maybe we need one new rule that limits the role of school district central administrations. They should focus on non-academic services (transportation, enrollment, facilities maintenance, nutrition, financial services, HR, logistics, legal, etc.). Their role in academics should be sharply reduced. They should provide quality assurance – to make sure that the schools are adequately serving all students – and have a few content area experts to set curriculum.

How about NO legislation allowing Principals for America, or principals with little to no teaching experience or knowledge about education. Seems I recall Reuven thought we needed a law like this. Yeah, that’s raising the bar.