Link to a description of the reform: http://www.iowasenaterepublicans.com/index.php?option=com_lyftenbloggie&view=entry&category=blogs&id=36%3Aiowas-education-reform-blueprint&Itemid=18#bookmarks
Link to a replay of this morning's chat (this is in text form): http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2011/10/03/9-a-m-live-coverage-gov-branstad-unveils-iowa-education-reform-plan/
Here is my synopsis from this morning's press conference unveiling the blueprint for education reform in Iowa:
1. Increase teacher salaries
2. Change the structure of how teachers are paid to a four-tiered career ladder system.
3. High stakes literacy tests at 3rd grade
4. End-of-course exams and graduation testing for high school.
5. Create competition through charter schools and competitive innovation grants.
6. Create a system where teachers can work and learn together.
The goal to put a high quality teacher in every classroom, and a high quality principal in each building. Also, restrict those who go into to teaching to only the best and brightest.
My interpretation is not overly favorable right now.
Paying teacher more will make them better teachers? I'm not opposed to paying teachers more. I think in general, they should get a higher starting salary, but paying more without other changes will have little impact on the classroom. I also know that part of the purpose is to attract quality candidates to become teachers. Might work, but look at the states that have higher salaries than Iowa. Most of them also have a GREATER TEACHER SHORTAGE!
Pay teachers differently. I agree that the 4X4 salary schedule, as it exists now, is archaic at best. Teachers advance because we take a class and/or we advance because we lived to see another year. What Dr. Glass and Gov. Brandstad fail to acknowledge is that under current bargaining laws (i.e. Chapter 20) salary is a MANDATORY topic of bargaining. The salary schedule has to be bargained locally during negotiations, so really it is within the power of each district to set up any salary schedule they want. Which begs the question that if there is something better out there, why hasn't it surfaced through the negotiation process? If you recall, the current 4X4 schedule actually originated from the Des Moines school district a number of years ago. Doesn't mention how this is supposed to directly impact instructional practices.
High-stakes testing. If a third grade student doesn't test proficient on the literacy tests, they don't move on automatically. They have to go through remediation (i.e. summer school). This makes the assumption that all children acquire literacy skills at the same time, when we know through research that this is not true. That's not to say that we need to improve our practice of teaching reading in the primary grades. We do, and we should. No mention of instructional practices.
More high-stakes testing. End-of-course exams is not new reform, it's part of the Iowa Core (now know as the Common Core). Hey, but if they want to take credit.... The graduation exam is actually a re-hashed notion as well. Look to other states that have put this in place. Cheating is an issue (by students and teachers). There have been lawsuits filed. There are examples of errors in grading the tests and students being retained unnecessarily. There is no indication in the blueprint on how special education falls into the plan for exit exams. This one is going to require a great deal of thought and planning. Still no mention of instructional practices.
Competition for funding. Charter schools. Charter schools in Iowa are public schools that operate outside of Chapter 12 requirements with permission from the DE. Believe it or not, you can do this now in Iowa without being a charter school through the waiver laws that are in place. So really, in Iowa, we have the ability to establish alternative educational tracts for students if we so choose. If this is so, why don't we see more of it? Because the current philosophy behind a comprehensive K-12 system is one people buy into, in practice it works when the correct instructional practices are implemented. The other part of the competition piece is having school compete for innovation funds through a grant process. So, innovation is going to be in the sole hands of grant readers, rather than experts in educational practices. I guarantee that this will lead to shallow innovations like interactive whiteboards, one-to-one laptop initiatives, and the like. Again, never directly addressing instructional practices.
The question came up in the chat on how these reforms will be funded? The response from the Governor was that more resources will have to go to education in the state budget. Currently, 58% of the State of Iowa's budget is currently going to education. Again, I doubt throwing money at the problem is the correct course of action. I would gladly accept more, but I think we need to cut back on some of the categorical funding and allow local control on how the funding is used. As with the salary issue, look at the states simply spending more on education and you will see two things. Most of them perform at a level below Iowa, and most of them have or had severe budget crisis. Requiring research-based instructional practices would cost the state no more money. There would be some professional development required and that funding stream is already in place.
Both the Governor and Dr. Glass talked about creating a system where teachers can work together and learn together. In this current day, professional learning communities are more the norm. These are groups of teachers learning and working together, reviewing student achievement data, and working to improve teaching and learning. This exists already in many, if not most, schools. This leads me to a question, "Have the people working on this reform spent any significant time observing schools prior to addressing the so-called problems?"
It was also mentioned that teachers should have a voice in curriculum development and hiring. Curriculum development has been, almost soley in the hands of the teachers since we started writing standards and benchmarks back in the late 80's early 90's and this practice hasn't changed much. Currently, teachers are working hard on curriculum alignment with the Common Core. I guess I don't know who Dr. Glass or Gov. Brandstad thinks has been doing this work. As far as hiring goes, Although it was never directly stated, I take this to mean the hiring of teachers and administrators. It is common practice for teachers to serve on interview teams for hiring administrators. In many schools, teachers sit on interview teams when hiring teachers as well, Again, this is a local decision, but this would be far from major reform.
My interpretation? What they are purposing is "change" not "reform." To truly reform education, you need to implement research-based instructional practices consistently and with fidelity. Teachers need to be trained in what those effective strategies look like and how to develop lessons using them. Principals need to be trained to look DOWN at the student tasks, what the students are actually doing in the classroom. These are the things that will improve instruction, improve student learning, and ultimately, student achievement. My suggestion to Dr. Glass and Governor Branstad will be to stop just rearranging the deck chairs and start building a better boat. Focus on training teachers and principals in the most effective instructional strategies and expecting some accountability on how they are being used consistently. The other stuff is all window dressing and won't get us to where we truly need to be.
