My two cents re: Governor Branstad's Ed Bill

Disclaimer: written on a plane in less than ideal conditions for my muse. Be kind.

I've now had a chance to read both the legislative brief shared by the Department of Education (DE) and the Governor's Ed bill. I think it's no secret that I didn't appreciate the way in which it was delivered, but I have to say that I'm mostly comfortable with the content, especially to the extent that it serves as a starting point for actually getting something done this year.

The bill isn't transformative, but does propose work that is likely beneficial and will not necessarily limit transformational work that needs to happen simultaneously -- if the details are handled carefully. I'm beginning to think I will be eternally frustrated that the heavy lifting of transformation has to land on the shoulders of isolated educators, schools, and districts. Please prove me wrong. I would be thrilled if we could get support for a systemic way of growing, studying, and sharing innovations within Iowa's education system. I understand the value of replicating what's already proven, but we'll never figure out new things that work if we don't have a way of exploring and studying them. There are certainly models to guide such efforts. I promise to share some actionable ideas soon.

I am disappointed by what I see as a glaring omission I hope our legislative allies will address by further supporting the momentum building in support of competency based education (CBE). As a member of the legislatively-mandated task force on competency based education, it has become clear to me that support within the Department of Education for CBE on a large scale is limited. I understand the reasoning behind that position, so I would suggest that the legislature act to support and fund necessary research and development work related to CBE outside of the the scope of the DE if necessary.

Overall, this year's proposal responds to some major issues raised during last year's process. Specifically:

There is a much more detailed and collaboratively-developed description of the teacher career pathways section.

This year's proposal is funded - with just one nudge toward reallocation of existing professional development funds.

Certainly developing Iowa's own online education system is the right way to meet the growing need for Iowa's students. Everything I know about ILO builds my faith that we can develop high quality learning experiences for students in blended and virtual environments. I would respectfully suggest that the powerful and related work of the IACoPi project be supported and developed in tandem.

Overall, I am optimistic about the parts of the proposal related to Promise diploma seals, as I value an outcomes-based system. At the same time, I urge caution in the details to ensure that the necessary approximations for learning are worthy approximations. History has taught me to be skeptical of our ability to identify and use data and assessments appropriately. I also urge caution in the development of details to ensure that necessary parallel work toward CBE is not hampered. For instance, we need to be careful when using constructs such as courses and credits into the future, as CBE will make many of them obsolete. If we allow future work to be grounded in fleeting constructs, we will inevitably limit innovation.

Coming to the proposal from the context of my own district, I feel confident we could do great things within a system of career pathways. The very best growth opportunities for our teachers are in meaningful collaboration with each other. We have talented teachers who have much to offer their colleagues. In our current model, we have a de facto system of lead, mentor, and master teachers that unfairly burdens our teachers by adding extra work to their already full workloads. We need them in these roles, but currently have no system for recognizing or compensating them.

I just have one concern related to the evaluation portions of the bill - the buck seems to stop at the desk of the Director far too often for my comfort. While positions may stay the same, the people who occupy those positions change. I recognize that too much bureaucracy gets in the way of progress, but I urge balance that leverages more collaborative decision making and some necessary checks and balances in this context.

I would expect no less than rigorous questioning and robust debate on the details of this bill (which I'm confident our political process will deliver), but my highest hope is that we not waste another year in this important work of transforming our K-12 system. While my strong preference would be an entire system redesign (which this proposal clearly is not), we can't let the pursuit of perfect prevent us from acting at all. Identify the big issues, address them, and then get something passed. Please. 

Comments

[JasonglassIA]

Hi Bridgette,

I appreciate your conditional support of the Governor's education reform bill. We've done a great deal of work trying to tailor this to be the right fit for Iowa and I think we are hitting the right notes with this package. I agree that a great school leader (like you) in a progressive district (like Waverly-Shell Rock) could do amazing things with the teacher leader structure contained in the bill.

I do want to push back on a couple of statements you make. First, I think your definition of "transformational" is limited and overly narrow. You seem to define "transformational" to refer to the instructional delivery system making a transition from a time and credit-based approach to a competency-based approach.

I share your passion and excitement about competency-based education, but I would offer that a system that raises the teaching profession to a status hat is highly sought after, highly respected in society, highly compensated, highly collaborative, and that contains a variety of customizable career pathways is also transformative in nature. Your definition seems limited to instruction. Not taking anything away from competency-based education and the promise it holds, I offer that this is a transformation of the educator workforce and ask that you consider a broader framework.

Second, I take exception to your claim that competency-based education only has limited support from the Iowa Department of Education. Let's set the record straight. The legislative language that opened up competency-based education in the state came from the Department. The Department convened the first (and so far only) statewide conference on competency-based education in the state. The Department has commissioned a study of the forms of competency-based education in Iowa in partnership with REL Midwest. The Department has also committed staff and resources to support the task force group you mention. Further, I have spoken publicly and at length about how competency-based education is an innovation that we must protect, nurture, and grow.

This does not strike me as a limited support. Especially given the fact that the legislature appropriated zero dollars to the Department for any of these activities. Thus, the support that we provide comes out of a very limited supply of state dollars allocated to the Department. So, we do support it and that support is coming out of this organization's hide.

Regarding the evaluation component, the bill actually calls for a broad-based commission to assist in making decisions related to the evaluation standards and system. For the past two years, we (the staff at the DE) have tried unsuccessfully to get consensus on how to proceed regarding educator standards and evaluation. The state is at an impasse. Higher education vehemently prefers the INTASC standards and are using those in preparing teachers while the K-12 groups prefer the old Iowa teaching standards and neither side will yield. Unstoppable force meets immovable object. The bill directs me (the state director) to build new standards based on both frameworks in collaboration with that broad commission. Any aggregation of decision making power in this context comes from the necessity of getting this moving if we are to seek a waiver from NCLB ... which requires a redesign of the evaluation system.

Thanks much for your thoughts and again - appreciate your words of support. Please know I respect you and your opinion a great deal - it's just important that I set this record straight.

Jason Glass

[B_Wagoner]

Thanks for your comments, Jason. I so appreciate your responsiveness. This kind of open dialog is rare in other states, so I want to be sure to acknowledge how much I value it.

I do think we are coming to the table with different constructs of transformation. My bias is for that which fundamentally changes the way students experience learning. That is a view that probably limits my ability to appreciate significant changes in others areas of the education ecosystem. As with all perspective, mine is a product of the world in which I live. I am fortunate to be working in a district that is doing much right. I can concede that my definition of transformation is narrow. CBE aside, I will always long for a way to speed up the process of testing, studying and sharing new ideas in education. I just don't have the patience to sit back and wait for traditional methods. My kids (and too many other people's kids) are growing up too fast for that.

I'll clarify my frustration with the CBE work - and perhaps it's as simple as a mismatch between words and actions. The words I constantly hear are words of hesitancy because CBE is not currently developed in a way that is evidence based or scalable and replicable with validity -- and that the DE's focus has to be on those things which are evidence based, scalable and replicable. I get that. I even agree -- even though I wish I didn't. Your list of DE actions that support CBE are valid and important. Maybe the solution is simply in squaring the words and the actions by framing the purpose and role of the CBE work outside of the scope of the calibrated cannonballs.

I'll be blunt about my comments on standards and evaluation -- I probably should have been from the beginning. I have no problem with you making a judgment call among INTASC, the old 8 and 42, or some iteration in the middle, but you're not going to be here forever. I just don't want something as foundational as standards and evaluation in a position to change on one person's whim. There has to be a way to get past the immediate hurdle and protect checks and balances into the future - maybe it's there and I just missed it. I recognize the immediate importance of securing an NCLB waiver and support the necessary means to that end until we can what we really need, which is ESEA reauthorization.

Again, thanks for the dialog. I know we are both committed to the same core mission, and I stand ready to support the right work for kids in whatever ways I can.