Federal Accountability and AYP

Early this week we sent out a letter to the parents of each student in the school district that has not met Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by the 2001 'No Child Left Behind Law'. If you happened to read the Courier on Wednesday you probably saw that this coincided with the release of the State Report card. This also was followed up with a statement from Dr. Brad Buck, the Director of the Iowa Department of Education outlining the fact that these results show a need for a new federal accountability framework. We have fielded a few questions ranging from concern of parents to questions about whether or not this is something new we are doing in the district. It is something new, and it was designed in an effort to do several things.

First, it was meant to provide you with valuable information regarding the academic progress of your child. While we send the results of the Iowa Assessments home every year, they are not the easiest to interpret. When evaluating the results of the test, unless one has an understanding of statistical modeling and standard deviation the results can be difficult to understand and interpret.

Second, it is important to note that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires that all students be proficient by 2014. This law does not differentiate between general education students, special education students, or any other subgroup of students. And, 2014 is almost here so this becomes even more timely.

This brings me to the next point, which is the flawed nature of NCLB. Aside from the fact that it is mathematically impossible to use a norm referenced test (when students are ranked, someone will be at the bottom) to achieve 100% proficiency, we agree with Dr. Buck's assessment that a 'one size fits all' federal accountability model is unfair and fails to recognize the growth that our students make. Consider this: 869 of 1,361 schools in Iowa missed federal guidelines for the 2012-2013 school year. 

All that being said, we still take student achievement very seriously and want to do everything we can to ensure the success of all children in the district--regardless of any mitigating factors (that get in the way). In order to do this, we truly value your input and partnership.

So as parents, what are you to do? First, we are happy to know that this letter serves as a catalyst for discussion among families and we welcome the conversations this will generate. If you have questions about instructional strategies or your child's individual achievement, please contact your child's teacher! If you have questions about interpreting the child's achievement data, please contact your child's principal. Finally, I would encourage you to contact members of Congress and tell them that the time for action to re-authorize the NCLB Act is now! It is time to stop with these punitive and arbitrary accountability measures and instead begin to focus on a research based student growth model. You can find out how to contact members of Congress right here.

Teacher Leadership and Compensation

I have take quite a bit of interest lately in the new education reform legislation that was signed into law by the Governor at the end of this last session. Of particular note is the Teacher Leadership and Compensation portion of House File 215 included in Division VII. This particular section has the potential to have a profound impact on student learning in Iowa. In addition, there is the possibility that it could serve as a model to be emulated nationwide.

Some key features of the legislation include an increase to the base pay of teachers to $33,500 (the current minimum salary is $28,000) and to create pathways for teachers to assume leadership roles in their buildings. This is notable because the primary way teachers are promoted in schools now is to become a building principal or other administrator. Obviously, not all teachers have aspirations to become administrators!

The Teacher Leadership and Compensation Model provides avenues to promote teachers into leadership roles without relinquishing their primary vocation: teaching. I am sure you are probably wondering, what on earth will these so called 'teacher leaders' be responsible for? And this: 'isn't that the job of the principal?' I think first if you look at the overall context and goal of the legislation it will help. It is all grounded in strengthening instruction in the classroom. We all know that the key to increasing student achievement in classrooms is ensuring that students are exposed to a quality instructor in every classroom. We also know that like all other professions, teachers need continual training in the newest techniques and strategies that are research based (proven to work) in order to continue to meet the demands of an every changing student demographic (see Developing Strong Teaching).

Over the last decade or so, the role of the building principal has evolved. A position that was grounded primarily in the work of management and organization of the school building looks a lot different that it did when you and I were students. While the day to day operation remain an important and paramount task of the principal, we now have added the responsibility of 'Instructional Leader' to the job description. That means a lot of things, and depending who you ask, the answer may be different. But what you won't find argument about, is that the building principal is responsible in ensuring that quality instruction grounded in sound research is occurring in the classroom, and that students' academic achievement is on the rise. If that isn't happening, the principal is responsible for leveraging resources and strategies to 'move the ball down the field' so to speak.

The disconnect that sometimes occurs is a failure to realize that building principals are not experts in all content areas. While administrators were all teachers at some point in their career, they are very likely not 'masters of all' when it comes to instructional strategies. For example, once upon a time I was a music teacher. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for me to proclaim and model expertise in the most up to date strategies for teaching reading. It is much more likely (and practical) for a teacher to ask a trusted colleague or expert in the content (e.g. the reading teacher) for suggestions and strategies when they might be stuck with a particular group of students or skill. Heck, if you need help with vocal technique or choral conducting strategies, I am your guy. If you need help with reading strategies--not so much. BUT, I can give you ten other people in the district that can be your go to person. The role of the building principal as instructional leader in this regard is to leverage these resources and connect the dots (generally speaking).

That is what makes the prospect of Teacher Leadership and Compensation so promising! It provides us with a model and vehicle in which to make this happen. Such things have been proposed before, but as a state we have never been able to get them off the ground. Why? Because there has never been a mechanism to fund such a model. That funding was put into place with HF 215. Over the next three years, $50 Million has been appropriated to ramp up these systems. When fully implemented, this will create an investment of $150 Million annually. 

Here at Hudson, I believe we need to take full advantage of this. Providing opportunities to increase student achievement by strengthening instruction is critical to fulfilling our vision of 'Creating Effective Learning Environments That Result in Success For All Students'. We have taken the first step by completing an application to the Department of Education for a planning grant. This grant will fund our efforts to create a model that best suits the Hudson Community School District. If you are interested in helping with the planning process, please contact my office.

Next week I will share with you more details about the three options for Teacher Leadership and Compensation that the state has endorsed.