The Prichard Committee’s Position on Charter School Authorizing is Shortsighted

I have long been a fan of The Prichard Committee‘s education reform advocacy work in Kentucky. The organization has a rich history of pushing boundaries and challenging both policymakers and the public to consider uncomfortable but needed reform in education. But the Committee’s recent Statement on Charter Schools in Kentucky regarding charter school authorizing is incredibly shortsighted.

As one of the principles for considering charter schools in Kentucky, the Committee has taken the following stance:

  • Authorization of charter schools should be by local boards of education following rules established by the state Board of Education that define processes for creation, conversion, renewal, revocation, closure and dissolution. Training of local boards, provided by the Department of Education, on charter school regulations, procedures and oversight should be required prior to any authorization.  Authorization of charter schools should be allowable only in circumstances of persistently low-achieving schools and/or significant achievement gaps.

Such a stance is particularly problematic for advocates of high quality charter schools in Kentucky, first and foremost because we know from experience nationally that such an arrangement is not likely to lead to the creation of high quality charter schools in Kentucky. Iowa did something similar to what the Prichard Committee has called for and passed charter school legislation in 2002 which requires that charter schools be approved by local boards of education. The result is that there are only three charter schools in Iowa after 13 years. The position that only local school districts may serve as charter school authorizers in Kentucky, just as in Iowa, is nearly the same as taking the position that there should be no charter schools in Kentucky. As evidence, you are likely to find support for the Prichard Committee’s Statement from opponents of charter school legislation in the Kentucky.

Over the last 25 years, we have learned that state charter school laws can be written in ways that guarantee that there will be few if any charter schools in a state. Opponents of charter school legislation work hard to incorporate those types of provisions into charter schools laws wherever possible. Mississippi’s first charter school law is a prime example. Under Mississippi’s former charter school law, the State Board of Education was the sole authorizer for charter schools in the state, and only a local school district could apply to convert one of its persistently low performing schools to a charter school.Even if granted the charter, the operation of a Mississippi charter school would have remained with the local school district. The result was that no charter schools were authorized in Mississippi. In 2013, Mississippi revamped its law, allowing for the creation of start-up and conversation charter schools that may be authorized by local boards of education, or a newly created Mississippi Charter School Authorizer Board. As a result, charter schools with promise are now being authorized in Mississippi.

Both the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), national organizations with records for advocating for strong charter school laws and high quality charter schools, have taken the position that state legislation should allow for multiple authorizers for charter schools. In measuring how state’s laws stack up to their model charter school legislation, the National Alliance scores states on the extent to which state laws “allow two or more authorizing options (e.g., school districts and a state charter schools commission) for each applicant with direct application to each authorizer.”

NACSA’s position on charter school authorizers is below:

  • NACSA encourages states to establish an alternative authorizer that meets NACSA’s Principles & Standards and which provides all charter school applicants with at least two authorizer options in every jurisdiction. Ideally, the alternative authorizer would be an ICB [independent charter board] and would have the ability to take applications directly, not just upon denial by the local school district. Regardless of the type, all authorizers should be required to implement strong practices in keeping with NACSA’s Principles & Standards, or similarly rigorous state standards for authorizers.

The Prichard Committee’s desire to limit charter school authorizing to local boards of education is out of line with what we have learned nationally about the establishment of high quality charter schools, and with the recommendations of respected charter school policy organizations. Further, the superintendents of Kentucky’s two largest school districts have made it clear that they do not want charter schools in Kentucky. With that understanding, taking the position that charter schools may only be authorized by local boards of education is nearly the same as the Prichard Committee saying that there should be no charter schools in Kentucky. If the Committee’s position is to support local boards of education in their opposition to charter schools in Kentucky, then they should simply say so. If that’s their position, they should make that position clear to the people of Kentucky, and not hide it behind a facade of moderate support for the establishment of charter schools.

Kentucky: Preparing for Performance-Based Funding in Higher Education

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin (R) has said that the budget he will present to the legislature in January 2016 will include “outcomes-based funding”; or funding that is at least in part based on the performance of public agencies or publicly supported institutions. While Governor Bevin has not talked specifically about outcomes-based funding for higher education institutions, variants of performance-based funding in higher education have been adopted in all of Kentucky’s neighboring states, with the exception of West Virginia.

In a nutshell, performance-based funding of higher education differs from the more traditional funding approach in that state funding of institutions or systems is either in-whole or in-part dependent on an institution’s progress toward achieving certain goals or its progress on certain predetermined state-defined indicators or metrics. Common indicators for higher education performance-based funding include institutions’ retention rates, graduation rates, and successful course completion rates. Critics of traditional higher education funding approaches and advocates for performance-based funding argue that traditional funding models provide little incentive for institutions to improve retention and graduation rates, graduate students in a more timely manner, or graduate students with a more industry-ready skill set. Opponents of performance-based funding argue that such approaches disadvantage institutions that don’t perform well on performance indicators, but desperately need state funding to improve their performance.

The policy details of performance-based funding vary significantly from state to state. Among Kentucky’s border states alone, performance-based funding approaches differ substantially. For example, in Tennessee, institutions (two-year and four-year institutions) receive a base allocation for operations, but beyond that, all state funding is allocated based on institutions’ progress on specified outcomes. Ohio has taken a different approach. For four-year institutions in Ohio, 50% of state funding for institutions is based on degree completion, and 30% of funding is based on course completion. For two-year institutions in Ohio, 50% of funding is based on course completion, 25% is based on state-defined completion milestones, and 25% is based on state-defined success points. Different still, in Indiana, 6% of funding for two-year and four-year institutions is based on state-defined specific institutional performance metrics, including: degree completion, at-risk degree completion, high impact degree completion, persistence, remediation, remediation success, on-time graduation, and an institution selected measure.

While Kentucky has not yet adopted performance-based funding for higher education, the policy conversation is not at all new in Kentucky. State policy makers as well as leaders at the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) and at high education institutions across the commonwealth have engaged in relatively substantive policy conversations for the last few years about what performance based funding in Kentucky could look like. CPE President Bob King has encouraged the shift since 2011.

Most recently, in the 2015 Regular Session of the Kentucky General Assembly, the Republican-led Senate passed a resolution to move higher education funding in the state in the direction of performance-based funding. The resolution directed the CPE to:

“develop a performance-based funding model for the public postsecondary education institutions; identify guiding principles and constraints; establish metrics that recognize difference of missions among research, comprehensive regional, and community and technical college institutions; require findings and recommendations to be reported by December 11, 2015.”

Voting on the resolution was for the most part along party lines, with most Republicans voting for the resolution and most Democrats voting against it. The resolution moved to the Democrat-led House and was assigned to the House Education Committee, which took no further action on it.

It should be noted that the presidents of both the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville have not been supportive of a shift to a performance-based funding model, making the argument that such a shift should not be considered without the General Assembly directing additional funding to higher education. State funding for higher education in Kentucky and across the U.S. has declined substantially in recent years. According to a 2014 report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, most states continue to fund higher education “below pre-recession levels.” Specifically, they reported that every state with the exception of North Dakota and Alaska are spending less per student on higher education than they were spending prior to the recession.

Whether Kentucky adopts performance-based funding in 2016 remains to be seen, but CPE, community college, and four-year institution leaders would be well-advised to prepare for its eventual coming to the commonwealth.

My Dream for Public Schooling in Kentucky: Every School A School of Choice

Education policy advocates on either side of the school choice debate spend considerable time debating the merits of charter schools, traditional public schools, magnet schools, etc. But the truth is that parents don’t care what type of school their children attend. Most parents want their children to attend a school that meets their needs, and honestly, they couldn’t care less whether the school is a traditional public school, a magnet school, or a charter school.

While some might call me naive, my dream for Kentucky is every parent having the ability to choose schools for their children. That choice might mean she enrolls her child in the traditional public school within walking distance of her home. That choice might mean his child is bused across town to attend a performing arts magnet school. Or that choice might mean her child attends a local public charter school with a curricular emphasis on medical technology. Whatever their choice, parents should be assured that school of choice meets a minimum academic performance standard, in the same way that when we choose a restaurant, we are assured by government that our restaurant choice meets a minimum food safety standard.

Call me silly, but I believe every public school in Kentucky should be one that parents choose for their children. No child or family should be trapped in a school that cannot or will not meet her academic needs.

Kentucky: Any Charter School Law Just Won’t Do

With Kentucky’s election of conservative Republican Governor Matt Bevin, who included school choice as a part of his campaign platform, and Democrats coming closer by the day to losing control of the state House of Representatives, discussion of the passage of a charter school law in Kentucky has picked up significantly. In fact, I have never heard more discussion of what many education policy movers, shakers, and watchers are saying is the inevitable emergence of public charter schools in Kentucky. As a longtime advocate for the passage of strong public charter school legislation in Kentucky, I greet that conversation with cautious optimism.

It is true that the support of Governor Bevin, the support of newly appointed Education and Workforce Cabinet Secretary Hal Heiner, and shaky control of the state House by Democrats, all contribute to a political environment in Kentucky that could be ripe for the passage of a strong charter school law. But even with a more favorable political environment, advocates for high quality charter schools should be more insistent than ever that Kentucky’s lawmakers get charter school legislation right. We have learned from other states successes and challeng

es that the details of charter school legislation matter tremendously.It is the provisions of the statute that set the framework what charter schools in a state will eventually become. Unfortunately, I believe the inclination of some educational leaders and lawmakers in Kentucky is to try to pass a charter school law that is most palatable to the traditional public education establishment, rather than passing a law that gives charter schools in Kentucky the greatest opportunity to be successful. Rather than putting first the academic well-being of children who will be served by Kentucky’s charter schools, I fear that some lawmakers find it preferable to please district and state-level education leaders and the organizations they represent. Make no mistake about it, the interests of children and the interests of education organizations are not always one in the same.

I have gone on record previously and I do so again in saying that I will not advocate for the passage of a weak charter school law. A charter school law in Kentucky that leads to the creation of no high quality public charter schools, or worse, leads to persistently low achieving public charter schools, would do more harm to children than good. As such, Kentucky would be better served by forgoing the passage of a weak charter school law, and having no charter school law at all.

There are many elements of a strong charter school law to be decided on, but there are a few essential elements that must be a part of Kentucky’s charter school law if it is to lead to successful public charter schools. Based on research, the successes and failures of other states, and good old fashion common sense, here are a few of those essential elements:

  • Multiple Paths to Authorization. Kentucky’s charter school law must include more than one path to authorization for schools. Local school districts may serve as one of the charter authorizers, but groups applying for a charter must have at least one additional path to apply for charter authorization. Others states have experienced success with additional routes to charter authorization through independent charter school commissions, state boards of education, state commissioners or superintendents of education, city governments, and state-supported universities. All of these options should be considered in Kentucky. Providing charter schools with only one route to authorization through local school districts would leave the establishment and success of charters schools in Kentucky solely in the hands of organizations that have opposed the passage of charter school legislation.
  • Academic Accountability. Kentucky’s charter school law must hold charter schools to the highest standards of academic performance accountability. Authorizers must be held accountable for granting charters only to groups that have a comprehensive plan for the success of the school. Authorizers must be held accountable for monitoring the academic performance of charter schools in their charge, intervening when needed, and not renewing or revoking schools’ charters when necessary. Public charter schools in Kentucky cannot be allowed to fail children and families year after year, generation after generation, as some of our traditional public schools have.
  • Collective Bargaining. Kentucky’s charter schools must not be bound by collective bargaining agreements between teachers unions and local school districts. The provisions of such agreements limit the human resources autonomy of administrators in some of Kentucky’s traditional public schools. Specifically, provisions of such collective bargaining greatly limit school administrators’ ability to recruit, hire, supervise, evaluate, and if need be, terminate school personnel. As the charter school concept is based on providing schools with greater autonomy in exchange for higher levels of academic accountability, binding public charter schools with those restrictions would be counterproductive. A charter school law would not and could not, however, prevent teachers at Kentucky charter schools from forming their own unions if they so chose and collectively bargaining with their schools.
  • Funding Equity. Kentucky’s public charter schools must receive funding that is equitable to traditional public schools. Public charter schools in some states have been crippled by receiving as little as half the per pupil dollar amount that would be allocated for a child attending a traditional public school. Such funding inequity would be unacceptable in a charter school law in Kentucky. Funding for public charter schools should be allocated in the same manner that funding for traditional public schools is allocated, on a per pupil basis. For every child whose parent chooses to enroll her in a public charter school, the same state, local, and federal dollars that would follow her to a district school should follow her to a public charter school.

Why High Tech High Couldn’t Operate in Kentucky

Over the last few years I’ve seen considerable interest from Kentucky educators in San Diego’s High Tech High School. For those of you who are unfamiliar with High Tech High, here is a brief description from the school’s website:

“Launched in September 2000 by an industry and educator coalition, the Gary and Jerri- Ann Jacobs High Tech High is an independent public charter school serving 584 students in grades 9-12. The school’s mission is to prepare a diverse range of students for postsecondary education, citizenship, and leadership in the high technology industry.”

In the last few years, more than a few Kentucky educators and education leaders have made their way to San Diego to tour the school, and most of them have returned to Kentucky energized about the possibilities for innovation in public education. I saw such enthusiasm on display again just last night. I was invited by my friend and colleague Dr. Justin Bathon to attend a film screening and discussion for “Most Likely to Succeed” at Lexington’s Steam Academy. The film was fantastic and I highly recommend attending or organizing a screening. The film highlighted High Tech High’s approach, students, teachers, and parents. And once again, Kentucky educators, parents, and students were inspired to transform classrooms, schools, and school districts into learning environments with similar characteristics as High Tech High. I wasn’t surprised.

What does continue to surprise me, however, is that in conversations about High Tech High and education innovation in Kentucky’s schools, there is rarely if ever mention of the fact that High Tech High is a charter school. And I’m perceptive enough to know that for educators and education leaders, it’s more than just oversight. It’s no secret that charter schooling is heresy in Kentucky’s traditional public education circles.

To be sure, there are plenty of charter schools in California and across the U.S. that can’t hold a candle to what High Tech High is doing. But it is absolutely the case that High Tech High is what it is because of California’s charter school law. Its leaders have used the flexibility and autonomy granted to it by California’s charter school law to build a school that bears little resemblance to traditional public schools in California or anywhere else. To miss that High Tech High is able to be as different as it is because it is a charter school is to miss something integral to its success.

Policy makers and education leaders in Kentucky should also realize this: If the leaders of High Tech High School wanted to come to Kentucky to replicate the school or create something similar, they couldn’t. Why? First and foremost, because Kentucky has no charter school law; so they couldn’t apply for a charter to do it. But even if it were current education leaders in a Kentucky school district who wanted to build a Kentucky version of High Tech High, they couldn’t; because without a charter school law, there is not nearly the flexibility for schools needed to pull it off in Kentucky.

Here are a few critical elements to the school’s model which Kentucky school leaders should pay closer attention to:

  • There is no tenure for teachers at High Tech High. Their teachers sign one-year contracts which may or may not be renewed at the end of the year.
  • California’s charter school law exempts High Tech High (and all California charter schools) from school district collective bargaining agreements.
  • High Tech High is authorized by the state to credential its own teachers (the first California charter school authorized to do so). Teachers hired are automatically enrolled in its free, two-year credentialing program. That kind of flexibility gives them the ability to recruit teachers who may or may not currently have a teaching credential, and who may or may not have completed formal training in education. High Tech High (and all charter schools in California) are granted further flexibility with the credentialing of teachers who teach “non-core, non-college preparatory courses.”
  • Leaders at High Tech High exercise an extraordinary amount of curricular and instructional autonomy; the likes of which current Kentucky schools do not have. In fact, a principal or superintendent in Kentucky proposing to alter the curriculum to the extent offered there would likely be laughed out of the state.
  • Leaders at High Tech High exercise tremendous budget autonomy in aligning personnel, instructional, and facilities expenditures with the the vision and mission of the school.

These are just a few of the areas where California’s charter school law has provided the legal flexibility that allows High Tech High to do what it does. There was no magic charter school dust that made the school what it is; but without the flexibility provided by the charter school law, the school wouldn’t exist. Education policy does matter. Kentucky’s policy makers and education leaders who have fallen in love with the High Tech High model would be shortsighted to not acknowledge that it does.

The Washington State Supreme Court’s Charter School Ruling: What it Means and What it Doesn’t

If you have paid much attention to school choice news from across the country, you’ve heard that the Washington State Supreme Court delivered a monumental ruling on September 4th regarding the state’s new charter school law. In a 6-3 decision, the state’s high court ruled that the state’s charter school law (Proposition I-1240) violates the Washington State Constitution. At issue was whether charter schools in Washington may be characterized as “common schools”. This is important in Washington because the state’s constitution requires that state public school funding only be used to support common schools. In its decision, the Court deemed that because the boards of Washington’s charter schools are appointed and not elected, they may not be considered common schools, and thus are ineligible to be funded by common school funding.  

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia now have charter schools in operation. The nation’s first charter school law was passed in Minnesota in 1991. The Washington Supreme Court’s ruling marked the first time a state court has found charter school funding be be in violation of a state constitution. So as you can imagine, the ruling has sent shock waves through the charter school and school choice communities, not only in Washington, but across the United States.

What Does the Future Hold for Charter Schools in Washington State?

While charter school advocates and parents of children attending the new charter schools in Washington are working around the clock to save their new schools, in the short term, the likelihood of saving them is slim. While fundraising efforts of charter school supporters in Washington and nationally have been valiant, it”s not likely to be enough. Further, if the schools are not tax-payer funded, in my estimation at least, they may no longer be considered to be public schools.

There is no appeal’s process for the court’s decision. The Washington Supreme Court has spoken and their word is final. Just as with the U.S. Supreme Court and matters relating to the U.S. Constitution, the Washington Supreme Court is as far as it goes in Washington. In short, the Washington state constitution says what the Washington Supreme Court says it says.

All is not lost, however; at least not in the long term. Charter school advocates in Washington intend to revisit the state’s law. The Washington Supreme Court’s ruling was that charter schools in the state cannot be considered common schools because their boards are appointed and not elected. Charter advocates are now gearing up for another ballot initiative (Washington’s charter school law came as the result of a ballot initiative) which would amend the law to have charter schools boards as elected rather than appointed. Such a change would likely/maybe/possibly satisfy the Washington Supreme Court. As we saw with this case, however, the Washington Education Association is an extremely formidable foe for charter school advocates. We’ll just have to see what happens.

Implications for Charter Schools Across the U.S.

Outside of Washington state, education leaders, and policymakers, and parents are asking what the implications of the Washington Supreme Court’s decision might be for charter school policy and charter schools in other states. While the Washington state ruling does not apply to charter schools or charter school laws in other states, I do expect to see teachers unions lead (with renewed vigor) campaigns in other states to challenge the constitutionality of charter schools. My guess is the vast majority of those efforts will be unsuccessful, but there is definitely the possibility of success in some places. Charter school laws are different from state to state, and state constitutions have different provisions from state to state. Further complicating the issue is the reality that state courts have different political leanings from state to state; some which lean Right and tend to be more supportive of choice policies, and some which lean Left and tend to be much less supportive of school choice policy.

In short, the Washington ruling doesn’t signal the beginning of the end for charter schools in the U.S. As I’ve said many times and in many places before, charter schooling is now a permanent fixture of the public education landscape in the U.S. The ruling does, however, highlight a potential strategy for charter school opponents in other states. The politics of school choice has always been interesting, and it promises to remain that way.

Kentucky’s ‘Gap Students’ Classification Must Be Eliminated

Since at least 2012, store the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) has classified students of color and economically disadvantaged students as gap students; a classification which has filtered down to school districts and schools, so that teachers and administrators across the state commonly refer to students of color and economically disadvantaged students as gap students. KDE’s rationale for the classification of students in this way is that the academic achievement of these groups of students is typically significantly lower than that of White students, leaving significant achievement gaps. What KDE misses, however, is that gaps refers to the distances between the achievement scores of subgroups of students; gaps do not (or should not) refer to any specific groups of students. Referring to any group of students as gap students is at the very least extremely unprofessional and inappropriate. I argue that such labeling is additionally incredibly insulting, hurtful, and even harmful to children.

It is beyond my understanding why anyone would think such a labeling convention would be a good thing. Achievement gaps are ugly. They represent failures on the part of adults to get learning right for students of color and economically disadvantaged students. What achievement gaps do not represent is wrongdoing or shortcomings on the part of children. The academic achievement scores of children of color at levels significantly below those of White children is not a function of children of color having any less capacity to learn than White children. Why, then, would KDE attach such a derogatory label to children?

If we’re honest about it, the gap label would be more appropriately applied to teachers, schools, and school districts than to children. There are teachers and schools that we know for certain do more to exacerbate achievement gaps than to eliminate them. There are teachers and schools in Kentucky that are either unwilling or unable to meet the specific learning needs of culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse learners. Perhaps KDE should consider labeling those teachers and schools as gap teachers and gap schools. But to attach such a disparaging label to children is inaccurate and inexcusable.

I do not believe there was malicious intent with the creation of the gap category of students. In fact, I believe KDE officials’ intentions were probably noble, but even with the best of intentions, the classification of students of color and economically disadvantaged students as gap students is highly problematic and must be changed immediately.

Teaching Today: Change is Afoot

DSC00329Teaching today is a much different profession than it was 30 years ago. Truthfully, it is significantly different from what it was nearly 15 years ago when I became a teacher. And the profession is likely to change even more in the next five to ten years. While some veteran teachers argue that many of the current changes to teaching are unspeakable, I am convinced that much of the reform to teaching is for the best (best for children, that is). Here are just a few areas where the teaching profession today and moving forward is significantly different from what it was just a generation ago.

  • Job Security Fewer teachers today, and most likely even future teachers going forward, will enjoy the degree of job security that teachers in previous eras enjoyed. A high degree of job security has certainly made teaching attractive for some. The reality of the profession has been that regardless of whether a teacher is effective, he can usually manage to find and keep a teaching job somewhere (often teaching our most vulnerable children). That era, however, is coming to an end. For many teachers today and most teachers tomorrow, job security will be dependent on their effectiveness. Teachers who cannot demonstrate their effectiveness, through their students’ performance on standardized examinations, will find themselves struggling to keep their jobs.
  • Seniority For generations, more senior teachers have enjoyed the privileges of having first dibs on ‘choice’ teaching assignments and greater protection during reductions in force (RIF). During RIFs it has been customary for teachers last hired to be the first ones let go, while teachers with seniority have been protected; a practice commonly known as LIFO (Last In, First Out). While LIFO and other teacher seniority provisions remain a part of some teachers’ collective bargaining agreements, such provisions are becoming less common. And in cases where seniority provisions haven’t been completely negotiated away by school districts, seniority privileges are being curtailed, giving district and school level administrators greater discretion in teacher hiring and retention. It will soon be the norm in public school districts that teachers’ hiring, retention, and transfer will be based on their effectiveness, not their seniority.
  • Teacher Salary Public school teachers’ salaries have long been determined by their years of teaching experience and their level of education (bachelors, masters, doctoral degrees). In such systems, all teachers with five years of experience and a masters degree would have the same base salary, regardless of their effectiveness. But teacher pay is now being reconsidered. Policy makers, researchers, and educational leaders are questioning whether current teacher salary models makes sense in the current era of performance-based accountability. States, school districts, and charter schools are now experimenting with different approaches to teacher pay including merit pay, performance pay, performance bonuses, differentiated pay by subject area, and market-based salaries. Aspiring teachers and teachers who are relatively early in their careers should expect that in the near future their pay will be be at least in part based on their effectiveness (as measured by their students’ performance on standardized examinations).
  • Teacher Leadership While teachers have always been called on to lead in various capacities, teachers are now being asked to take on school-level leadership roles like never before. Much of the change in the expectation that teachers lead may be attributed to the increasing popularity of distributed and shared leadership models in P12 schools. Anyone going into teaching or intending to stay there should expect to take on significant formal and/or informal school leadership roles throughout their career. Such roles might include department chair, subject area lead, professional learning community (PLC) lead, peer mentor, trainer, and school or district level curriculum leadership positions.

The 30-Year Teacher is Gone and She’s Not Coming Back

If colleges of teacher education and school districts are waiting for the flood of young people who intend to spend the next thirty years of their lives as classroom teachers, they will be sorely disappointed. The reality, whether you want to face it or not, is the vast majority aspiring young professionals, even those potentially interested in pursuing careers in education, are not interested in starting a job at 22 that they will do for the rest of their working lives. That proposition just isn’t appealing to the current 18-22 year old. And to be honest, it never particularly appealed to this 35-year old. Most college-age young people are looking for their first job, their start at a career; not knowing what they might be doing in the next 5 years, much less 25 years.

So what does all this mean? Well, contrary to what some believe, it’s not the end of the world or the end of the teaching profession. It just means the field has to adapt to this era and be more flexible with how we ensure that children are receiving high quality instruction; even if new models of teaching look significantly different than current ones. And rather than trying to force young people who might be excellent teachers (even if only for the first part of their career) into the mold of the 30-year teacher, colleges of teacher education and school districts should practice embracing the diversity, energy, fresh ideas, and diverse perspectives young professionals can bring to teaching and to the children they will serve. There shouldn’t be the expectation that young people can only go into education if it’s what they intend to do forever. And to be completely honest with you, I don’t want a teaching profession where no one has any interest  in ever doing anything else, or where there are no teachers who have ever done anything other than teach. That time-warped conceptualization of the profession in part contributes to the current instructional and leadership stagnation common to some schools and school districts. Personally, I think it would fantastic to have a talented young woman begin her career as a high school English teacher then make her way into a communications position somewhere; or an energetic and ambitious young man begin his career as a middle school teacher and move into a training and development position with a Fortune 500 company. I am a big proponent of rethinking the profession in ways that make it a more appealing place for teachers to stay, but everyone doesn’t have to stay, nor should they.

With that said, schools must have veteran educators who commit to careers in teaching long-term. In fact, I argue that such veterans are critically essential elements for the success of any school or school district. Schools and charter management organization’s (CMO) would be extremely shortsighted to dismiss the critical importance of master teachers whose expertise comes only with experience. Any organizations thinking in that way would be wise to reconsider their staffing models and teacher career ladders.

But master teachers are not the norm. Even with the current school staffing model where the majority of school staff are long-term veteran educators, only a quarter to a third of teachers at most could be legitimately characterized as master teachers. Very few teachers are exceptional. Most teachers are average. Some teachers are below average. That’s no slight to teachers, it’s just the truth. But average is okay. If most of my daughter’s teachers end up being average with the occasional exceptional teacher sprinkled into her academic career I’ll be a happy camper. In fact, whether it’s instruction for my child or service at Starbucks, I should expect average; expecting the exceptional is unreasonable. Exceptional service/instruction/expertise is just a treat, not something you get all the time. We ought to think of exceptional teaching or service like we think of a truly exquisite glass of wine or a very rare Bourbon (for you Kentuckians). Most of us just don’t have that stuff every night with dinner.

Most teachers, just like most doctors, lawyers, professors, baristas, musicians, and engineers, are average. Most of us, regardless of what we do, are not exceptional. If we were all exceptional, exceptional wouldn’t be exceptional, it would be average. So the rhetoric that everyone coming into the teaching profession ought to be on a track to become a master teacher doesn’t hold water. The reality has never truly matched that rhetoric, but the rhetoric, and in some cases restrictive policies and practices which institutionalize the rhetoric, have kept some very talented young (and older) people from considering teaching. We’ve often scared away or locked out people who could make noteworthy instructional contributions for 3, 4, or 5 years.

I am incredibly grateful for the career teachers that have served children so well for so long. I have been taught by and mentored by more than a few phenomenal career educators. I owe much of the success I’ve enjoyed in my career to them. But the world is changing and the teaching profession has to change with it, whether you like it or not. I’ll talk more about those changes in my next post; but my advice to educators, educational leaders, and colleges of teacher education is to get in front of this change and help to shape where the teaching profession goes rather than allow change to drag you along kicking an screaming.

 

 

Kentucky: The Bluegrass Institute’s Written Online Charter School Debate

This past Monday, Kentucky’s Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy published the latest in its series of “Free to Learn” debates on public charter schools. If you have not yet checked it out I encourage you to do so at your earliest convenience. You can access the debate by clicking here. By facilitating and publicizing this debate, the Bluegrass Institute is providing a valuable service to Kentuckians.

One of the reasons the public charter school debate in Kentucky is so important and the reason I have participated in this series of debates is that Kentuckians have a right to understand the education policy solutions being debated in Frankfort. Kentuckians have a right to hear all sides of the public charter school policy issue, and then make up their minds about how they feel about public charter schools’ potential for Kentucky. It is my sincere belief that once Kentuckians come to understand what high quality public charter school legislation looks like and the promise it holds for addressing some of the intractable issues that our traditional public schools have struggled with for generations, citizens of the commonwealth will be willing to tell their elected officials that Kentucky should give public charter schools a try. I believe once Kentuckians understand both sides of this issue, they will be supportive of public charter school advocates’ efforts to create additional high quality public school options for parents. Not one Kentucky family should be forced into the school situations that many Kentucky families now find themselves stuck with. No child in this commonwealth should be trapped in a school that will not or cannot meet her learning needs. Kentucky families need and deserve additional high quality public school options.