The good intentions behind legislation
–> how it is experienced in our schools
**
The gap between policymakers and practitioners, on education
issues, is well known. A few examples will follow; no doubt you can think of
others. It might be said that the divide is the world of Theory versus actual
Experience. Or maybe it is Reason versus Emotion; much thought and debate
by legislators and advocates produces a bill—but in the classroom, it feels wrong,
or insulting, or too prescriptive.
Can we do anything about this? Or is the distance between
legislators crafting bills and educators in schools working with students inevitable?
Will the good intentions behind new legislation continue to breed frustration,
even resentment, from those asked (or, at times, required) to carry out
the new policies?
Three major pieces of education policy—from the past 10
years—come to mind.
In The Make-or-Break Year,
by Emily Krone Phillips, we read of a largely successful initiative to
support ninth graders in a number of Chicago high schools. In Phillips’
opinion, the effort proved effective because she saw “teachers, principals,
and policymakers working together … to solve a common problem, in contrast to
the typical reform script in which solutions are imposed from above, without
much thought given to the complexities on the ground” (p.17).
|
Not one reference to “punishing” schools, except this: “to
move from a punitive accountability system to one that is focused
on learning and achieving high levels of academic performance.” (Emphasis
mine.)
But a decade later, some school leaders complain the
Accountability Act, for all its admirable goals, is indeed punitive. They say how
“hurtful” the School Ratings can be—to be labeled, or judged, as on
Priority Improvement or Turnaround. This past year several even claimed
it will sting terribly to earn “just” the second highest rating, on Improvement.[ii]
Hard to sympathize there. Many schools on Improvement show over 50%
of their students not meeting expectations in literacy and math. And
while districts and schools have good reason to point out the flaws in SB 163,
they appear defensive. The law has provided us with useful data that reveals how
far short we are of meeting our own goals, but some educators seem focused on shooting
the messenger.
2010 - SB 191 - ENSURING QUALITY INSTRUCTION THROUGH
EDUCATOR EFFECTIVENESS – It is hard to argue with the underlying assumption
in the law: “to evaluate the effectiveness of licensed personnel is crucial to
improving the quality of education in the state.” Again, the language was
upbeat: “Each teacher is provided with an opportunity to improve his or her
effectiveness through a teacher development plan that links his or her
evaluation and performance standards to professional development opportunities.”
Sounded good!
But as implemented, SB 191 felt to many teachers like They
Were Out to Get Me. The young teacher could feel: After all my school went
through to learn about me and evaluate my abilities before I was hired, why so little trust? I’d much prefer a good mentor to all these observations by
my principal. And the demand that I gather all this “evidence” to prove I am
doing my job? I never have that conversation about how I can improve—it’s just compliance
with a state mandate. Even my principal seems less than thrilled at this new
burden. Or why else, when she brought me in to her office, did she shrug and
say, “OK, let’s get this done!”—and then turn her back to me, open her computer,
and type out her responses on the nine-page rubric?
2012 – HB 1238 -The READ Act (Colorado Reading to
Ensure Academic Development Act) made great sense to our lawmakers. The Senate
passed it 35-0. Knowing that the most recent state test at the time (2011[iii])
showed 35% of our 4th grade students not reading at grade level,
many cheered the law’s focus: “early literacy development for all students and
especially for students at risk to not read at grade level by the end of the
third grade.”[iv] Of
course! And for this purpose, the state would gladly commit over $30 million a
year.[v]
“Like so many large-scale,
top-down initiatives before it, the [FILL IN THE BLANK] contained the
germ of a good idea, but it was insensitive to the realities on the ground.”[vi]
|
And now a reaction from last spring’s update to the READ Act (SB19-199).
Districts are upset the state wants to take more control in how the $33 million
is spent; teachers are miffed about required training on effective strategies
to support struggling readers. The veteran teacher might well ask: Who says
the state knows best? Though one must ask: If K-3 teachers are
doing this so well, how come each year we still see roughly 15% of our K-3 students—close to 40,000 kids[vii]—struggling to read?
I explore the gap not to take sides but to shed light on the
dilemma. A simple reminder that the end
result of what seems well designed under the gold dome often proves more
frustrating than beneficial for our schools.
No answers here. But can the gap—or it chasm—between policy
and practice be narrowed? Two suggestions:
1. Policymakers: We must hear from the practitioners
in drafting new legislation. If the voice of educators had been heard during
the writing of such important bills as those above, perhaps we could have prevented some of the outcomes that add to the distrust and disillusionment from the
field. Why not pilot efforts before going statewide with anything? Why
not borrow from the scientific method[viii]--start
small, gather preliminary findings, foster peer review, etc.? And once a law is
in place, policymakers must follow up. Expect surprises. Listen to educators to
learn what is and is not working. Our laws are not set in stone. It’s OK to rewrite!
2. Educators: Many of us believe key decisions should
be made at the school level (See AV #201-Autonomy, independence,
self-governance[ix]).
It is natural for us to be wary of legislation that presumes to be a good fit for
all, e.g., for DPS and JeffCo and Cherry Creek as well as for Colorado’s
107 small rural districts, each with under 1,000 students. And yet we
can’t ignore the evidence: a huge percentage of our students are not meeting our
own academic standards. Let’s begin there. Accept that change is needed, that
our overly defensive posture—what are those know-it-alls at the Capitol trying
to force on us now?—comes across as both proud and blind. It is as if we
are settling for the status quo. That is not an option. Who among us can argue
that all is well?
Yes, we all
know that, no matter how well education policy is written, there will be unintended
consequences. But we can be more careful. Good intentions are not enough.
Perhaps the well-known medical injunction is also a useful reminder in crafting
laws that impact schools. Make sure they Do No Harm.
Endnotes
[i] The
Make-or-Break Year, by Emily Krone Phillips, 2019 (p. 85).
[ii]
“Deirdre Pilch, superintendent of Greeley-Evans School District 6, said the
changes will be a blow to schools where staff worked hard to reach the top
ranking.
“‘That will be so demoralizing to those kids and those
parents and those teachers,’ she said.”
[iii]
CSAP / TCAP - Data and Results, http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/CoAssess-DataAndResults
[iv]
Colorado READ Act - Fact Sheet, https://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/readact-overviewfactsheet.
[v] From
the four most recent Annual Reports on the Colorado READ Act:
-“In the spring of 2015, districts reported 36,420
students as having a significant reading deficiency. Approximately $33 million
was distributed in per-pupil intervention funds….” http://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/readactlegislativebrief2016
-2016-17 – “STATE TOTAL - 39,014 [students identified as SRD] - $33,047,438.”
http://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/readactreport51817npf
-“For the 2017-2018 school year, the total amount of
funds available for distribution to districts was approximately $33 million.
In the spring of 2017, districts reported 40,533 students as having a
significant reading deficiency.” http://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/coloradoreadactreport
– “For the
2018-19 school year, the total amount of funds available for distribution to
districts was approximately $33 million. In the spring of 2018,
districts reported 39,614 students as having an SRD” [significant
reading deficiency]. http://www.cde.state.co.us/coloradoliteracy/19readreportpdf. (Bold mine)
[vi] *The Make-or-Break Year. The quote
comes from the chapter on Chicago Mayor Rohm Emanuel’s initiative to make the
school days longer throughout the school system. The exact quote reads:
“Like
so many large-scale, top-down initiatives before it, the longer school
day contained the germ of a good idea, but it was insensitive to the
realities on the ground” (p. 285).
[vii]
See Endnote v above.
[viii] “The
common element in modern science, regardless of the specific field or the
particular methods being used, is the critical scrutiny of claims. It’s this
process—of tough, sustained scrutiny—that works to ensure that faulty claims
are rejected and that accepted claims are likely to be right.
“A scientific claim
is never accepted as true until it has gone through a lengthy process of
examination by fellow scientists. This process begins informally, as scientists
discuss their data and preliminary conclusions with their colleagues, their
post-docs and their graduate students. Then the claim is shopped around at
specialist conferences and workshops. This may result in the scientist
collecting additional data or revising the preliminary interpretation;
sometimes it leads to more radical revision, like redesigning the data
collection program or scrapping the study altogether if it begins to look like
a lost cause. If things are looking solid, then the scientist writes up the
results. At this stage, there’s often another round of feedback, as the
preliminary write-up is sent to colleagues for comment.” “Put Your Faith in Science,” by Naomi Oreskes,
Time, Nov. 18, 2019.
[ix] Another
View’s website, https://anotherviewphj.blogspot.com/.
