Parental involvement effects student achievement too.

First, the comments were negative because the op-ed read like piece put together after reading a couple of white papers, listening to only ed reformers and then handing it off to an aide to write (sorry to be blunt but that's how it reads).

Second, there's this:
"Teachers are the single most important factor in a child's education, so discussion about reform often centers on how they are evaluated, rewarded, and recognized."

Uh, is that your opinion or based on something? Because research overwhelming cites parents as the single most important factor in a child's education.

Then this:

"The reforms needed in public education involve the entire system, not just teachers. Everyone involved in public education — administrators, principals, school board members, and teachers — is responsible for the system we have today that routinely fails a third to one-half of our children. There is enough failure for everyone to share."

And how do you propose to hold those principals and administrators accountable? Because the administrators pick the curriculum, the books, the length of the school day, etc. so teachers have very little control over that issue. I am fine with holding teachers accountable but I want our leaders - that's you, Councilman - to tell me how everyone else will be held accountable.

Because in Seattle Public Schools virtually no one in administration is accountable. Have you read the latest State Auditor's report on SPS? The Auditor's office called out BOTH the School Board and the management of SPS. (It's virtually unheard of for an audit to call out a School Board but there it was.) Who is holding them accountable for the money that gets lost or mismanaged? Read the audit, Councilman, and then tell me that teachers are to blame for everything.

Interestingly, next to this story is a link for a story from the Wall Street Journal called, ""Needs Improvement: Where Teacher Report Cards Fall Short." It's good reading about the confusion over how to assess teachers fairly to both students and teachers.

I write for a local education blog, Save Seattle Schools, and I invite the Councilman to widen his reading and get some local perspective on education from parents, teachers and community members.

www.saveseattleschools.blogspot.com

Councilman Burgess actually I was shocked that you and Councilman Conlin inserted yourself into the SEA/SPS contract negotiations. Even more surprising was that your op-ed piece in the Times seemed to be a recitation of current education reform propaganda, which stresses the urgency to act now.

As you probably know, the SEA and SPS have agreed to pilot (at three schools) an evaluation system that looks remarkably like the one the Superintendent proposed in contract negotiations. It uses student test scores and other benchmarks for teacher evaluations. I believe that it is prudent to wait and see how the pilot works (and if it works) before jumping onto the latest education reform band wagon. While you cite some research to support your position, a later Seattle Times article quoted U.W. professor Dan Goldhaber. He said that the research is “thin” in the area of teacher evaluation/compensation. Again, this says to me that we need to wait for the results of the SPS pilot. There is no need to rush.

The cost of the Superintendent’s proposal must also be considered. Development and roll-out costs of her new system are estimated to be about 4 million dollars and in order to go forward requires passage of a supplemental levy in November. This is new money and does not include the long term operational expense of such a system. Can we be sure that the start-up costs will not consume more than four million? No.

The current administration has a poor track record managing the budget –I will not get into specifics here, but you should read the most recent state audit of SPS. The state auditor expressed his concern by stating, “District's Board and Management have placed public resources at risk" I am sure that you would agree, that it is a powerful statement for an auditor to make.

So how did the Board respond? They rewarded the Superintendent with a three year contract extension. Yeah so much for accountability.

Parents are indeed the single most important factor in a child's education, as robelee and westy point out. Perhaps Councilman Burgess instead mentioned teachers because they are a group over which people, via the government, feel they have a chance of exerting some control?

Any reform that looks at teacher performance is cutting a fine line. Administrators are able to stack the deck for or against any teacher so their performance looks better or worse than it is. Put all of the behaviour problems in one classroom and watch that teacher's performance fall. Give another teacher great kids and watch that teacher's performance soar. My wife substitute teaches. She has a Master's in education, has taught for 10 years in Las Vegas schools. She has seen classes up here that drive her nuts because of all of the behaviour problems in one class. When she asks some of the other teachers at the school what is going on, they say the administration is trying to get that teacher to leave that school. Put money in that mix and it will get much worse.
The major problem is the "No child left behind" act. That also means that "no child excels". With the behaviour problems and the slow children, and the required "politically correct" curriculum, it is impossible to spend any time with the really bright students. they eventually wear out and dumb down to stay with the pack. They are still at the front of the pack, but not near as far ahead as they would be. I have a son with a 150 IQ. He was too smart for the schools. He was chased out of the school system because he was way too far ahead of the class. And when he would answer questions based on his understanding, he was ridiculed by the teachers rather than just saying that they would get to that answer in 3 or six months. And such an extreme amount of money and time is spent on the lower kids that the bright kids are ignored.
Does something need to be done to the system? Yes, but it needs to first be gotten out of federal hands and back into the local hands. Local school boards need to run the ship, not the feds. Then we need to put the important subjects back into schools that teach kids to think. The math skills of the graduating classes today are way below what the kids of 30 to 50 years ago knew. The old one-room schoolhouse principle worked so much better than inclusion. Teach each kid according to their ability and need. Advance kids into smarter groups. Those can be put into much larger classroom sizes. Motivated kids are not a behaviour problem, and class sizes up to 60 are easy to manage. Then classes with more behaviour problems can be much smaller giving much more individualized instruction to those who cannot learn as easily. Then you can have team teaching situations and class sizes of 10 to 15 per teacher. Both groups learn better, because they are each being taught on their own level. But don't worry, none of this will happen because some "learned" administrator will cite their knowledge and blow off what really makes sense.

Your thinking may have been influenced by a Brookings Institution piece, but I suggest that you go deeper and study the history of the Common Schools. When you understand the depth of Americans' ambivalence about public schooling, you can also understand why those who can afford it have fled the system, leaving those Left Behind behind.

The Bush (Laura) and Obama administrations have ventured into territory reserved not for state or county, but local jurisdictions: Public education. That's our battleground between solidly-unionized, blue collar teachers, solidly-bureaucratized administrators, and fractionated parent groups. Those "demographics" don't share a Common Goal for the Common Schools; they harbor bizarrely different visions based on interest-group advocacy and outmoded hopes that one system can successfully meet the diverse challenges of the modern age.

It can't. One size doesn't fit all, and our continued effort to force one servant to serve many masters is doomed to failure.

As others have pointed out, you failed to mention parents and families, and that's a major oversight. But you also failed to mention "society at large," which is a huge factor in our dereliction of duty to the young.

In a post-literate environment, a 19th-century educational model and old-fashioned interest-group politics are less and less able to meet the needs of our varied young.

Passing responsibility off to the broad community of educational professional is foolish and unimaginative.

Hear me clearly, Tim, because you know I don't mince words:

If we substitute the word "neighborhoods" for the words "public schools" and the words "police officers" for the word "teachers," then by your logic, we should should be using crime statistics in given neighborhoods to determine the salaries, job security, and bargaining power of our police officers. After all, if crime goes up, aren't they accountable? I mean, the numbers don't lie, do they?

And just as anyone who has spent even a day as a classroom volunteer can say they have been "in the classroom," so they know a good teacher or a bad teacher when they see one, so then must anyone who walks the streets know a good cop or a bad cop when they see one. So let's slap a badge on them and make them cops. We can pay them less; who cares if they're scabs?

We could call it "Policing for America." How does that sound to you, Tim? No doubt we could have some outfit make up some "study" that would justify it.

Please quit doubling down on stupid if you want to be elected to anything around here again.

I have no children in Seattle schools. My only connection with the city's schools is as a taxpayer. But I have been watching this 'blame the teachers game' with dismay. Last week a 10-year-old who has had interactions with the police beginning when he was 8 was arrested in possession of a gun. Are we to blame teachers for this?

I understand we want the best for children, but making teachers scapegoats for society's shortcomings is ill-conceived. We must look at the bigger picture.

I also am concerned that not every child starts school with the same family advantages. When evaluating teachers, one size cannot fit all. What is to stop teachers from self-selecting where they are going to work? Will children in schools in disadvantaged (usually poor) parts of the city suffer because not all teachers will be willing to tackle instilling a love of learning that has not been fostered at home?

Now that I have said this, I also say I don't have the answers. But I am concerned with 'being careful what you ask for,' it may not be what you expect.

Councilmember Burgess's solution is too easy and too glib.

Councilman Burgess makes so many misstatements that I cannot believe he volunteers for this sort of abuse.

"Response to the essay was mixed"
No it wasn't; the response was overwhelmingly negative. You would think that a politician could count the vote. Oh... he didn't count the vote; he counted the money. Yes, the money is in favor of reform; it's just the people, the research, the facts, and the logic who are against it.

"There is enough failure for everyone to share"
Maybe, but apparently there is only accountability for students, the people with the least power to change the system, and, coming soon, teachers, the people with the second least amount of power to change the system. How in the world can anyone interested in reform actually endorse this upside-down application of accountability? Not honestly.

"Teachers are the single most important factor in a child's education"
I don't know why the Education Reform minions keep promoting this lie. EVERYONE knows and every single study has confirmed that the primary determinant of student achievement is the active involvement in the student's education by an adult in the student's home. Every study has confirmed that the bulk of academic outcomes are determined by home-based factors. Spreading the misinformation that "teacher quality", amorphously defined as it is, is a even a major determinant, let alone the single most important factor, requires a shameless ability to lie. It is good for us, as an electorate, to know that Councilman Burgess has that ability.

"reform often centers on how they are evaluated, rewarded, and recognized"
Yes, reform does center on these things, but how much sense does that make? How does evaluating, rewarding, or recognizing teachers alter "teacher quality"? You would think that if reform were focused on "teacher quality", whatever that means, then the reform effort would center on making teachers better. Why isn't reform centered on professional development? Why isn't it focused on providing teachers with planning time? Why isn't it focused on giving teachers more and better tools? It isn't. I find that very telling. Instead, it is focused almost entirely on teacher compensation and job security, which doesn't make teachers better.

"In fact, if I had my way, I would double teacher salaries"
I will be looking forward to seeing the motion you introduce in the City Council to levy a tax to increase teacher pay. Oh? You haven't done that? Then pardon me if I don't regard this statement as very sincere. Also, who ever said that teachers wanted their salaries doubled? Instead, I'll bet that they would much rather have their class sizes cut. How about you introduce a tax levy to pay for that?

Instead, we are being presented with a tax levy that won't do ANYTHING for classrooms, but will pay for more central administration staff and pet projects.

Let's not pretend that the National Council on Teacher Quality is some kind of unbiased research group. They are NOT. Now that you've read their report, try reading this analysis of their report: http://saveseattleschools.blogspot.com/
2010/08/new-report-by-nctq.html

"But no one can deny that reform is needed, not when a third of our kids don't graduate from high school and barely one quarter of those who do are prepared for college."
And how do these statistics compare to national averages or to historical outcomes? I think you'll find that these results are as good or better than anything we have ever achieved in this country. The presumption of a college education - even for high school graduates - is a very new idea, and it a questionable one. And, as for the need for reform, yes, we need it, but not in the classroom. The need for reform, as the State Auditor's report clearly shows, is in the central administration and the Board.

Again, Mr. Burgess, please listen to what people are telling you - real people with skin in the game instead of just people with money in the game - and either get on the right side of this thing or butt out.

A teacher here. I won't add any information because a) everyone who has commented has done so extremely well above, and b) because there's a certain class of high-minded folks in Seattle (the School Board, The Seattle Times) who have already traveled so far down the reform/deform/no-evidence-necessary/overlook-the-state-audit road with this Superintendent that they can no longer excise themselves from complicity, even when offered overwhelming evidence. Mr. Burgess is solidly on that bus. Parents and teachers, off the bus, kicked to the curb.

I wonder where they hold their Kool-Aid parties?

I hope other teachers read this piece, because no teachers should ever vote for Mr. Burgess.
He's a dangerously uninformed and witless tool of the BROAD Foundation.

Gates Foundation has donated an large sum of $$$ to Crosscut. Now, we see this reform-Gates Edu-genda blather. Gates is buying his way into our childrens classrooms.

Seneca: post-literate environment?

Yes let us not miss a chance at serious reform ......

Unfortunately the Councilman has missed it. Reforming the system through the intelligent application of relevant data applied to decision making is what is needed.

The Councilman is a mouth piece for Race to the Top and other non-researched based Politically Correct Agendas.

Read this:
http://mathunderground.blogspot.com/2010/08/education-is-political-problem-and.html

and more reading at:
http://mathunderground.blogspot.com/

Why are political leaders so willing to render opinions on what they know so little about?

I hope Councilman Burgess is more knowledgeable of other subjects on which he actually votes.

-- Danaher M. Dempsey, Jr.

Hello? Does everyone above think that EVERY teacher currently teaching in our public school system is doing a great job? It sure sounds like it.

Most teachers are doing yeoman's work and are underpaid, but the bad ones should go. We have to find a way to hire, develop, and retain good teachers, and to let the bad ones find another career.

Talk to my teacher friends, and they'll tell you honestly that there are at least a few sluggos out there teaching our kids. Shocking, but true. And their principals have a very hard time getting rid of them. Sure, great teachers won't solve all the system's problems, but they are a key component -- along with parents, principals, the Board, etc, etc, etc -- in giving our kids a chance.

@jsperry – I am not a teacher and speaking only on behalf of myself, I don’t disagree with you. Yes, a rigorous evaluation system needs to be used to dismiss teachers who are clearly not doing their job. We all know teachers -both experienced and ones described as young and energetic-who should not be teaching. But really principals also need to do their jobs, and use whatever systems are in place to help them counsel someone out of the profession. Should it be easy or easier to dismiss a teacher? I don’t know. However, I don’t think the research to date has concluded- one way or another- that using student test scores as a primary means to evaluate teacher effectiveness works to improve academic achievement. The jury is still out and as I stated previously, SPS and the SEA have agreed to pilot an evaluation system that looks much like what the Superintendent proposed in the current contract negotiations. Also, the SEA and SPS have worked for months –maybe years- developing a new evaluation system, but apparently that was not enough for the current Superintendent. Why rush? She would rather push a reformist agenda, but education reform is full of fads that have failed. The current meme is to reform or whole sale replace the teachers.

Yup, teachers do need to be held accountable, but so does everyone up the chain of command in SPS. And right now, that is not happening. You may want to read the state auditor’s recent “evaluation” of SPS and the leadership. It is not a pretty picture.

Benjamin L:

Yes.

"Post-literate" with respect to the young's (un)willingness and (in)ability to absorb content and technique that some consider essential ("The Canon" writ large, not in the pinched Bloom/Bennett sense). Using the modalities of the future, our young are spurning the hard-copy ("book"), teacher-led and teacher-organized, classroom-based "production" model of learning--because they see how stupid and inefficient it is. And our moribund economy will almost certainly aid and abet their jaded and pragmatic attitudes w/respect to education, since rewards are no longer commensurate with effort (breeding awarenes that "I don't need it" on the one hand and "I can get it, as and when needed, more cheaply and more quickly" on the other).

This is occurring in the traditional (and chaotic, and under-resourced, and dysfunctional) plebe/prole arena of the Common Schools ; the wealthy continue to endure (if young) and fund (as parents) more rigorous experiences that prepare the patricians for their rightful place in our stratified society. But even their "more complete" educations are still post-literate, since these young are largely groomed for specific, technical roles, limited to the pared-down knowledge of how to manipulate a system that is predisposed to accord privilege and reward.

Let's be clear. No one is suggesting that teachers not be evaluated and no one is suggesting that ineffective teachers be dismissed. The discussion falls into two general areas.

1) The strength of the rationale for using student test scores as a part of teacher evaluations. There is neither evidence nor logic to support this practice. Moreover, it is not necessary as a part of recognizing good teachers and bad teachers, rewarding good teachers and dismissing bad teachers, or helping teachers to become better teachers. We can do all of that without misusing these tools and misunderstanding their meaning.

2) What reforms will do the most to improve education for our students, particularly those who are not successfully completing high school? It's not a change in the teacher evaluation, certification, or compensation structure. Instead, it will come from providing early and effective interventions for students working below grade level. It will come with an end to social promotion. It will come when under-performing students (and all others) get instruction that is more tailored to their academic needs. How about some targeted class size reduction? How about some extended class time? How about added enrichment (instead of reduced enrichment)? These are the things that work for students - not changes in their teachers' contract.

So why is the Education Reform movement so completely focused on how teachers get certified, hired, paid, promoted and dismissed? That's not about students and helping them achieve.

Ack! What a typo! I meant to write "no one is suggesting that ineffective teachers NOT be dismissed."

Then there is the turd in the swimming pool that no one wants to talk about: the provision in the District's proposal that allows the superintendent to over-ride any teacher's evaluation with her own - an evaluation that is not subject to appeal of any kind.

How does that make sense in the context of the effort to measure teacher effectiveness fairly and honestly?

What no feedback from the city councilman? How about Ivan's plan for bargaining with Seattle's police officers above? Is this, together with the piece you did with councilmember Richard Conlin for the Times and the piece that Norm Rice did for the Times perhaps linked? Perhaps the John Stanford Center are taking some heat for their hostile bargaining positions and need cover? Are you seriously thinking that you'll have labor support when you run for Mayor? Are you thinking that the SERVE proposal to be funded by the Levy in November will pass - and won't have an effect on next year's Family and Children's Levy?

Can the councilman or anyone:

Defend the $7K expenditure for the retirement party Dr. MGJ threw that the State Auditor has pointed out?

Defend the conflict of interest by sitting on the NWEA Board that sold the SPS the MAP test (and I think I like the MAP test just not the conflict or its mis-use in determining teachers' careers)?

Defend the yearly State Auditors Reports that show egregious problems with the administration and now this year, the School Board, as well?

Defend a comparatively (with other districts of like size/urban) high ratio of administration dollars?

Would very much like your feedback on these topics Mr. Councilman.

There won't be a response from the Councilman, LeslieH. This was a drive-by.