I, too, reviewed everything that I could find about A+ Washington and I, too, could find no plan in this plan. I found the four vague principles, but no details about what, exactly, Excellent Schools Now means by them or how what changes they envision these principles imply. This doughnut is all hole.

Moreover, all of the groups and coalitions have so much overlap! How is Excellent Schools Now different from Our Schools Coalition and how are either of them any different from the League of Education Voters? All of these groups, the LEV, Stand for Children, Partnership for Learning, and Teacher's United, are primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (as are a number of other education reform groups). It appears that the Gates Foundation is trying to create the illusion of consensus among a large group of different players when they are actually all finger puppets on a single hand. All of these groups have people in leadership, but I'm not sure they have many people in membership.

This is working at a political level, but it isn't actually helping any of us get a more rigorous math class for our kids. I don't need - or particularly want - Rob McKenna's buy-in. I need the math teacher's buy-in. I need the principal's buy-in. I need the district official's buy-in.

If the teacher/principal evaluation changes are a good example of what Excellent Schools Now wants, then I have no use for them and they will never close the opportunity gap. The gap isn't a result of teaching practices and the solution to the gap will not be found in the teachers' contract. I don't know what these people are really about, but they are not about making better academic opportunities accessible to students. The fundraising breakfast and the parent/teacher conference described by Ms Krupnick didn't have anything to do with each other at all.

A consensus Ms. Korsmo says? Without WEA and PTA or other parent groups? I'm thinking it was select teachers and select parents.

Please, go look at A+ Washington (which will lead you back to Excellent Schools Now) and neither have a single, solitary name of any person attached to them. Who are these people? Where is their public face? No, it's an echo chamber of the same people saying the same things without really solutions or input.

It sounds great to elected officials (and provides them backup for their own ideas) but to the rest of us - I have no idea who they are and how they plan to accomplish what they say needs to happen. Hence, no buy-in.

A thoughtful piece of journalism.

There is another disconnect, one that I find more troubling than all of the others.

Most of the work of the Education Reform Advocacy Organizations, like LEV, Stand for Children, OSC, ESN, Alliance for Education, and the rest seems to be focused on trying to get make a bad system work better by adjusting the elements at the bottom of that system. They are really intent on better principals and particularly better teachers, when what we really need is a better system.

Efforts to make the system work better are misguided. Nearly all of the root causes of student under-achievement are outside the classroom. The fixes to these problems are not going to be found inside the classroom - at least not as they are traditionally configured.

The failure of American public K-12 education is not a failure by the workers to properly implement the system but a failure of the system to match the needs of the students. This system was set up a long time ago to suit the needs of a narrow band of students - essentially middle class White kids without disabilities. The system works pretty well for them. It is not suited for the needs of low-income students, minority students, immigrant students, or students with disabilities. The service doesn't match their needs and expects them to bring resources they don't have. Consequently, they are the ones who are ill-served by it.

It doesn't matter if the teacher is following "best practices" when the student is too distracted by hunger, pain, sickness, sleep deprivation, or fear to even pay attention to the teacher in the first place. It doesn't matter how expert the teacher's instructional technique may be if the student isn't motivated to learn. It doesn't matter what kind of instructional leader the principal is when the student lacks the support they need to be in the classroom.

The system, as it stands, does not address the real causes of student under-achievement, so no refinement of that system's performance (and certainly no blaming of the dedicated people working within it) will bring real change in the outcomes.

If you download the A+ Plan and/or the A+ brochure, you will see groups of coalition members and it is pretty impressive. Whether they have lent their names without really participating remains a mystery.

Expanding access to early learning is a no-brainer. We all want that. It requires funding. We all know capturing kids during that window of learning opportunity is crucialbut no one wants to pay for it.

Excellent teachers and principals (and administration devoted to classroom needs rather than protecting turf) is also a no-brainer. Who in any professional capacity wants to fill the ranks with less-than-excellent candidates? So how do you attract the best of the best? Where's the plan? The best of the best will not stick around if they are second-guessed and poorly paid. The days of asking teachers to teach for the "love of teaching" are over. Yes, that was told to me by a prof at the UW School of Ed way back when. And the value of a teacher is not easily determined. Teachers affect different students in different ways. Anybody wonder why Stawichi sent a blueberry bush to his second-grade teacher of twenty-five years ago?

College Readiness: Find people who love to learn! Find people who don't want to be in control but want to learn with kids of all ages. Look for curiosity in potential teachers. Also, too many non-math people in early childhood and K-6. Teachers must be smart themselves in all areas. Or start hiring staffs that are half math specialists and half literacy specialists and give kids exposure to both every day. Doesn't increase staff but uses them in a different way. And in what profession is everyone superior anyway?

Changing the model and accountability: models should be as diverse as the student population they service. In Seattle, we are moving towards alignment and rigidity. Alternative schools should be encouraged but truly held accountable for achievement although what constitutes achievement can differ from model to model depending on the goals and emphasis of the school.

Most important and the one that will make all the others better? Early intervention pre-k for all kids from at-risk populations. Pay for it now and you'll save later.

My two cents worth.

I was really hoping that someone from Excellent Schools Now would write in defense of their plan, but I guess they have nothing to say.