accountability

Teacher Tenure Reform in Blue

Eduflack accountability, teachers

What does tenure reform look like, particularly in a blue state with strong teachers unions?  Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy offered up a glimpse of the future of tenure today as part of his State of the State Address.

Rather than summarize, let’s read from one governor who is jumping to the top of the “ed reform guv” lists.

But we must do one more thing.

 

I’m a Democrat.  I’ve been told that I can’t, or shouldn’t, touch teacher tenure.  It’s been said by some that I won’t take on the issue because it will damage my relationship with teachers.

 

If the people in this chamber — and those watching on TV or online, or listening on the radio – if you’ve learned nothing else about me in the past 13 months, I hope you’ve learned this: I do what I say I’m going to do, and I do what I think is right for Connecticut, irrespective of the political consequences.

 

And so when I say it’s time we reform teacher tenure, I mean it. 

 

And when I say I’m committed to doing it in the right way, I mean it. 

 

Since 2009, 31 states have enacted tenure reform, including our neighboring states of New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.  It’s time for Connecticut to act.

 

For those watching or listening who don’t know what tenure is, it’s basically job security.  Let me explain.

 

Right now, if you’re a teacher and you have tenure, your performance in the classroom has to be rated “incompetent” before a dismissal process can even begin.  Even then – even if you’re rated “incompetent” – it can take more than a year to dismiss you.

 

And to earn that tenure – that job security – in today’s system basically the only thing you have to do is show up for four years.  Do that, and tenure is yours.

 

The bottom line?  Today tenure is too easy to get and too hard to take away.

 

I propose we do it a different way.  I propose we hold every teacher to a standard of excellence.

 

Under my proposal, tenure will have to be earned and re-earned.  Not earned simply by showing up for work – earned by meeting certain objective performance standards, including student performance, school performance, and parent and peer reviews.

 

And my proposal says, you should not only have to prove your effectiveness once, after just a few years in the classroom.  My proposal says that if you want to keep that tenure, you should have to continue to prove your effectiveness in the classroom as your career progresses.

 

I’m trying to be careful in explaining this tenure reform proposal because I know there are those who will deliberately mischaracterize it in order to scare teachers.  So let me be very clear: we are not talking about taking away teachers’ rights to a fair process if an objective, data-driven decision is made to remove them from the classroom.

 

I believe deeply in due process.

 

I believe just as deeply that we need to ensure that our children are being taught only by very good teachers.

 

So for those teachers who earn tenure – by proving that they are effective teachers – it’s the job of the local school district to make sure that you have every chance to continue to succeed.  That means that if you start to struggle at any point after you’ve earned tenure, the district will provide support and professional development to help get you back on track.

 

And finally, my proposal says that we need to do a better job of recognizing our great teachers.  That’s why I’m proposing to allow local school districts, if they so choose, to provide career advancement opportunities and financial incentives as a way of rewarding teachers who consistently receive high performance ratings.

 

Over the next few weeks, we’ll continue to have this discussion about tenure and I’m confident we can put in place a system that best serves our students, and their teachers.

 

Now let me be clear: in having that discussion, Connecticut will not join the states trying to demonize and antagonize their way to better results. 

 

And we won’t get drawn into making a false choice between being pro-reform or pro-teacher. 

 

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, I am both. 

 

I’m pro-teacher, as long as that doesn’t mean defending the status quo, and I’m pro-reform, as long as that isn’t simply an excuse to bash teachers. 

Game on, Connecticut!

SOTU MIA

Eduflack accountability, charter schools, early childhood education, ESEA, RTT

Earlier today, Eduflack examined the educational highlights of President Obama’s State of the Union address.  The Cliff Notes version — strong on effective teachers, keep every kid in high school until age 18, college is expensive.  But what is equally interesting is what was NOT included in the SOTU, particularly as a lead-up to the presidential campaign.  

What was missing?
Race to the Top — No mention whatsoever of the crown jewel of the Obama education reform platform.  No talk about the progress states like Delaware and others are making. No discussion of the new world order likely coming out of the first few rounds of RttT.  (But there was that veiled reference to RttT driving states to adopt the Common Core, but only the insideriest of insiders will have caught the “for less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards …”)
Early childhood education — Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars the Obama administration just awarded to the winning states in the RttT Early Learning edition, there was no mention of ECE or the importance of ensuring all kids are ready to learn when the hit kindergarten.
Principals — In the President’s focus on effective teachers, he seemed to forget that a great principal is just as important — if not more so — in improving student learning and turning a school around.  Using “educators” is the common catch-all phrase, but Obama decided to focus just on teachers.
ESEA — No call to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.  No sense of urgency to act, as we have heard in previous years.  Have we officially determined this is a 2013 activity now?
Parental engagement — In one of his earlier SOTUs, Obama got all Bill Cosby on us and called for greater parental involvement in the K-12 process.  This year, nothing.  If we are serious about real reform, it can’t all be on the backs of the teachers Obama singled out.  It requires involved and committed parents, clergy, business leaders, and community voices too.
Choice — Embracing the entire public school infrastructure — traditional publics, public charters, magnets, and technicals — used to be a part of the President’s educational stump speech.  But when talking about the need for all kids to finish high school, there was no mention of ensuring all of those kids actually have access to good high schools.
Competitive Grants — Similar to the failure to mention RttT, we saw no mention of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund, no discussion of the impacts of recent educational budget “consolidations,” and no teaser on ARPA ED.  Are competitive grants moving to the back burner?
What else are we missing?  Anyone?  Anyone? 

“Teachers Matter”

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, assessment, AYP, Obama, teachers

Last evening, President Barack Obama delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress and the nation.  The speech focused on the four pillars the President and his team see as necessary for turning around the United States and strengthening our community and our economy.  No surprise for those following the pre-game shows, education stood as one of those four pillars.

Five paragraphs committed to education.  One pointing out our states and districts are cutting education budgets when we should be strengthening them.  One on the importance of teachers.  One on high school dropouts.  Two on higher education and how we fund a college education.  (We have a sixth if you include the President’s call to do something to help hard-working students who are not yet citizens.)
So let’s go ahead and dissect what the President offered up last evening.
“Teachers matter.”
Absolutely.  No question about it.  We cannot and should not reform our K-12 educational systems without educators.  Teachers (and I would add, principals) are the single-greatest factor in education improvement.  They need to be at the table as we work toward the improved educational offerings the President and so many other dream of.
“So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal.  Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones.”
Sign me up.  As the son of two educators, the last thing I want to do is bash a teacher (I’ll get in trouble with my mom if I do).  As I’ve said many times on this blog, teaching — particularly in this day and age — is one of the most difficult professions out there.  Most people aren’t cut out to do it, or at least do it well.  We need to make sure our precious tax dollars are being directed at recruiting, retaining, and supporting great teachers.  We should reward classroom excellence with merit pay and other acknowledgements.  But the President is also right in noting we cannot defend the status quo.  We can no longer debate whether reform is necessary.  Reform is necessary.  The discussion must now shift to how we change how we teach, not whether we change.
“In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.”
Yes, yes, yes.  Great educators know how to help virtually all kids learn.  They know to tailor their instruction based on data and other research points.  We should be encouraging that and empowering teachers to do so each and every day.  But we can’t lose sight of that last clause (and many may have missed it last night over the cheap applause line of not teaching to the test).  We must “replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.”  In our quest for a great educator in every classroom, we must also realize not everyone is cut out to teach.  We need serious educator evaluation systems that ensure everyone is evaluated, everyone is evaluated every year, and those evaluations are based primarily on student learning.  And, like it or not, student performance tests still remain the greatest measure we have for student learning.  So if we can’t get struggling educators the professional development and support necessary to excel in the classroom, we need to be prepared to transition them out of the school.       
And lastly, President Obama’s “bold” call to action to ensure every student is college and career ready.
“I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.” 
And here we have the President’s big educational swing and a miss.  This is a process goal, not an outcomes goal.  Based on AYP figures and recent on school improvement and turnaround, we know that far too many kids — particularly those from historically disadvantaged populations — are attending failing schools.  This is particularly true of secondary school students.  
Why force a student to stay in a school that has long been branded a “drop-out factory?”  Why keep a kid in school until he is 18 when he only reading at the grade level of an eight-year-old?  Why stick around for a high school diploma when it also requires massive remediation to attend a postsecondary institution?
No, the call should not be to require students to stick around a bad situation, giving us nothing more than a process win.  Instead, we should be focused on improving the outcomes of high school.  How do we demonstrate the relevance of a high school curriculum?  How do we engage kids?  How do we provide choices for a meaningful high school education?  How do we show the college and career paths that come from earning that diploma?  How do we make kids see they want to stick around, and don’t have to be mandated to do so?
At this point in time, we all realize that a high school diploma is the bare minimum to participate in our economy and our society.  For most, some form of postsecondary education is also necessary.  Until we improve the quality and direction of our high schools — and help kids see that dropping out is never a viable option — that mandatory diploma will be nothing more than a certificate of attendance.  We need to make a diploma something all kids covet … not a mandatory experience like going to the dentist.
 

Take the Test? Me?

Eduflack accountability, high-stakes testing, Social media, Students

When we talk about the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we usually like to focus on the freedom of speech part.  Some of us (including us former reporters) like the freedom of the press thing.  The recent Occupy movement has given us new-found interest in the right of peaceable assembly.  And come election time, we often hear about freedom of religion.

But what about that fifth First Amendment right?  How often do we give attention to our right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances?”
This week, clause five takes on special significance for dear ol’ Eduflack.  Courtesy of the good folks over at Change.org, I am now the target of an online petition.  
For those unfamiliar, Change.org is a terrific site where folks can post their grievances on any topic you care about.  Oppose the war in Afghanistan?  Wanna stop the Keystone pipeline?  Demand the return of tan M&Ms?  Doesn’t matter, Change.org is your site.  Post up a petition, spread the word, and work toward that goal of 100,000 signatures.  When you hit the magic number, great things will come to the petitioners.
This week, a petition was posted opposing the use of standardized tests in K-12 education.  Using standard language of attacking those dreaded “bubble exams,” the petitions note:
Students are put under pressure like never before to meet high expectations on Standardized Tests. Not only that, but teachers are held accountable for these tests scores, putting just as much pressure on teachers all over the United States. Ultimately, destroying the true purpose of school and education. Basically, it doesn’t matter how much a teacher helped a student go from a struggling reader to a student now never seen without a book in his hand. It doesn’t matter that the teacher inspired and motivated the student to want to graduate high school instead of dropping out on her 16th birthday just 2 months away.
The petition’s call to action?  Before subjecting our kids to more of those dreaded bubble sheets, the politicians responsible for such horrific measures of accountability should first take those standardized tests themselves.  “If you are in a position of power in the education system and think the tests are good and valuable, the theory goes, then you should feel comfortable taking them yourself and sharing how you performed,” the petitioners write.
The petition is addressed to nine parties.  The U.S. Senate, which is working to enact ESEA reauthorization, is target one.  It is followed by folks like CA Gov. Jerry Brown, NJ Gov. Chris Christie, PA Gov. Tom Corbett, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo, CT Gov. Dannel Malloy, and NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  But wait, there are two other targets on the list.  The first is former DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee, now the head of StudentsFirst.  The second?  Patrick Riccards, your friendly neighborhood Eduflack.
  
For the record, I do think student tests are good and valuable.  I believe that the ultimate measure of our public education systems should be outcomes.  If we are serious about improving student learning, we need to enact some measures to ensure that is happening.  Standardized tests may be far from perfect, and they may not be the only measure of student learning, but they are an important component to determining our success.  Like it or not, we need quantifiable measures of student progress and school achievement.
Sure, technically I’m not “the Government.”  But folks should feel free to bring me their redress of testing grievances.  Will I take the test?  I’d be happy to.  But as the head of an education advocacy organization, I’d like to have some of those voices defending the status quo and chanting “all is well” when we talk about improvement in the testing room right there with their own No. 2 pencils.  
Sadly, we are only up to 27 signatures on the petition.  When we hit the magic number, I’m ready for my bubble sheet.

Educator Eval … With a British Accent

Eduflack accountability, assessment, teachers

Over at Education Sector, there is a new report out focused on accountability efforts in England.  The Report, On Her Majesty’s School Inspection Service, offers an interesting look at how expert “inspection teams” can evaluate the success of local schools and local teachers.

Riffing off EdSector’s new report, dear ol’ Eduflack has a guest blog post on Quick and the Ed, examining what we might be able to learn from the British inspectorate and how those lessons could be applied to current U.S. efforts to key in on educator evaluation.  The most important point?  British evaluations are all about the kids, with the vast majority of their multiple measures focused on students and student learning.
By now, we all realize that effective educator evaluation requires multiple measures.  While many want to focus on just the inputs that go into teaching – what our educators are bringing to the classroom – it is equally, if not more, important for us to focus on student achievement.  And England makes clear that student learning is the most important element to its evaluation system.
Definitely some food for thought as SEAs look for the most effective ways to build effective evaluation systems and determine the best ways to measure educator effectiveness.
  

Happy Birthday, Nicklebee!

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, charter schools, ESEA, National Journal, NCLB, SBRR

Yes, we are now smack in the middle of celebrating the 10th anniversary of our beloved No Child Left Behind.  As we should expect from something that has been on the “out” list the past three or five seasons, many of the birthday wishes are focusing on the failures or shortfalls of the law.  Yes, shocker!

So over at the National Journal Education Experts Blog, Eduflack focuses on some of the strengths of the law — those positive specifics that we must continue to improve and build on.  Accountability.  A strong focus on achievement gaps.  A commitment to evidence-based decision making.  Choice.  All made enormous steps forward in the NCLB era, and all are essential if we are to improve public education in the post-NCLB era.  After all:
At the end of the day, NCLB will best be remembered as an unfinished legacy, one with great promise, but real challenges in delivering on those promises. But we cannot deny that NCLB succeeded in moving K-12 education away from a discussion of process and inputs (as it had been for so many iterations of ESEA before it) and towards a focus on outcomes. We have started to see students and families as the customers in the process, with providers (the public school system) improving the quality of their product. And now, parents can look at test scores and other achievement measures to determine the return on investment for their local education dollar.
 
Enjoy!

Setting Aside the Vitriol in School Improvement

Eduflack accountability, NEA, Parents, teachers

If we know anything, it is that we have much work in front of us if we are serious about providing all students — regardless of race, family income or zip code — access to truly great public schools.  There are no quick fixes here, nor should we be foolish enough to think one entity has all of the answers to just do it alone.

Yet we continue to see extreme vitriol permeating our discussions about school improvement.  Instead of focusing on the merits of ideas and the importance of outcomes, we continue to personalize the fight and resort to name calling and bullying to try and protect a status quo that we all realize cannot remain.
Over at the CT News Junkie this morning, Eduflack has a commentary on why real school improvement efforts require a team effort.  It is a valuable read that is applicable to virtually any state working toward reform.
For us to be truly successful, we must engage the entire educational “village” – the village we saw firsthand at last Thursday’s education reform summit. From the teachers unions, to superintendent and board of education groups, to think tanks, to community organizations, to advocacy groups, we’re all in this together. And as the adults in the village, it’s our job to focus on the kids. We must stop with the name-calling and the feigned procedural concerns. When we look back in 20 years and ask “What became of the Year for Education Reform?” the worst possible thing would be to say that this unprecedented moment was hijacked by a few status quo defenders who won out by making everyone feel icky. What a disappointment that would be. Can’t we do better, Connecticut?
  

A “Sensible Fix” for the Achievement Gap

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap

It is no secret that our nation’s achievement gap is significant.  The odds that a white or upper class student succeeds in public schools is significantly higher than the odds of an African-American, Latino, or low-income student receiving the same benefits.  And as frightening as the size of the gaps may be, the persistence of such gaps are even more damaging.

Over at The Washington Post, Jay Mathews points us in the direction of a “startlingly sensible achievement gap fix.”  Mathews writes about the specific efforts undertaken by Arlington (VA) Public Schools starting pre-NCLB (1998) and running through the end of the true NCLB era (2009).
As Mathews notes:
From 1998 to 2009, the portion of black students passing Virginia Standards of Learning tests in Arlington rose from 37 to 77 percent.  For Hispanic students, the jump was from 47 to 84 percent.  The gap between non-Hispanic white and black passing rates dropped from 45 percentage points to 19.  Between Hispanic and non-Hispanic whites, the gap shrank from 35 points to 12.
Now those are the sorts of numbers we are all looking for when we talk about closing the gaps and providing great public schools for all students.   The full work of the Arlington team is available in a new book, “Gaining on the Gap: Changing Hearts, Minds, and Practice.”  But Mathews offers a clear view on what Arlington, and its then superintendent, did:
He insisted on measuring each major ethnic group, plus low-income students, students with disabilities and students learning English, on: the percentage passing first-year algebra with a C or better by the end of eighth grade; the percentage passing advanced courses in grades six through 12; the percentage completing the third year of a foreign language by the end of grade 11; the percentage of sixth- through eighth-graders taking electives in art, music and theater, the percentage meeting or exceeding criterion levels on the Virginia Wellness-Related Fitness Tests, and several other measures.
And this is in addition to the requirements under NCLB/AYP and the Virginia SOLs.
For all those that say student data and achievement numbers are not a fair measure of a school and its success, Arlington County, Virginia is providing them wrong.  By effectively collecting and utilizing data, Arlington was able to confront the problem of the achievement gap and target real solutions for fixing it.  And the results speak for themselves.
Mathews’ piece is definitely worth the read, as is the book by the Arlington leadership team.  We cannot keep ignoring the achievement gap, nor can we discount its significance.  Arlington and other places demonstrate there are real solutions out there, even sensible ones.

It Takes an Educational Village …

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, arts, NEA, Parents, teachers

In years past, we used to talk about how it took a village to truly improve public education.  It wasn’t just up to teachers to do what they do behind the schoolhouse doors between the hours of 8 and 3.  Parents needed to take a more active role.  Local policymakers needed a greater understanding.  Community leaders — from youth groups to churches — needed greater connection.  And even the business community needed greater focus on skills and outcomes.

Oh, how the times have changed.  In our post-NCLB environment, we are now hearing more and more vitriol about those “outside forces” trying to influence what is happening in our public schools.  We have rallies and blogs and media coverage on how school improvement should be left exclusively to the trained, certified educators in the system.  All others should watch from the sidelines, being told, in the words of Kevin Bacon in Animal House, “Stay calm!  All is well!!”
But we know all is not well.  From third-grade reading proficiency levels to high school graduation rates and all measures in between, all is not well in our public schools.  Yet another generation of students has fallen through the cracks, leaving school either less than proficient or without a high school diploma all together.
The point of this is not to place blame.  There is plenty of blame to go around.  Our struggles are team struggles.  Parents, teachers, administrators, community leaders, elected officials, business community, and students themselves all bear significant responsibility for where we stand today, and play an important role in where we need to head tomorrow.  (And as a parent, a taxpayer, a former school board chairman, and an advocate, Eduflack is right in the middle of those who bear responsibility.)
Which is why it was so disconcerting to read the December 23 Wall Street Journal.  In the print edition (sorry folks, somehow it got edited out of the online version), the WSJ reported on the hire of Chicago/Philly/Recovery District Supe Paul Vallas as the new head of Bridgeport (CT) Public Schools.  The article noted that the hire was made possible, in part, because of philanthropic contributions to help the academically and financially struggling district bring in a talent like Vallas.  
In the piece, the reporter spoke to a leader at the Bridgeport Education Association, who referred to those local Connecticut philanthropists as “robber barons,” and questioned the legitimacy of their contributions.
We will forget, for a moment, the philanthropic support that Bridgeport Education Association and its parent National Education Association receive.  While those dollars may come from a different “clan” of philanthropic and corporate support, there is not question that NEA and BEA are beneficiaries of similar outside support, and that such support is serving a real public good when it comes to teacher effectiveness and improved instruction.
But it was yet another example of the venom with which some speak when discussing the role of public/private partnerships and the growing philanthropic interest in improving our public schools.  Local community members, who want to see their local schools improve and have the financial means to help jumpstart a reform process, are now “robber barons?”  Really?
A century ago, our public schools (both K-12 and higher ed) were hardly the models to write home about.  We lacked the educational resources offered by libraries, museums, and the performing arts.  We saw our medical schools take a significant step forward because of folks like Carnegie.  Libraries benefited from people like Ford.  General education and research supported by the likes of Rockefeller.
There is now an entire literature dedicated to the role of corporate philanthropy and the societal benefits that derived from such giving.  Today, we see large foundations the result of those original “robber barons,” foundations that are committed to improving children’s health, education, and society as a whole.  They do so without a profit motive, just hoping to make a difference with the resources the have available.
Ultimately, we are doing our kids, our schools, and our community a disservice when we try to run off well-meaning philanthropists with name calling, insinuation of ulterior motives, or promoting a general sense of “ickiness” because the private sector wants to get involved in our public schools.  Instead, we should be embracing such involvement.  No, I’m not saying all those involved in ed reform are Carnegies and Rockefellers, nor am I saying that some do not come to the table with a specific agenda.  But for all of those who argue that additional resources are needed in our public schools, yet must acknowledge that beloved tax base doesn’t allow for it, there are alternative paths.  Through private support, we can invest in technology or STEM or improved teacher support or the arts or a plethora of other areas that individuals, foundations, and companies want to get behind.
So where do we go from here?  To start, we need to turn down the rhetoric a little and realize there is a role for many at the school improvement table.  For educators, we need to realize it ultimately becomes an all or nothing bargain; we can’t say this outside funding is OK, but this isn’t.  Either we believe in public/private partnerships, or we don’t.  We depend on philanthropic support, or we don’t.
And what about those business types and educational philanthropists?  First off, be transparent in your giving and proud of your support.  Be vocal about your giving — who you are giving to, why you are giving, and what your expected outcomes are.  And don’t let others define your motives.
Ultimately, it really does take an educational village to improve our public schools.  Teachers, parents, community leaders, policymakers, taxpayers, the business community, and students all have a vested interest in seeing our schools improve and our kids succeed.  And all have a potential role they can play in the improvement process.  Now is not the time to say I can do this myself, and try to walk the road alone.  We need all the help we can get.

An Ed Reform Gov in a Blue State?

Eduflack accountability, Achievement gap, charter schools

For the past few decades, we often talk about who the latest “education governor” is, particularly among Democrats.  In the late 1980s, Bill Clinton of Arkansas tried to take the mantle from the esteemed Jim Hunt of North Carolina.  For a bit, it shifted over to Gaston Caperton of West Virginia, as he emerged from a devastating state-wide teachers strike.  And most recently, it was Virginia’s Mark Warner, who ushered in the 21st century in the Old Dominion by focusing on high school reform.

But recent history points primarily to Republicans as the “education governors.”  Lamar Alexander in Tennessee.  George W. Bush in Texas.  Jeb Bush in Florida.  Mitch Daniels in Indiana.  Republicans seem to have the upper hand when it comes to conditions for pushing forward with reforms.  And while many may question the final outcomes, it is those Republican state leaders, be they in red or purple states, that stand as leaders in education.
This week, we may have seen the start of a major shift in the “education governor” formula.  A true-blue Democrat, in one of the truest of blue states boldly laying out an ambitious set of priorities for education reform.  The leader? Dannel Malloy, the governor of Connecticut.
Governor Malloy was sworn into office this past January, elected in a 2010 cycle that wasn’t particularly friendly to Democrats.  Much of his first year has been spent focused on natural disasters and an unmanageable budget.  He addressed the latter in the most unusual of ways for a governor — he both cut spending and raised taxes.  Connecticut is now looking at a potential budget surplus for the year, and that’s following some significant investment in economic strength and jobs creation in the Nutmeg State.
Through it all, Malloy pledged that 2012 would be the “year of education reform.”  He recognized the important that strong public schools played in strengthening the state’s economy.  He knew he couldn’t give it the full attention it needed in year one of his administration.  But in year two, it would be game on.
Yesterday, Malloy threw that first pitch of that ed reform game in Connecticut.  In a bold pronouncement to the state’s legislative leaders, Malloy offered six key principles that would guide the 2012 legislative session.  He urged leaders to act on these six issues — six topics that are intertwined and interconnected to ensure progress.  And he tasked his new Education Commissioner with presenting specific proposals in the next month or so to address these themes.
So what is Connecticut’s new education agenda?
1) Enhance families’ access to high-quality early childhood opportunities
2) Authorize the intensive interventions and enable the supports necessary to turn around Connecticut’s lowest-performing schools and districts
3) Expand the availability of high-quality school models, including traditional schools, magnets, charters, and others
4) Unleash innovation by removing red tape and other barriers to success, especially in high-performing schools and districts
5) Ensure that our schools are home to the very best teachers and principals — working within a fair system that values their skill and effectiveness over seniority and tenure.
6) Deliver more resources, targeted to districts with the greatest need — provided that they embrace key reforms that position our students for success.
Expanding school choice.  Removing red tape.  Valuing educator effectiveness over years on the job.  Focusing resources on the students who need them the most.  This is not a status quo agenda from a typical Democratic politician.  This is the start of an audacious plan focused on actually improving public education for all students, whatever it takes.  These principles can serve as the very model for how a post-NCLB governor of a blue state can take real action steps that get to the heart of what ails our public schools.
Obviously, the devil is in the details.  Connecticut must now look to its State Department of Education to offer up specific policy proposals that ensure effective teachers and principals for all students.  The SDE must move forward ideas on how to fix a school funding formula that has been broken for decades.  And it must do all of this under the reality that there may not be buckets of new money to spend, and we need to expand choice and provide more direct interventions simply by spending existing dollars better than we have in past years. 
While Connecticut is still a long ways from solving its achievement gap crisis and ensuring that all students have access to great public schools, Malloy’s announcement is an important step forward for Connecticut’s students, schools, and the state as a whole.  He has signaled that a Democratic governor in a strong union state can get serious about statewide education reform.  And he has done it in a way that builds on what we have learned from similar efforts in other states, building on the successes and hopefully avoiding the pitfalls.
Yes, Connecticut, we can have an ed reform governor with a real ed reform agenda.