As I have been reflecting on my letter to Dr. John King, our esteemed Commissioner of Education here in New York State, I realize that I can no longer wait for a response as it has been over two months since I sent him the letter in the hopes that a conversation can begin about what is best for our students and school. Clearly, either he has not read it (I am hoping that is the case) or he has read it and is choosing not to respond and at least engage in a dialogue with me about the current state of public education. Either way, nothing is changing! So, I am going to take a few minutes to share my thoughts on what the world of public education might look like in New York State if I were Commissioner of Education (and who knows, after completing my doctorate at Penn, that may very well be one of my many goals because I believe in public education and I support the incredible educators who lead our classrooms and schools each day)...

Educators, the ones who are actually in classrooms and in our schools, would have a voice in all state mandates, plans and proposed changes because they are the direct advocates for our children and know what is necessary to support the students' success and their (educators) collective efforts in addressing all student needs!

I would visit as many schools as possible with an emphasis placed on exploring successful schools so that their practices could be analyzed and potentially replicated in all schools throughout the state regardless of race and class and location. Instead of basing the reform efforts on what is not working in our ineffective schools, I will make it a point to try and recreate what is working in our effective schools!

Every school would have two administrators - a Lead Learner (traditionally known as the principal) who would focus on instructional leadership, staff development, contact with children, staff and parents. Then there would be an Educational Administrative Assistant who would support the efforts of the Lead Learner by handling all organizational and administrative issues - scheduling, paper work, meeting mandates, etc. By bifurcating the duties traditionally associated with the principalship, we could put emphasis on the instructional leadership but not lose sight of the "managerial" responsibilities.

Every school would have instructional coaches (at least a literacy and math coach) to provide ongoing professional development for all staff and ensure that all standards are being met - these members of the team are CRITICAL!

Money would be cut from testing initiatives (hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on creating flawed assessments) and put that money back into our schools so that we could hire more staff to reduce class size, especially in the primary years (there should be no more than 15 kids in our K & 1 classes); so we could infuse technology into every learning experience and make 1:1 model the norm and not the exception! Technology can no longer be seen as an add-on; instead it must serve as the foundation for learning. Technology will help us on our quest to assist our students in their evolution from consumers of information to creators of information!

The expectation of district leadership would be the personalization of professional development opportunities for all educators - teachers and principals alike! This should not be a "one size" fits all approach; instead, we should find out what our educators need (based on observations, conversations, etc.) and tailor their learning to meet those needs. As Morris, Crowson, Porter-Gehrie and Hurwitz point out in Principals in Action: The Reality of Managing Schools (1981), principals should provide help throughout the year to all teachers on various professional responsibilities including how to personalize instruction, how to assess students, how to communicate with parents and how to implement successful classroom management techniques. By providing support in these areas through modeling and professional development opportunities, the expectations for what qualifies good instruction will be clear and teachers will have an understanding of what is expected each day. Additionally, we should expect the experts within each educational institution to share their knowledge with others - collaboration is the key to success!

The Common Core Standards will serve as the "floor" NOT the "ceiling" - they are not the curriculum but instead a guide for the experiences we want all our children to have while in school.

We will throw away the "cookie cutters" and empower every educator to lead and instruct in the way that is most sound for their student population. We cannot mandate that every teacher uses the same materials at the same time and in the same way - that is not public school - that is a factory! We must encourage creativity, collaboration and critical thinking because that is what it takes to be college and career ready! This is directly connected to the Professional Development piece because we want all educators to be skilled enough to make these sound decisions for their students.

Implement a career path of sorts for all teachers that doesn't necessarily mean that if one is a "good teacher" their only option for growth is becoming an administrator. We should consider implementing a four-level system where teachers could move from the novice level to the experienced level to master teacher level and finally to the teacher coach level and with each step up the ladder, they will receive an increase in salary and the daily expectations will change. Not everyone has to move up this ladder but every teacher, with the proper support from administration, will at least reach the experienced level. 

In regards to state testing and the current APPR Plan, I offer the following thoughts...

If I had the ability to scrap the current principal and teacher evaluation plans in New York State, the first thing I would do is eliminate the connection between students’ performance on various standardized and local assessments to the evaluation ratings of educators. This connection does not provide a complete picture of a student’s performance or an educators’ effectiveness. These assessments just capture a moment in time and do not necessarily provide children with an opportunity to show what they know and understand in a comprehensive way. Furthermore, the tests do not look the same from one year to the next and thus comparing a student’s growth over a two-year period doesn’t necessarily provide a fair and accurate comparison. Another problem that stems from using assessments as part of the educator evaluation system is that nothing can be done with the data. First off, the groups of students determining an educator’s evaluation are from the year before and so the assessment is purely summative, which does not help inform instruction. Along the same vein is the idea that the data does not explain WHY a student answered a question incorrectly, which should be our emphasis when analyzing data. Yes, data analysis can pinpoint WHAT a student answered correctly or incorrectly, but it cannot provide insight as to WHY they answered a certain way. Finally, evaluating an educator based on how much a student has grown on a snapshot assessment does not reflect the collective growth or progress of that specific child in the various content areas nor the child’s social and emotional development.