Written by SHEENA DOOLEY
Des Moines Register
October 1, 2011

Six times in the past three decades, education reform proposals aimed at ratcheting up teachers’ classroom performance and students’ academic skills have been rolled out in Iowa.

And six times, reports filled with ideas on how to create a world-class education system were shelved because of a lack of money and political bickering.

Monday morning, the newest round of education reforms will be unveiled. And, like previous ideas, these proposals are expected to focus on setting clear and rigorous academic standards for the state’s 468,000 students; improving the effectiveness of 35,000 teachers; and increasing innovation in classrooms.

While the broad ideas are not new, the urgency to implement them is. And this time around, education leaders are counting on the reforms to stick.

“A lot of what has occurred has just been tinkering around the edges,” said Kittie Weston-Knauer, a retired Des Moines principal hired to open the district’s first charter school. “We have these initiatives that come to the forefront and then things just fall to the wayside.”

That’s not to say reform measures haven’t taken hold in Iowa. A few have, including teacher licensure procedures.

Most other reforms, though, failed largely because education leaders and lawmakers adopted initiatives piecemeal.

Some initiatives fell to the wayside after lawmakers cut funding or grant money ran out, said Jason Glass, director of the Iowa Department of Education.

“I understand there is skepticism,” he said. “What has to be different now is we have to build a reform agenda that transcends ideology and traditional party politics. We need this to sustain beyond the next election. We have to pitch it right down the middle.”

Other states and countries have recognized the need to strengthen their education systems in order to compete in the global economy, Iowa education leaders said. Better schools serve as magnets for new-to-Iowa companies, they contend.

As reform has taken hold elsewhere, Iowans have become more aware that the state’s students have fallen behind, leaders say.

Iowans also know the stakes for success are higher than ever before.

The future of Iowa’s economy rests on its ability to produce highly qualified and skilled workers, which will help attract and retain businesses, they say.

“It has become clearer and clearer that it isn’t just about getting better teachers and getting them to work harder or making the old system work better,” said Ted Stilwill, the state’s education chief from 1995 to 2004. “We have done a lot of that. We have to find ways to move more radical change much more quickly.”

As work begins on Iowa’s newest education reform efforts, education leaders say their success hinges on creating a blueprint for change that will draw bipartisan support. Education and political leaders also say they need buy-in from education groups, districts, teachers, parents and others in order to sustain reforms.

“It’s clearer now than ever before that we have to raise the bar academically and continue to look at how we improve if our students are going to be top performers,” said Linda Fandel, Gov. Terry Branstad’s special assistant for education.

Even when Iowa led the nation in education, state leaders were pushing for reform.

A task force produced a list of recommendations in 1991 meant to help the state maintain its No. 1 position while adapting to a changing world in which technology was rapidly evolving.

The task force focused on creating strong statewide standards that could be adopted at the national level, where leaders were trying to address the national “education crisis,” said Bill Lepley, state education director from 1988 to 1993.

Iowa’s plan was to put in place common standards and then develop an exam to measure student progress, Lepley said.

But that never happened.

A study group developed standards that extended beyond the core curriculum areas of math, reading, science and social studies. In its recommendation, the group spoke of students being able to compete in a global economy.

State leaders took the plan to the public and held hearings that at times became contentious. The push-back resulted in an unsuccessful effort to oust Lepley.

“Even back when we were pushing for change in the ’80s and ’90s there was general complacency that we were doing OK,” Lepley said. “Most parents thought their school was fine and it was the other schools that weren’t.”

Iowa education leaders are considering resurrecting a 1980s teacher pay measure that increased salaries, provided raises to teachers who got advanced degrees, and mentored and trained other teachers.

The measure basically did away with a decades-old system that paid teachers based on their years of experience and credit hours. It also provided funding for professional development, Lepley said.

The legislation was never fully implemented and fell by the wayside because the state couldn’t fund it.

Lawmakers revived it in 2001, passing a similar measure. Again, the economy soured and money dried up.

“All of that groundwork that we laid we had to back off of because of funding,” Stilwill said. “We had the type of collaboration that is difficult to get. It didn’t go as far as I would have wanted, but lots of times it takes several tries to move these things ahead.”

Under Stilwill, the state also reformed teacher licensure requirements and strengthened teacher and principal preparation programs.

As a result, teachers now receive temporary licenses during their first two years on the job. They must demonstrate competency to obtain a permanent license.

Also, preparation programs in the state became performance-based, meaning students show they have mastered the skills needed to be an effective teacher or principal.

Those measures are still in place, but need to be more consistently applied across the state and updated, Glass said.

“It’s not like nothing has happened in Iowa,” Glass said. “My critique of Iowa was they were taking steps in the right direction but they didn’t go far enough.”

Unlike the Reformers, the Know-It-Alls are the Washington establishment, which on the whole believe that everything being done now in the federal government is as it should be, is being done for a reason and must simply be sustained and grown – not changed one bit. It’s good, it’s comfortable and it all seems to work for them. Don’t worry about effectiveness or review. That’s for the pessimists.

The Pessimists don’t really believe things are working well, but they require hard, fast proof before they accept anything new.  They complain that things aren’t funded enough and that the government needs more regulation, not less (indeed, they are pessimists and believe the people cannot really govern themselves).  They believe that our rights have been taken away by various agencies and public bodies. The Pessimists cast a dark cloud over anything that may suggest more choice and freedom – particularly in education.  How can you trust them, afterall?

The Relativists are on everybody’s side.  There is no deal too compromising for them.  You have your opinion, I have mine. They are all equal. There’s really no right or wrong (except in the opposite political party).  If you really believe in a cause, the relativists are at the ready with their idea of reality – that you simply can’t win at all so don’t even try. Relativists tell reformers to relax, to not sweat the small stuff.  “Just take the best deal and move on.”

The Reformers cringe away from  – but must attempt to work through – each of these 3 major Washington food groups.  The Reformers will challenge the Know-it-Alls as to why they are so confident that they can’t do it differently. What about a completely different education program, for example, rather than the 30-year-old one we’ve had that’s doing nothing? (think NCLB, in part)

Even more at odds are the Reformers and the Pessimists. Reformers believe that people, not government, can drive change, from the community to the school.  They push power down, not out.

And of course, the Reformers clash often with the Relativists, though inevitably this third food group is often necessary (though not sufficient) to win the day.

Ideally, the Reformers would be the major bill of fare in Washington, relegating the other food groups to where they belong – off the menu and a la carte.  There is hope – hundreds of new Members of Congress are coming to town with new staffs and ideas, and their ability to make history will depend on whether they can think and act like The Reformers enough to be permanently disposed.

The key is to ask enough questions, learn why it is that the government funds and conducts the programs it does, and be willing when the answer isn’t good enough to suggest things be changed.

Sort of like Mr. Smith.

Or you can just sit back and accept it all, complain about it all and enter into a state of constant deal making. That’s the easier thing to do, frankly, which is why these three groups are so large and unwieldy.

The good news is that people do vote, and if these newbies can’t join the right club, the voters can – if they pay attention – bring them home.