An interview with Penny Kotterman, candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction

by David Safier
The race for Superintendent of Public Instruction promises to be a bit more high profile in 2010 than it usually is, with education funding and legislation in the news every day. Two Democrats have filed for the position: Penny Kotterman and Jason Williams. Williams ran last time and lost to Tom Horne, who was the incumbent. This time there's no incumbent, which levels the playing field. Kotterman is going after the position for the first time.

I offered both candidates the opportunity to answer identical questions I emailed to them. Kotterman took me up on the offer. One of the people running Williams campaign said Williams chose not to respond at this time. I'm posting Kotterman's complete answers to my questions, a luxury possible on the web. The beginning of the interview is on the front page. You can link to the rest.

I had a chance to meet with Kotterman and found her to be serious, knowledgeable and personable, and someone with a vast and varied resume. She has 30 years of experience in various aspects of public education. She began as a high school English and Journalism teacher (two areas I taught in as well). She went into Special Education and ended up teaching students at all grade levels, K-12.

Kotterman became involved in the AEA (Arizona Education Association) and served as its president, meaning she had experience managing a large organization and interacting regularly with state government, including 2 governors and 3 Superintendents of Public Instruction.

Now, I'll let her speak for herself.

Q: Why are you running for Superintendent of Public Instruction?

I believe it is time to change the conversation about public education. The Superintendent of Public Instruction needs to be an educational leader, armed with a depth of knowledge gained over a lifetime of experience in education, not a politician with an ideological formula gained over a lifetime of running for office. We need to move from polarizing political stances to conversations and solutions about what Arizona students need to be successful in the world they will face. High standards and high expectations for our schools, our teachers and our students are essential to our success. In order to be sure we are not just engaging in rhetoric, we also need to talk about the importance of investing in our schools for the future and providing the resources our children need to be competitive and successful. I believe I have the experience, dedication, passion, skill and knowledge to serve this state as a true educational leader and Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Q: What experience and qualifications do you bring to the position?

I have dedicated my entire career to public education for the last 30 years. I have lived and worked in Arizona since 1984. I began teaching at Manual High School in Peoria, Illinois in 1978 and I was a classroom teacher and teacher mentor for 18 years, teaching special education and English, Language Arts and Reading. While I spent most of my career in 6-8 grades, I have taught students at all grade levels. I hold six teaching certificates in Arizona, including two administrative certificates. During the course of my years in public education I served eight years as Vice President and then President of the Arizona Education Association (AEA). During that time I worked with three Superintendents of Public Instruction and two Governors and served on several appointed policy commissions, task forces and committees for the Arizona Department of Education, the State Board of Education and the Governor’s Office. After my tenure at the AEA, I worked as an independent consultant crafting education policy on topics such as teacher quality, performance based compensation, teacher evaluation, and student achievement and assessment. I have served on national committees related to education issues and presented at a number of national and international education symposiums and conferences in the last 15 years, including England and China. Since 2006 I have worked for the Arizona K-12 Center (Northern Arizona University) as the Associate Director of New Programs and Policy. In this position I developed the foundation of the Master Teacher program, a statewide mentoring program for new teachers. I also develop and manage professional development programs, report on policy related to teacher quality and professional development, and provide guidance and support to our Center and other entities on teacher quality and its impact on student achievement. I understand a very wide range of policy issues impacting children and students from all areas of our state and nation, and have dealt with many of them first hand. My experience in the classroom and my history of successfully engaging education policy makers on complex policy issues gives me the experience, knowledge and skill for this position. I bring tremendous passion, understanding, creativity and innovation to this very important work.

Q: What changes would you like to make in Arizona Education?

In order to consistently build successful schools, we need to realize that no single program or approach produces success for every student. Arizona has sought to "reform" its schools from the outside, finding successful programs and trying to replicate them, focusing on creating schools that look successful at the expense of schools that are successful. We have countless new programs and new demands, and reams of data that is rarely analyzed effectively. We must be better at using the massive amounts of data we collect by making it timely, accessible and transparent, so that it informs decision-making in a way that is helpful to students, teachers, parents and schools, not in a way that punishes them. It is time to embrace a transformation in education, one that doesn't treat educators like enemies, that honors their voices and experience, while at the same time learning from the best practices in education, community engagement and effective organizations. These are complex process changes. Anyone who lists off four or five new programs or strategies as the keys to student success does not understand the realities of public education today. There are no simple, quick fixes. We have to ask ourselves a simple but hard question each time we put forth a new program or policy, “Will this decision maximize EVERY child’s opportunity to receive a world class education?” We must focus on strategies that improve overall student achievement and success, the graduation rate, and the rate at which our children enter AND finish college. This means a systematic review of all policies and programs administered by the Department of Education and a subsequent review of the use of resources, both federal and state, that support those programs.  We must embrace educational initiatives that have been proven to enhance student success in academic and social endeavors. We have to make high standards and high expectations the norm for all of our schools and students, and we have to create the kind of policy and implementation support that makes that more than rhetoric.

Q: What level of education funding should the legislature put into the 2010 budget?

While our legislature continues to debate the per-pupil funding amount, the truth is Arizona has LOST ground in terms of percentage of the state budget for K-12 education over the last 10 years. These are extreme economic times, but education should not take more than its fair share of education cuts, at the early childhood, K-12 or Higher Education levels, and we have already done so in the 2009 budget. Balancing state budgets at the expense of children and families is unacceptable and unnecessary. The loss of nearly 7,500 teaching positions, nearly 15% of the entire teaching workforce, demands a review of the budget decisions that led to this unprecedented situation. The legislature should look at all available options, work in a truly bi-partisan fashion that represents the wishes of ALL taxpayers in this state, not just those of corporate interests, and craft a budget that reflects a positive investment in our children for 2010. We need to embrace the federal stimulus funding and think creatively and judiciously about how to invest in innovative programs that will build a foundation for our schools and kids after this economic crisis passes.

Q: What should be the future of Charter Schools in Arizona?

Charter schools are a part of our public school system, and they should not enjoy additional benefits not afforded district schools in similar circumstances, nor should they be penalized because they are charter schools.  I believe all charter schools should be non-profit entities, that the property and equipment they purchase with public dollars should remain public property, and that their teachers should meet the same standards for certification and licensure as all other public school teachers, even if they do so through different or alternative routes. Since they are funded directly from the state’s General Fund, and not from district based revenues and calculations, in a sense charter schools belong to ALL of us as taxpayers, not just to the charter entities and communities where they are located. This requires a broader scrutiny of the entire charter system by the public, since these schools are a collective investment of the citizens of this state. 

The Charter Schools Association is itself beginning to define the future of charter schools by taking on higher standards of accountability, both for the success of their students and the financial accountability to the citizens of Arizona. Those are both necessary steps, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction should follow that effort closely and be prepared to embrace any real reform of the charter school evaluation process that emerges, or be prepared to advocate for clear accountability systems that are fair to students and charters and protect the state's investment in these schools. There is much we can learn from the clear successes of some of the best charter school efforts, and there is a great deal charters could learn from the best district school efforts. We have created such a sense of competition between these entities in the policy debate, that sharing information between district public schools and charters is not the norm. In order for public education in Arizona to truly benefit from the charter school movement, we must bridge the gap and learn from each other so that we can build an integrated system of public schools that truly meets the needs of all students. 

Q: What are your positions on ELL funding and the ways ELL classes should be offered and taught?

Funding for education in this state is inadequate for ALL our schools but this is disproportionately true for many schools that have a high proportion of ELL students. Years of underfunding have been compounded by the recent budget calculation formulations for implementation of new mandatory models of instruction for English Language Learners.  The state has failed repeatedly to complete credible cost studies related to instruction for ELL students, instead spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to fight court orders related to adequate education and funding for this population of students.  The passage of Proposition 203 in 2000 led to numerous specific mandates and restrictions of instruction for ELL students under the guise of teaching all students English.  Of course all students should learn English, and they should be supported, encouraged and challenged in that effort so that they become fluent in reading, writing and speaking, both functionally and academically.  But no two students learn exactly alike or at the same pace, and that is just as true for ELL students as it is for any other population.  There is NO magic single program that will work for all ELL students in communities across Arizona.  Schools should be allowed to choose from educational strategies for these students that have a demonstrated track record, and they should be encouraged and supported in embracing parent and community language education programs in order to reinforce student learning. Their progress should be monitored and supported, and after a reasonable time, if reclassification and student success rates are not demonstrated, they should be required to make changes that will lead to success.  It is a process of continuous improvement, one that meets the needs of students, the choices of their parents and local communities, and respects the expertise of quality educators committed to student success.

Q: What are your positions on private school vouchers and tax credits?

I am opposed to vouchers and tuition tax credits.  When the tuition tax credits law passed, I was the chief plaintiff in the lawsuit, Kotterman v. Killian.  Though the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of tax credits, I continue to believe they are a detrimental policy and divert support for real funding reform for our public education system.  The constant erosion of support for public schools in the name of competition has done nothing to improve the education of the 90% of our children attending public schools, and they cost the state millions of dollars each year.  Particularly in a time of extreme budget shortfalls, it is irresponsible to be lifting the cap on corporate tax credits and legislating guaranteed increases of 20% per year and adding additional tax credits for other populations. 

Q: What are your views on AIMS and NCLB?

AIMS and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) are related, but separate issues.  Arizona had AIMS as a high stakes graduation requirement before NCLB required standards based assessments for all states.  The AIMS test, and the standards that it is based on, must be subject to constant and thorough review and revision to be certain that the test is unbiased, valid and being used for appropriate purposes.  Arizona also has a state mandated norm-referenced test, the Terra Nova, making some kind of testing for every student a requirements in grades 2-10. I believe the key function of statewide assessment(s) is to provide timely information to teachers and parents in order to improve instruction for students.  If the focus is improved instruction that results in improved student achievement, then the entire testing system must be designed to support providing timely and accurate data that is useful to teachers and others as one tool in analyzing instruction and making the necessary improvements. Other uses, such as using the test for a single high stakes graduation exam, comparisons with other schools, and school rankings ought to be a secondary function of this type of testing, and could likely be better met with other, less intrusive assessment tools. Arizona should look strategically, not politically, at the assessment system that we have in place.  Testing should NOT be used as a hammer and an indictment of schools, teachers and students.  The notion that accountability is the chief function of student assessment is a flawed notion and has led us to testing policy that is detrimental to improvement and growth.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Bush era reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education ACT, has had the most local impact of any piece of federal legislation since the late 1970’s when mandatory services for special education students was passed by Congress.  The initial goals of NCLB are sound, but the actual interpretation, implementation of legislation, rules and regulations has been largely detrimental to many of our public schools and have reinforced a punishment model rather than a support model for our schools, particularly schools in our poorest and most rural communities. For example, one of the most positive aspects of NCLB has been the focus on disaggregated data by student subgroup at all levels of the system.  Used appropriately, schools and teachers have been able to really analyze strengths and challenges for various student populations and focus on closing achievement GAPS.  Arizona’s own Beat The Odds schools are great examples of this effort.  But when this same data is used in the federal school-ranking model, it is used in a manner that is unrealistic and unfair for many schools and student populations. The provisions for highly qualified teachers are far too heavy on content at the expense of real measures of teacher quality, and I believe actually reinforce and reward the placement of under qualified teachers in many positions.  In addition, NCLB primarily relies on a very narrow definition of student success; the mastery of limited content on a paper and pencil test.  Our state and our nation must become more focused on the success of our students in critical content and 21st century skills, such as the understanding and use of technology, adaptability, creativity and innovation, if we are to compete in the global economy.  NCLB is up for reauthorization and I am hopeful that a return to more rational thinking and a reliance on real educator expertise will result in a better more thoughtful approach to federal support for our schools.