By John Johansen / For The Herald
Shortly after 8 p.m. on an April night, I snapped a blurry picture of my computer screen and texted it to my principal. A screenshot would have been clearer, but this was sufficient for the moment’s energy: based on early returns, our second attempt at passing new levies for Lakewood schools was successful.
Every three to four years, we reach out to the community in an attempt to secure the funds needed to continue delivering services to our students beyond what Washington wtate pays for basic education. Why? Because 35 students is too many for one teacher to optimally engage. Because funding three nurses for five schools creates conditions of de facto malfeasance. Because kids love to crochet little characters from video games, and often that’s what brings them to school. Yes, really.
However, with frustrating predictability, the same stultifying arguments crop up online and in commentaries each election: School districts need to tighten their belts, test scores are down, the evil union is taking over education, a clandestine socialist agenda is being pushed on impressionable minds, and salaries are consuming every last dollar as teachers and admins sip champagne in top hats and smoking jackets or ballroom gowns.
In the parlance of Gen Z: “Big yikes.”
Twelve years in: As summer crests the horizon of my 12th year in public instruction, I’d like to comment on this strange environment, but first an obligatory disclaimer and a bit of personal context. The views expressed herein are my own. I’m certificated in English and social sciences, and my National Boards certificate reads History/Adolescent and Young Adulthood. While I do not agree with every decision they make, I am a proud member of my local, state and national unions. For a decade prior to teaching, I worked as an automotive repair technician, retraining because I had a nagging notion in my head to attempt making a positive impact, assisting young people to realize the power of language, and perhaps leave the world a bit better than I found it.
I was also a Lakewood student many years ago, and returned here to make a home with my wife, Rachel. For those who care, I’m a political independent, espousing views that might be seen as simultaneously socially liberal, fiscally conservative, yet pro-working class. Twelve years into my career, I am often asked to coach newer teachers who are developing their craft. I’ve never been directed to teach a political agenda by any member of any administration I’ve worked under in three districts. There are many teachers like me; we’re not all “leftists” out to “indoctrinate” children in “socialism” as you might read online. My union has likewise never demanded I teach with any political slant; as it should be. My classroom is one of critical thinking and exploration; not indoctrination.
As levies are discussed, it is common to see online posts demanding higher test scores, or “improvement” in the local school district contingent on a future “yes” vote. I know a thing or two about test scores, having taught tested-subjects in two school districts prior to Lakewood — Edmonds and Everett — with a track record of improvement for many students. Why not all of them? It’s a great (and fair) question.
It’s ironically flattering that voters think we have so much power in our role as teachers. True, teacher quality is the strongest controllable factor in improving student achievement, and something districts should prioritize commensurately. This doesn’t necessarily mean such focus is strong enough to offset some students’ lived experiences and conditions sufficient to impress critical members of the voting public.
Here’s what is also at play:
Being there: I wish with utmost sincerity I could somehow out-teach the conditions that prevent many students from attending school regularly. Attendance data from the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction for all districts is publically available; and worth a look. From OSPI’s own website, “Students who do not test are counted among the number of students who do not meet standard.” In my experience, only a minute percentage are opt-outs by parents (which also count as non-passing), but overwhelmingly it’s absences; either on testing days or sufficient in advance to prevent meaningful traction in concept development. We do everything we can to get students to school: phone calls, frequent admin home visits, and referrals to community engagement boards among others. Compared to peak covid years, the numbers are improving. However, for wholesale test score improvement, the challenge is daunting and changes to Washington laws preventing “hard” consequences for excessive absences have made it difficult to make headway beyond a certain point.
It is a simple truth that schools cannot compel students to arrive each day ready to learn, and yet test score improvement seemingly demands precisely this. From an instructional standpoint, it matters little whether or not absences are “excused” by parents. Whether a student has a bona fide medical reason to miss school or the student simply does not show up, the loss of in class learning is effectively the same. As OSPI grades district performance, I would advocate for legislative changes mandating the dismissal of data on students who do not meet attendance standards, regardless of the reason. We should continue doing everything to help these students, of course, but evaluating district performance against students who rarely attend class is, frankly, absurd.
Parents’ role: I wish there existed a technique I could show newer teachers which magically offsets economic conditions preventing families from engaging in their students’ education as much as they’d prefer in better circumstances. The number of my parents with two or more jobs is staggering. Some so-called conservative critics argue it’s not always working conditions; that there are families who simply do not prioritize education. In life, many experience periods where they become absorbed in their own challenges: divorce, addiction, depression. Voters should keep in mind children do not choose their parents, and public school is a promise for them, too.
Phones: Commentary on the effects of smartphones and discipline, particularly if a student is not living in a situation where they have support in regulating the use of these highly addictive devices, should be a column in itself. (Perhaps I’ll write one.) For now, I’ll remain thankful I was lucky to have two parents at home who made computer games contingent on academic achievement. I can only imagine what choices I would have made at 13 if both my parents worked multiple jobs, leaving me to my own devices (literally and figuratively) out of financial necessity.
Budgets and McCleary: Some commenters demand school districts tighten their belts, and reference the McCleary decision as the end-all. It certainly was supposed to be. I’d love to know what they’d specifically like us to cut. I wonder if they’d prefer me to send a student to another school to see the nurse (we need five and are funded for three,) or librarian (every school has a library; but again, funding). Perhaps we should just cut salaries, they say. McCleary, and the raises bargained after, made it economically feasible for my family to leave larger city districts and settle here. Do we not want teachers earning a solid middle-class income for Western Washington? I’ve yet to see a Ferrari in the parking lot, though my 2010 Toyota Tacoma is quite the sight to behold.
A teacher’s hopes: When I began my career in 2011, I was convinced through technique and determination I could single-handedly raise measurable achievement for all of my students, in every single context. If there was a person driven to be a hotshot teacher, it was definitely me. With more than a few gray hairs now coming in, I admit this was hubris. What I’ve learned to be true is far more nuanced. Recently, I found myself bathed in light from a campfire, discussing life with trusted men in whom I often confide. On teachers, I explained we are not paid to be successful with every student, though this is certainly our goal and deepest wish. We are paid to fight a battle against enemies often outside our sphere of influence, and find each day the strength to not become discouraged.
Public education isn’t about test scores, though some might prefer such a metric. In my weaker moments, sometimes I would, too. It would make things simpler, a longing held by many on both sides of the political aisle. As we finish reading Ray Bradbury’s “Something Wicked This Way Comes” in my eighth-grade English language arts class, it sometimes surfaces in discussion how desiring overly simplistic solutions to complex problems is a mark of childhood we must leave behind to achieve our potential as adults.
I personally hope for such an awakening in those who seek to defund our schools, but am reminded how author H.L. Mencken observed “For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong.”
The point: All of this begs the question: what, then, is public education? For this teacher, it is a promise to do our level best, every day, to impart our disciplines to our students, foster critical thinking and encourage excellence regardless of what challenges they bring with them. I can state with confidence the students in my room, who attend regularly and receive adequate support at home, do learn and progress. Their test scores are solid, if that’s one’s chief concern.
The students who cannot attend regularly, and those who are not fortunate enough to have two parents at home with the free time and bandwidth to closely monitor progress, I do my absolute best with them too. In those contexts, sometimes my best isn’t good enough to raise test scores to where the Nextdoor or Facebook comments would like them to be. My calling, and that of my colleagues, is to continue showing up every morning to try.
Good for now: After sending that photo to my principal, I took a deep breath knowing we’re safe for another four years. Then, we’ll rewind the tape and hit play; unless Washington decides once and for all to determine an equitable funding model based on full staffing levels. Until then, citizens should know voting down future levies won’t directly improve test scores, or put in motion some sort of bootstrap-pulling/tough love changes that will. It won’t end grade level promotion by age, solve the discipline crisis, or determine which books are appropriate to ban. It certainly won’t strike a blow against “big government.”
I could say much about federal spending and endless wars, but those discussions fit better at the Paddle Pub over a few pints.
As a community, if we vote down future levies, we will accomplish raising class sizes due to layoffs. We’ll ensure there’s fewer administrators available to help teachers like me when I need to call in an assist, or monitor lunch and common areas. We’ll guarantee an increase in telling students “there’s no nurse here today” or “you can see the librarian next week,” and we’ll ensure fewer opportunities for students to speak with someone when they’re finally ready to be proactive and see a counselor.
We’ll guarantee telling both unhoused and privileged students alike that their sports team, or after-school crochet club, no longer exists.
Remember those attendance numbers I mentioned? Putting on the jersey or showing off their latest crochet creation might be the only reason they attended that day; and that’s just two of the many extracurriculars we offer. On behalf of all the students who walk through my door every day — and the ones I see only occasionally who fight invisible battles just to attend when they can — let’s not go down that road.
John Johansen is an English language arts teacher in the Lakewood School District. He resides on Lake Howard with his wife, Rachel, and two enormously spoiled Australian shepherds. When not teaching, he can be found adventure motorcycling, camping, or enjoying a burger at The Paddle Pub.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
