There’s an unfortunate myth in education discussions today that criticizes outside organizations and the national government for removing autonomy from local school systems.

Make no mistake: Schools lead the education of the students. Yes, many years of initiatives brought on by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top have affected schools’ priorities and cultures, often negatively. Many worry that these changes, such as the focus on high-stakes testing, are a disservice to our keiki.

But this wave of recent criticism does not match my experiences. We did not lose autonomy or the opportunity to meet the needs of our students. What we lost, perhaps, was the belief in our empowerment to take advantage of those opportunities.

I agree, it certainly felt like we lost our voice at times. It was sometimes overwhelming to make sense of all the changes.  Our core mission of serving students seemed secondary as we incorporated new systems and initiatives.

I remember how high-stakes testing shifted how we planned and ran classrooms. Initially, we focused on test prep, made our student-work match the format of the tests, and reorganized the pace of instruction so we finished before the tests started in March. 

But then the shock of change wore off and we realized that tests were merely one aspect of education. No one forced me to do test prep all year. In fact, I had many educational leaders who challenged me to balance it appropriately with the core mission.

Even now, we have much leeway under Common Core. In 2014, the state chose and mandated curricular programs in ELA and math to meet the demands of the new standards. While the mandate was later revised according to BOE policy 2240, the message from the Department of Education the whole time was that it was up to schools how teachers implemented. Schools were given autonomy to choose which pieces of the programs they used and when they would implement. 

Schools were even able to request an exemption as part of the department’s efforts to support schools’ own choices in meeting goals in a manner that best suits their needs. Curricular decisions are not left to central administration or national consulting firms. It is still within the hands of school and complex leaders.

I feel it’s also helpful to keep in mind the people involved in education, from the student all the way up to the policymakers, because they are people, educators and leaders dedicated to the success of our students and schools; consultants and administration doing what they believe is best in supporting students.

As is true in everything people do, we make mistakes. Administrators can get tunnel vision in the face of deadlines.  Policymakers can become separated from the reality of the everyday classroom. Teachers can be resistant to change. 

This is why frequent and transparent communication between all stakeholders is vital. Feedback from schools must directly find its way to the ears of the policymakers. Administrators need to communicate the opportunities for leadership and decision-making to teachers.

There are already groups and processes to facilitate this. In addition to regular feedback channels put in place by the teachers union and state Department of Education, both the Hope Street Group and Teacher Ambassador Fellowship programs strive to ensure this is happening on both the state and national level.

As we move forward with the opportunities for change and school empowerment provided by the ESSA, let’s remain solutions-oriented. There will always be a struggle to maintain the balance between accountability and autonomy.  At times, we may swing too far in either direction.

Instead of painting dystopian pictures of education, let’s take a close look at what is within our control. What has always served us best is effective school leadership – when stakeholders recognize and act upon the opportunities that are always present.