Getting our children ready for school, college and work

My wife, Melinda, and I have heard the tragic stories time and again. In Washington and other states, we learn about talented high-school students who don't fulfill their promise — not because they fail at school, but because our schools fail them. They study hard, do well and get into college. But in college, instead of the good grades they're used to, they get D's and F's. They take remedial classes, but still they can't keep up — so they quit.

These are bright kids. All through grade school and high school, they do everything we ask of them. But we don't ask enough. And then, after 12 years of not asking enough, we suddenly ask way too much.

The statistics are as grim as the stories. Only 74 percent of our ninth-graders graduate from high school in four years, and fewer than half of our graduates are ready for college. And it's not just high-school graduates who are unprepared; kindergarten teachers in Washington report that fewer than half of their students come to school ready to learn. Across the whole spectrum of education, we are not preparing enough students to succeed at the next level.

This is a huge problem. All of our kids need to be ready for school, ready for college and ready for work. Right now, we're nowhere near that goal. To reach it, we need to change the system.

Melinda and I have made improving education one of the central missions of our foundation. In our experience, school systems that excel at each level — from early learning through high school — have four distinctive traits: high standards, clear accountability, flexible personnel practices and a climate that encourages innovation.

First, educational standards. They have one central purpose — to ensure that students make the most of their ability. By that measure, Washington's standards are unacceptably low.

Washington Learns, a report recently issued by an expert committee created by Gov. Christine Gregoire, recommends raising our math and science requirements. I agree. Twenty-seven states require students to take three or four years of math to graduate from high school. In Texas, students in the class of 2008 will have to pass four years of math and four years of science. Washington requires just two years of each.

I don't see why standards in Washington should be lower than standards in Texas, or anywhere else.

Once we've set high standards, we have to assess whether those standards are being met, and be able to take action when they're not. Yet, today the state has no power to intervene in failing schools. No matter how badly the students are being served, state officials cannot replace a principal, put higher standards in place, or bring in new teachers. All they can do is sit and watch.

California has a different approach. There, if a school is identified as low-performing, it can get a range of grants and other support to improve its performance. If the school doesn't get better, the state superintendent is required to take action, which can include bringing in an outside management team. Since California adopted this policy, three-quarters of its low-performing schools have improved enough to meet the standards.

California doesn't accept failing schools. Why should Washington?

Of course, raising standards means teaching more-rigorous courses, which in turn requires highly qualified teachers, especially from the fields of science, engineering and math. Washington has some truly outstanding professionals teaching tough classes in our public schools. But we need to find more. To do that, we need more-flexible personnel policies.

When it comes to recruiting and retaining talented professionals, our public schools are at a disadvantage. Our system doesn't let them reward strong performance or pay more for people with rare abilities. The Washington Learns report rightly says our teacher pay system should recognize expertise, use incentives and reward achievements.

Rigid certification procedures also keep talented teachers from entering the classroom. We should open up the field of teaching to professionals who want to become classroom teachers, but will not do so under the current system. A more robust alternative certification process, for instance, would let qualified people teach while they get certified.

Finally, our foundation has learned that great school systems are able to try promising new approaches. Unfortunately, Washington is one of the most inhospitable states in the country for educators who want to give new ideas a chance.

Our foundation works with an innovative group called KIPP — the Knowledge Is Power Program. KIPP is active in 16 states and has become one of the most accomplished school-reform organizations in the country. It operates the highest-performing middle school in Washington, D.C., and the eighth-graders in KIPP's Newark, N.J., academy score in the 91st percentile in math.

KIPP would like to work in Washington state, but it can't. Unlike 40 other states in the country, Washington does not allow charter schools — so the government can't give KIPP permission to run its model here.

We have to accept that voters have rejected charter schools. But we can still explore other promising ideas that have worked elsewhere, such as funds that districts can draw on to intervene in failing schools, or a statewide "innovation district" to support new schools in neighborhoods where other schools have failed.

Let's decide whether we're going to move ahead or fall behind. If we have the will, we can make Washington a world leader in education and economic growth for the 21st century.

Bill Gates is co-chairman of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This guest column is adapted from his speech to the Washington Learns Education Summit at the Bell Harbor Conference Center in Seattle on Nov. 13.