Schools for Tomorrow Blog

We all know politics can get ugly. Education politics can get even uglier. Six weeks ago I wrote about the “hornets nest” stirred up in Westminster over the use of school bond money. Today, the Denver Post’s Monte Whaley brings us up-to-date, as two conflicting efforts to recall a total of three school board members—Kevin Massey, Vicky Marshall, and Marilyn Flachman—appear to have blown the lid off the debate:

“It’s appalling what they are doing to this district,” said Dino Valente, who is pushing for the recall of Massey and Marshall.

He said there is an organized campaign to defame Flachman and her supporters through drawings and hate mail.

Massey claims Flachman’s backers also are slinging disinformation around the community to tarnish his and Marshall’s reputation. “A ton of what they are saying is simply untrue,” Massey said.

My goal is not to wade into the acrimonious he-said, she-said, though undoubtedly it would be helpful to get to the bottom of the story. Instead, allow me to take a birds’ eye approach with some thoughts for both sides, in case they have yet to be considered. What do I mean?

To the citizens angry about the decision to spend all the money on Westminster High School and who launched the initial recall: Be careful of getting fixated on the characters rather than the structure. Even if you’re right, the “throw out the bums” approach yields only a temporary salve. Let’s also look constructively at ways to change the governance of our school system, maybe devolving power away from school boards to an even more local form of control—maybe Weighted Student Funding, with greater school-level autonomy and parental choice.

To the board majority’s defenders launching the counterattack: If you are in the right, it would be best to look beyond the current heated dispute as much as possible. Think about the vital interests and the potentially loud voice of taxpayers now on display, and how such anger might have been averted with greater transparency. From more detail on budget line items to more open access to the decision-making process, ponder how the high ground attained from this sort of policy could strengthen your defense and your case for leadership.

Just a few stray thoughts as I read the story this morning. I may be a bit of a rosy-eyed optimist, but it would be very satisfying to see some sort of productive systemic reform move forward as a result of the ongoing dispute in Westminster.

You may say I’m a dreamer…

There’s nothing like reading about an acrimonious political dispute in a local school district to stir up an otherwise unseasonably dreary day. From the Denver Post:

Bitterness in the Adams County 50 School District over how best to spend a $96.8 million bond issue is prompting a recall attempt of two school board members and the involvement of the district attorney.

Petitions asking for an election to recall Adams 50 board president Vicky Marshall and board treasurer Kevin Massey began circulating May 23. Proponents need to collect at least 2,507 valid signatures by late August.

If enough signatures are validated by the county clerk, the recall question will go before voters.

“In the first week, we’ve already gathered close to 400 signatures,” said recall supporter Dino Valente. “This is not a hard sell for a lot of people.”

Valente is a member of Restore Our Schools, a group of parents and residents upset over plans to use at least $90 million of the bond proceeds to refurbish Westminster High School, including $2 million for administrative offices.

The group claims that, prior to the 2006 bond election, they were promised that the entire amount would be used to upgrade existing elementary schools and construct a new high school. But in February, the school board decided to use virtually all the money to pay for revamping Westminster High.

Sure, it’s not quite as salacious as last year’s Boulder High School “sex talk” controversy, but Westminster taxpayers have seen their school district make plenty of unwanted news recently. While the controversy over how to spend the bond money has emerged several times in the local press, there also was last month’s CBS4 investigative report that uncovered the district’s careless dealings with an architectural firm hired to implement the bond-funded construction and renovation. Inquiring minds watching from the outside are curious to know how the two stories might connect, whether the change of construction plans in any way relates to the sloppy dealings with the architect.

Then there was last year’s decision to make Westminster the first Front Range school district to give all starting teachers $40,000 in base pay, while missing the chance to implement performance incentives.

While we don’t have the details of who is responsible for what, it seems clear Mr. Valente and his cohort have a strong case of district mismanagement to kindle the fires of their attempted recall election. Some might say that regardless of your point of view, the opportunity for the recall shows that “local control” really works. But I think it also makes the case to take “local control” one step further: to empower parents with more choices so their schools treat them as something more than sources of state tax revenue, namely like customers who may be lost.

For education reformers, there have been important goings-on in Wisconsin of late, goings-on that � as far as I can tell � have nothing to do with Brett Favre and the Green Bay Packers� run for the Super Bowl.

Education Week reports today in detail on the status of online public education in the Badger State, following last month�s court ruling that ordered the state to stop funding the Wisconsin Virtual Academy.

What, you might ask, would prompt a black-robed decree that threatens to deprive thousands of students of a viable learning option?

<blockquote>The court found parents were the primary educators � a violation of a state law requiring public school teachers to be licensed. And districts who operate schools cannot receive taxpayer money for students who do not attend school within their boundaries under current law, the court said.</blockquote>

Without any specialized knowledge of Wisconsin education law, the most I can say is that the ruling reflects a narrow-minded, statist view that public education belongs not to the people of a state but to a class of self-anointed elites who hold the keys to teacher licensure. Why not judge online schools� performance on their merits, or at least hold them to the same standard as other public schools (which, incidentally, receive much more public funding)?

Enter the absurd logic of the teachers union, which appears frustrated by a loss of dues revenue from students who have chosen to move to cyberschooling:

<blockquote>Still, Barbara Stein of the National Education Association, the teacher’s union, objected to the use of tax dollars to support what she called a new form of home schooling.

"The issue is whether a program where you don’t have licensed educators and where you don’t have students working directly with other students should be getting fully funded as though it were a quality educational experience," she said.</blockquote>

Did you read that? �As though it were a quality educational experience.� The NEA�s argument would begin to have credibility if they held failing urban (and other) traditional public schools to the same standard. Maybe, just maybe, there are quality educational options outside the narrow union prism.

I wrote a few weeks ago about the education monopoly�s stealth campaign to take down virtual education in Colorado. Undoubtedly, the same forces here are feeling empowered by last month�s Wisconsin court decision. But if they seek to bring the kind of logic to the debate that the NEA�s Ms. Stein did in the Education Week article, they should be roundly rejected.

This debate, like the one erupting from Bruce Randolph and Manual, is about freedom vs. control. May the forces of freedom prevail.

Last Tuesday, the Rocky Mountain News featured an opinion piece written by a teacher in Westminster.  He suggests that the achievement gap will be narrowed and test scores will go up when classrooms are once again populated by well-mannered listening learners.  He argues that the only thing that makes today�s children different is the way in which they are �treated� by those around them. 

I might have amended his language by saying enabled rather than treated.  And, now that I�m one myself, I�ve earned the right to name out loud one of today�s most disconcerting enablers � parents.

The Daniels Fund, in partnership with 9News and with mouth pieces like District Attorney Mitch Morrissey and Mayor John Hickenlooper, recently launched the Parents Are the Power campaign.  Every time I see one of their public service announcements, I�m not sure whether to laugh or to cry � maybe both.  The campaign is geared mainly at helping parents deal with the epidemic of teen substance abuse and is vitally important. 

But the PSA talks about such things as scripts for suggested conversations with your kids.  Sadly, needing prompted help in talking to their own children is a reality for a number of the parents with whom I come in contact � on all rungs of the socio-economic ladder.

The Associated Press reported last week that The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing the 2006 national teen birth rate rose for the first time in 15 years.  The report blames the lack of government spending on appropriate sex education.  While I would concur with that conclusion and would ask for a more comprehensive approach to such education, there�s another question to ask: Exactly where are the parents of these pubescent parents? 

It�s a rhetorical question.  I�m going to push you even harder to read Juan Williams� book, �Enough,� for an answer to that question and for even more disturbing descriptions of problem parenting in the lower socio-economic levels, with the biting zinger that the achievement gap so easily blamed on public schools is firmly entrenched when children take their first step over a kindergarten doorstep (page 76).

What I want you to hear from me is the utter frustration of a not-so-objective teacher-observer when it comes to parents who have plenty of resources.  Let�s start with some true stories. 

How about the student who wore a sheer gauze hip-hugger skirt and midriff shirt, sans undergarments other than a thong, birth control patch fully exposed?  When I called her on it, her mother called me right into the principal�s office, where mom vehemently defended the clothing choice because it was an esteem-builder for her daughter.

Or, how about the student who wore an Israeli military cap into the mosque on a field trip, proceeded to sleep through the stereotype-dispelling talk given by the Imam, but woke just in time to pepper the religious leader with incendiary questions? Again, I called home.  Parents called right back claiming their son had the right to proclaim his own religion and that I needed to be enrolled in cultural sensitivity training. 

Or, how about the trend of taking students out of school for one or two weeks, despite more sanctioned breaks than ever, for family vacations and fun jaunts? Or, how about the false special education registrations and Section 504  (special education) accommodations meant to give students a leg up on their transcript report? Or, how about the constant interruptions via cell phone calls or texts from Mom, Dad, Auntie or Gram, disregarding the clearly communicated ban on such technology in classrooms? 

What lessons are being taught at home? Homework accountability?  Despite a weekly written calendar with due dates and expectations clearly given, enough copies made so that Mom, Dad or Grandma can have their own copy and are advised to ask for them from their children in the first week of school, it still feels very often like I�m being asked, �What did you do to make my child not do their homework and how are you going to accommodate their bruised sensibilities?�  Work ethic appears to be an endangered species.

But, here�s my new favorite.  A group of young men broke into school during a recent holiday break � criminal trespass.  They were suspended for a few days.  Their parents demanded a meeting to protest the overly-harsh meting of punishment.  Remember, criminal trespass.  No doubt many of us are wincing as we compare what might have happened to us under similar circumstances.

At this fall�s Back to School Night, I had a 19.9% attendance rate, give or take a point.  Call me crazy but isn�t that a very low �F� for failing?  All of my classes are �X� classes. Desperate to understand how this could be so, I sent home a survey asking how I might have helped my parents be better participants.  I offered bonus points to students who returned completed surveys from their parents. 

There was tremendous response, with all sorts of excuses and reasons and lots of lauding me for taking such an interest.  But one response still rattles me.  Ironically, it was from a parent who had attended.  She was disturbed that I was offering bonus points.  What about the parents who don�t want to take part in their children�s education, she asked.  Since when did parenting become an elective?  And when exactly did the larger society enable that into reality?

Once again, it�s not a loss cause.  There are solutions.  Once again, stay tuned.

David Harsanyi provided some interesting commentary in this past Friday�s Post ( DPS closes Polaris debate) regarding the effort to open another school for the highly gifted in Denver.  According to Harsanyi, the DPS administration and school board are offering no answers to inquiries about what happened to the new Polaris school for the gifted opening at Hallet, one of the under-performing schools closing at the end of the school year.  He comments:

Let�s be honest.  Most parents are under the mistaken notion that they�ve spawned gifted miracle children for the rest of us to be astonished by.  My sense, purely anecdotally, is that most often kids with involved parents are the ones that achieve, while others tend to struggle.

Yes, Harsanyi, go for it.  The vast majority of gifted students do not need a special program to separate them from the general population.  The majority of �gifted� students are no smarter than the rest of us, they simply have been exposed to different opportunities.

Every child deserves a good teacher who knows how to challenge her top students.  And let�s face it. We need these �gifted� students to keep the bar high.  Imagine if all schools were segregated based on baseline ability data.  Forget about role models, students learning from each other, the benefit of different strengths and weaknesses in the same classroom.  Where would we be then?

Harsanyi goes on to state:

The parents of highly gifted overachievers are also spectacularly annoying.  But they also get what they want.  This sort of hyperactive, middle-class busybody-�-would be a perfect import to lower-income neighborhoods where schools struggle and parents often don�t have the time to be as involved.

That�s right.  Let�s mix it up and strive for high results for all.

There�s a fascinating article in today�s Rocky, well worth reading, regarding Denver Public Schools� switch to a standards-based grading system in elementary and middle schools.

Some parents at �high performing� schools are protesting the change, arguing that it is confusing to use numbers instead of letters. 

These parents seem to think that an �A� means an �A,� while a �4,� which connotes exceeding, far beyond expectations, the grade-level standards, is harder to understand.  The unfortunate fact is that an �A� means very little without the context of the school, program, and teacher, as well as some other measures like test scores.

I�d be interested to know how Metro Organizations for People and other, more typical DPS parents are responding to the new system.  Is it more or less helpful than the traditional system in terms of helping their kids?

I think the most important issue is not the particular system but, whether parents really know and understand what their kids know and can do.  A parent’s understanding of their kid�s learning is one of the critical factors in the student’s success.  I would hope the districts and some local universities will spend some time evaluating these changes.

It would be a shame to switch to a new standards grading system, however well intended, if it ends up ultimately being confusing to parents.

Last week, Pol Econ Ed referenced a new report � �The Proficiency Illusion� on state test standards.  Colorado was the report�s poster child for the country�s lowest proficiency standards in math and reading�grades 3-8.  �Ouch� is right!  What�s even worse � the report found that �states are aiming particularly low when it comes to their expectations for younger children, setting elementary students up to fail as they progress through their academic careers,� and that �eight grade tests were sharply harder to pass � than those in earlier grades.�  Full report here; Colorado portion of the full report here.

How many parents of Colorado public school kids know that �proficiency� for the CSAP test is a different animal than proficiency for a Colorado school to make it over the No Child Left Behind bar?  How many could read a school accountability report or a local new spaper report and know that, for instance, in 2005, Colorado�s 5^th grade math and reading CSAPs, its 3^rd and 4^th grade reading CSAP, or its 7^th and 8^th grade math CSAP, were easier to pass than the 2002 CSAPs?  Not many, I bet.

How many think their child who scores �proficient� is on the right path?  Most, I bet.  How can parents truly be involved and fully advocate for their kids when the information given to them is murky and incomplete? 

No wonder many parents are saying math is important for kids, but not for their kid.  If you really want to be frightened, read about what parents and B students in neighboring Kansas think about math and science. 

Both Colorado and national business and education policymakers are stressing the importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) skills throughout the P-20 education spectrum to preserve and grow the state and national economy.  (See Colorado Wins $500K "STEM" Education Grant). 

But, just across the border, only 25% of Kansas/Missouri parents thought their children should be studying more math and science.  Almost three-quarters (70%) thought things "are fine as they are now.�  Read here the report, Important, But Not for Me: Kansas and Missouri Students and Parents Talk About Math, Science and Technology Education, Public Agenda, September 2007. 

As Mike Booth points out in today�s excellent Denver Post story, the college admissions game has  – needlessly — become a major distraction and source of stress for high school seniors and their parents. While this may be a topic that applies primarily to more affluent families, the degree to which admissions mania has spun out of control says something more global about our education system.

Probe under the surface and what you�ll find is that it�s those dreaded �helicopter parents� who are creating the absurd level of stress and anxiety that has infected the entire system, from preschool forward. And to what end?

The September 10 edition of the HeadFirst Colorado e-newsletter (subscribe on the magazine�s homepage) summarized an article on this topic that Boulder�s New Vista High School Principal Rona Wilensky will publish in an upcoming issue of Kappan magazine. Here�s an excerpt from that summary:

The gist of Rona�s argument is that the tail is wagging the dog:

The selective college curriculum, which shapes college entrance requirements, which�shapes all of K-12 education (and even preschools) is devised by a very small group of people (tenured and near tenured faculty) whose focus is on theories and abstractions, analysis and synthesis, library or laboratory-based research, exegetical reading and painstakingly careful writing about topics which typically don�t have direct application outside the academy.

And yet, Rona�s argument continues, our public, pre-K-12 education system, prompted by high-powered, influential parents, acts as though this abstract-thinking-based elite education is what we should be pushing all students toward:

Unwittingly, we have built a universal public educational system aimed at a college curriculum whose unspoken, but underlying rationale is the selection and training of prospective college professors and academic researchers who constitute approximately one percent of the labor force.

It�s little wonder, Rona, says, that so many kids, who either aren�t wired or prepared for this type of career, check out at a relatively age and find school boring and pointless:

Many of these undesirable student behaviors would not exist if we didn�t have schooling as we know it, but ironically teachers perceive these behaviors as inherent in the child, not as reactions to the patterns of schooling itself.

Finally, Rona offers the following suggestion:

But unless we change the purpose of schooling from a focus on de-contextualized academic learning to the explicit teaching of the knowledge and skills needed to collaboratively solve complex, undefined, and value-laden problems in a continually changing world, we would have fallen short of the stated goal of all reformers: to prepare students for leadership and success in the global economy and society.

While those of us have enjoyed the process and the fruits of a liberal arts education want something similar for our children, Rona�s probably right that it�s nonsensical to structure our entire P-20 system to push everyone down this one, narrow path. It clogs the pipeline and creates the kind of pressure build-up the Post article accurately decides.

I should know. I suffered through the process last year with my daughter. She�s happily ensconced in a college that suits her: I�m still recovering.