| April 8, 2008 |
|
|
| Written by Alan Gottlieb | |
| Tuesday, April 08 2008 | |
From the editorAs astute readers may have noticed, the website formerly known as HeadFirst Colorado has morphed into Education News Colorado. All of the features found on HeadFirst are now present on Ednews, including the Schools for Tomorrow blog, HeadFirst Colorado magazine, links to education studies and articles, and e-newsletter archives.
And, as I've written recently, EdNews features a lot more as well. Since January, Todd Engdahl has been covering education issues at the state legislature with so much energy and versatility that you'd swear we had a four-person bureau under the dome.
You can also track the status of education legislation on the EdNews site. And in the coming weeks you'll notice enhanced coverage of education issues across the state, as we contract with writers to bring you a variety of pertinent education stories. See this story by former Denver Post reporter and editor Jeffrey A. Roberts for a preview of what you can expect from the site in the near future.
At times, subscribers to this e-newsletter have expressed some confusion about the different components of our website, and how best to interact with them. This seems like a good time to provide you with a brief description.
E-newsletter: That's what you're reading right now. It's weekly, and includes a "from the editor" commentary, an article, and highlights from the Schools for Tomorrow blog. Beginning this week, we will provide links and summaries of top stories from Ednews as well. Some people seem to think the newsletter and the blog are one and the same. They are not. See what follows to learn how they differ.
Schools for Tomorrow Blog: Read it by clicking here. A blog is a weblog, a running, interactive commentary. On a typical weekday, a few new articles appear on the blog throughout the course of the day. The Schools for Tomorrow is managed by the EdNews team, but features a half-dozen contributing writers, called bloggers.
Only those writers can submit articles, which are called posts in the blogging world. However, and this is key, ANYONE CAN COMMENT on the blog. Simply read a posting that interests you, click the link at the bottom that says "comments" and a commenting form will appear. Write what's on your mind, provide the minimal information required, and submit the comment. We moderate comments before letting them through, but this generally happens within a few minutes.
Blogs work best when they are highly interactive. So please, read the blog and comment freely as the spirit moves you.
EdNews: Please explore the site to see what it has to offer. What's new and important is that we have added a comment feature to the articles published under the "Legislative News" and "Other Education News" tabs. This commenting function is identical to what I described above about blog commenting. One inherent advantage web-based journalism has over its printed counterpart is the ability for readers to interact with the content and the writers. Once again, please comment freely. But understand that these comments are moderated as well.
Why do we moderate our comments? All you need to do is look over comments about news stories on the Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News websites to learn the answer. Neither site filters its comments, and as a result, the comment sections are riddled with ad hominem diatribes, racist rants and general runaway stupidity. I don't mind the stupidity so much, but we will not tolerate personal attacks or hate speech. That's why we moderate our comments.
HeadFirst Colorado: This education policy magazine began five years ago as a print publication, published by the Public Education & Business Coalition. About a year ago, we decided that we could enhance our flexibility while cutting costs if we went online. Our strategy has been a success; the number of readers on the web exceeds the subscriber base for the print magazine. And it continues to grow steadily.
HeadFirst Colorado will be the place on EdNews' website where you will find packages of longer, magazine-style articles. We expect to produce new "issues" of the magazine every two to three months.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns about any of this, feel free to contact us at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it . Or contact me directly at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The article that follows is the penultimate contribution from Peter Sherman, principal of Denver's Valdez K-8 School.
At Valdez, working to make parental involvement meaningful
By Peter Sherman
Parent involvement in schools is important - we all believe this. But why? Shouldn't we leave education to the professionals? How are parents supposed to engage with a school when language and experience are barriers to communicating? How can teachers be expected to spend time with parents when they are so busy?
As a newly-arrived principal at Valdez, I see the opportunity to raise these questions and to re-form ways in which parents interact with the school itself and our staff. Parent involvement benefits students, parents, schools and fosters a stronger democratic society.
With schools offering many different educational models, it is critical that parents understand philosophies, beliefs and school cultures that will guide a child's experience at a school. Parents can no longer make assumptions that their child's education will look like theirs did.
With our dual-language program, it is critical that parents agree to commit to up to eleven years at Valdez. Starting at age three, students will acquire a second language, yet it requires a commitment to our instructional model. This raises the obvious need to market school programs and provide information events. We do the best we can, but resources and time are limited. Schools and districts need to work collectively to generate clear information about school options for parents. Many families I've met with find the "choice" of schools overwhelming and confusing. For those with limited time or who don't speak English, it is even more daunting.
Parents need information to choose the right school for their children, and they also need to understand the specific methods used by teachers to teach their children. Although six-and-a-half hours a day may seem like enough time to teach a child what he or she needs to know, it is not sufficient for serving under-performing students. These students need accelerated instruction with the most effective strategies.
Parents play a key role in reinforcing reading and math practice at home and in developing critical thinking skills in the real world of the community. Parents need to actively seek out and support after-school tutoring and enrichment activities through school.
Parents should advocate for their children's best interests in schools without hesitation or fear. But to do this, parents need to have had some successful experience negotiating a bureaucratic institution. Many of our families not only lack that successful experience, but become disenfranchised or afraid of our school system. At Valdez, we invite parents into our school in a variety of ways. We recently opened a Parent Resource Room in a small, unused office. Our hope is that this will be a place where parents can congregate, get on the internet, gather resources and share ideas.
Another way to involve parents is through more-formal means, including parent-teacher organizations, school governing bodies (CSCs in Denver); or through informal methods such as volunteering. Identifying key parents to participate in such organizations allows them to be part of the decision making at the school. These parents then serve as representative leaders within the parent community.
We plan to support parent leaders through leadership and empowerment seminars and conferences. At Valdez, we have partnered with Padres Unidos, a community organization; and their staff has developed a core group of parents who participate in many ways in our school. Some of these parents have been instrumental in our middle school development by visiting other successful schools and by presenting publicly about our school. This kind of leadership development, especially among our Spanish-speaking parents, is invaluable.
Parent involvement is also in a school's best interest. As parents become more informed, engaged and feel more ownership in their children's school, their children will become more engaged and more accountable for their learning. It is much more difficult for a student to fail when his or her mother or father spends time at the school. These parents necessarily build relationships with teachers and learn about their child's education.
Elementary school is the level when it is easiest to engage parents and to develop habits of participation in school. Historically, parent involvement drops significantly by the time students are in middle or high school. I see the earlier years as the opportunity to build a school climate in which parents are encouraged and compelled to participate, ask critical questions and advocate for their children.
In my years as a public educator, I have met very few parents who did not try to make the best decisions for their children. Being a parent is difficult, regardless of financial, social and emotional contexts. Parents will advocate for their children, and we have the opportunity to create ways that they can do this effectively and successfully.
As a public institution, we represent the entry point into a democratic society for many people. We need to model and support how we want this to work.
Peter Sherman is principal of Valdez K-8 School in northwest Denver.
EdNews highlights
High schools trying new ways to make CSAP meaningful to students
Written by Jeffrey A. Roberts Monday, April 07 2008 By the time they get to high school, teenagers in Colorado have figured out there's not much in it for them when they take CSAP tests. That probably helps explain how, at some schools, the results make it seem like only a handful of ninth- and 10-graders meet state standards in math. But educators in several districts think they've found an effective way to make the Colorado Student Assessment Program more meaningful for the kids who suffer through it and, perhaps, boost scores in the process: Give students something they can use, like credit toward graduation.
"Innovation Schools" clears last big hurdle
Written by Todd Engdahl Thursday, April 03 2008 The Senate's grand compromise on Senate Bill 08-130 held in the House Education Committee Thursday, which approved the bill 9-4.
The bill, sponsored by Senate President Peter Groff and House Assistant Majority Leader Terrence Carroll, both Denver Democrats, and Republicans Sen. Nancy Spence of Centennial and Rep. Rob Witwer of Golden, would create a clear process for schools, groups of schools and districts to follow if they want waivers from state laws and regulations or terms of union contracts.
It's possible for schools to get such waivers now, but it's difficult, as the experience of Denver's Bruce Randolph School showed.
As introduced, the bill raised alarm in teachers' union circles. But, amendments brokered by Senate Education Chair Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, brought every education group into line behind the bill. The amendments were meant to ensure teacher pension and due-process rights and to require broad support within schools before they seek waivers. The bill passed Senate Education 7-0 and received final Senate floor approval 35-0.
Blog highlights
Should taxpayers reward nationally certified teachers?Thursday, April 3, 2008 Written by: Uncle Charley With limited resources available for K-12 education, lawmakers should have no business dedicating money to a major proposal contained in House Bill 1384. The legislation would hand out a $3,000 stipend to teachers who pass through the bureaucratic hoops to earn certification from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), an endorsement beyond the regular teaching license.
The legislative declaration asserts:
National Board certification is a nationally accepted sign of quality in the teaching profession and offers a nationwide standard for evaluating and encouraging quality teaching. It is a means to recognize and reward the accomplished teachers the state needs to build competitive, world-class schools. National Board certified teachers advance the quality of teaching and learning by maintaining high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do.
If only it were so. Does NBPTS really "advance the quality of teaching and learning by maintaining high and rigorous standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do"? Dr. Rick Hess points out that the group's standards for high school math and science instruction-an "area where the NBPTS ought to have the easiest time"-"are so broad and vague as to make concrete judgments of competence nearly impossible...."
Taking a closer look, the effects of NBPTS certification on education's bottom line-improved student achievement-can at best be described as vague and inclusive. Of five studies released in 2005 and afterward, all touted by NBPTS, only one shows a significant connection between the certification and student learning. Two show none whatsoever. Two show small or inconsistent results. One of these studies, co-authored by Dan Goldhaber for the Urban Institute, could "not....find evidence that the NBPTS certification process itself increases teacher effectiveness."
So why try to create an incentive to reward teachers for process over performance? My guess is that the union-friendly bill sponsors learned all the wrong lessons from Denver's ProComp. The least progressive part of the mostly innovative teacher compensation plan similarly grants rewards worth about $3,000 to teachers who earn NBPTS certification. It was clearly a bone to help earn union support, and not substantially different from the traditional salary schedule's payments for advanced degrees.
In months past, when I raised the possibility of dedicating major sums of education funding increases to performance-based teacher pay, I was criticized for "proposing (or expanding) ideas that have not yet demonstrated benefits." While I disagree only to say that merit pay has yielded benefits, just perhaps not enough for the satisfaction of some, it at least seems reasonable for the same critics to oppose statewide teacher stipends for NBPTS certification-an idea with even less research support. Let's not create new incentives for teachers to work toward completing a process that really isn't going to help.
There are better uses for taxpayers' money in K-12 education.
3 Responses to "Should taxpayers reward nationally certified teachers?"Rhonda Naylor Says:
I'm a National Board Certified Teacher in Adolescence Mathematics, and proud of it. I recently completed my renewal application for this certificate, my "Profile of Professional Growth", and I can assure you, the math standards for teaching are not, as you say, "being so broad and vague as to make concrete judgments of competence nearly impossible." Careful reading of the standards points out the importance of listening to student thinking, and focusing on questioning to get to higher level thinking. "How did you get that? Have you seen a similar problem before? What have you tried that didn't work?" Knowledge of mathematics must go beyond what is taught. As a middle school teacher, I had to demonstrate my understanding of Technology, Statistics, Algebra 2 and Calculus! Knowledge of teaching practice must lead to conceptual understanding, and depth of learning, rather than tidbits of knowledge. The art of teaching leads to clarifying misconceptions in reasoning and communication. If a student makes a mistake, they don't learn from hearing the answer. I must listen to their thinking, and help them make sense of mathematics through my questions. The focus is on Mathematical Thinking and Reasoning, not memorization of procedures, because procedures are forgotten if not internalized. The learning environment must be safe for students to make and test conjectures, with high expectations for hard work to enhance understanding, which will be long lasting. The National Mathematics Advisory Panel released their report to the President of the United States in the middle of March, which states "effort, not just inherent talent, counts in mathematical achievement." This is the message, too, from the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards
Laura L. Johnson Says:
National Board Certification has been the most influential professional development I have had in my 25 year teaching career. As a National Board Certified Teacher in Early Adolescence English and Language Arts, discounting the rigor of this process obviously shows a lack of understanding of what this challenging process entails. Seeking National Board Certification is a completely voluntary and costly undertaking, yet hundreds of teachers in Colorado have selected to challenge themselves to demonstrate the true "art" of teaching that directly impacts student learning. This is not a "jumping through hoops" scenario. It requires the teacher to provide clear and concise evidence of his or her teaching practice, including in-depth knowledge of the subject and developmental stage of the students. The process requires the teacher to not only present examples of classroom instruction and student work, but also involves lengthy analysis of best practice and how it impacts student learning. There are currently over 150 studies that have now been completed beyond the 5 referenced in 2005. Overwhelming, the majority of these studies clearly show that NBCTs make a significantly measurable impact on teacher performance, student learning, engagement and achievement.
Seeking National Board Certification provides a meaningful career ladder for those in the teaching profession who wish to remain in the classroom directly impacting student learning. The legislation currently being proposed is not a new or radical idea. Several of our neighboring states have recognized the need to attract and reward quality teaching. Wyoming currently rewards its NBCTs with $4000 for the life of the certificate, New Mexico allocates $5500, and Oklahoma provides $5000 per NBCT. These states realize the need to retain accomplished teachers and are willing to make an effort to do so. They are interested in rewarding quality teaching.
I applaud the efforts of those who have introduced this legislation. I love my chosen profession, and in my heart know that I am a better teacher having been on the National Board journey.
axooms Says:
Shocking, shocking that two nationally certified teachers would argue in favor of receiving a stipend. What's not surprising, of course, is that neither bother to argue against the central point in the original post: with limited public dollars, and no evidence that this certification improves student achievement, isn't there a better place to spend the money?
At some point, the teaching profession has to realize that while our graduation rates and student achievement remain a national disgrace, "knowing in [your] heart" that this certification is a worthwhile "journey" is simply not a persuasive rational argument.
More numbers on state education spendingWednesday, April 2, 2008
Written by: Pol Econ Ed
There are facts and then there are opinions about school spending. Some like to dispute the facts. I prefer to offer them for consideration.
The U.S Census released its annual school district spending report yesterday - covering the 2006 fiscal year (2005-6) - and I'm confident that the Census Bureau doesn't care at all where Colorado ranks. See it here.
The results? Colorado ranks 36th in raw, unadjusted current spending per pupil, as defined by the Census (see "current spending, Table 11"). With a figure of $8,057, Colorado spends fully $1,081 per pupil per year below the U.S. average of $9,138. That is about 12% below the national average spending, meaning that Colorado students receive resources at a level of 88% of the typical American K12 student..
These are the unadjusted figures. If you adjust for cost-of-living (which is not done here), Colorado figures are lower, because we are a more expensive state than the other states in the range of #36 in spending.
This Census report does compare these figures to the state's personal income base. As a percentage of personal income, Colorado ranks #47 in current spending per pupil, with only Tennessee, Nevada and Florida below ("See Table 12, current spending").
I report this partly because some in Colorado seem to believe that Amendment 23, and perhaps Ref C, somehow "solved" the K12 school spending problem. It seems not. While Colorado increased spending a bit in recent years, so did other states (and countries) - the world doesn't stand still while we try to get our state budget in order.
Does relative spending matter? At a gut level, do you feel comfortable with Colorado kids getting 88% of what the typical American student gets? Further, while research does not support a strong relationship between spending and outcomes, considerable evidence does suggest that spending matters for the achievement of low-income and minority kids. Is it a coincidence that we have a much bigger than average state achievement gap in Colorado (e.g., NAEP results show Colorado about 39th worst for the white-Hispanic gap)?
2 Responses to "More numbers on state education spending"
"Further, while research does not support a strong relationship between spending and outcomes, considerable evidence does suggest that spending matters for the achievement of low-income and minority kids. Is it a coincidence that we have a much bigger than average state achievement gap in Colorado (e.g., NAEP results show Colorado about 39th worst for the white-Hispanic gap)?"
Probably.
Selected results from NAEP 4th grade reading scores, White-Hispanic Gap (latest per-pupil Census rankings in parentheses):
New York (1st) - 28 points
Thanks for drawing my attention to the report. The report was very interesting - not for how much Colorado spends on education - but on what they spend money compared to the United States' average. For example, Colorado spends a slightly a higher percentage of its total funds on salaries and wages than the national average (61.5% vs. 60.4%). However, for instructional staff (teachers) we spend slightly less (39.9% vs. 40.8%). We spend more than the national average as a percentage of total expenditures (19.8% vs. 17.6%) on support staff.
But the big surprise for me came from realizing that Colorado only spends 14.0% of its funds on employee benefits versus 19.5% for the whole United States. This alone accounts for about $700 of the $1000 difference between Colorado's and the national average per pupil spending. Are we short changing our employees with inferior benefits? Or have we been able to procure benefits at very favorable rates? (after all Colorado is considered the "healthiest" state by some surveys). I'd like to know.
Also of interest is that Colorado spends a much lower percentage on pupil transportation than the national average (2.8% vs. 4.3%). And this is in a largely rural state! Not surprisingly, Colorado spends much less than the national average on land acquisition for schools. These additional two factors account for the rest of the difference between Colorado's and the nation's per pupil spending.
So where does Colorado spend its money? According to the report, Colorado spending exceeds the national average in the areas of Instructional Staff Support (curriculum development, staff training, library, audio-visual, info systems), School Administration (principals), Operations & Maintenance (heat, light, security, insurance, upkeep), and equipment (computers, projectors, sports, etc.). Colorado also spends a greater percentage of its total spending on debt interest than the national average.
Again, it's an interesting report. Well worth reading.
Aardvark
DCTA to members: just say NO to autonomyTuesday, April 1, 2008
Written by: Alan Gottlieb
Perusing the March 2008 issue of
Bruce is a genuinely good guy, and usually seems moderate and reasonable in his positions. But his column breathes fire over Senate Bill 130, the Innovation Schools bill, which unanimously passed through the State Senate last month. The bill even was endorsed by the Colorado Education Association, the DCTA's parent union. So the local's intransigence on this matter makes it a true outlier.
Here's some of what Bruce wrote:
I won't even try in the is column to express my anger with SB 130, even as amended...Assuming that the bill passes in its amended form, the teachers of Denver are going to be under enormous pressure, school by school and zone by zone, to waive rights they have under state law and the Master Agreement...
...Nevertheless, we can give you advice and consultation like we always have but it is going to be up to you and your colleagues to say NO to proposals that scapegoat the agreement (or state law) as the reason student achievement isn't better in your school. That is not to say that there is no such thing as a legitimate waiver request.
The way you say NO is to do what is depicted in the "fish visual" that is found on the front page of the SLATE. You are going to have to band together. "Organize and Win." If each person acts as an individual, without consulting one another and caring about the collective view it is my belief that you will soon have few rights to speak about.
The column goes on to list do's and don'ts when confronted with the dreadful prospect of being freed from constraints and allowed to teach unfettered. Heaven forbid.
It becomes clearer every day that the Denver Classroom Teachers Association, despite its protestations to the contrary, does not want real, forward-looking change in DPS. When even the CEA is out in front of you in supporting school autonomy, clearly you're living in the distant past.
You'd think, from reading The Slate that the Groff bill is radical legislation. It's actually an incremental step in the right direction. Groff and company have forged a remarkable consensus around this bill, which to my cynical mind suggests that it is so riddled with compromises that it will be ineffectual.
Let's hope I'm wrong, and that the DCTA is right about the potential for change the bill represents. DCTA leadership cleverly conflates teachers and the teachers union, as if the interests of the two overlap completely. It's becoming increasingly evident that nothing could be farther from the truth.
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (0)
 Write comment
|
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, April 23 2008 ) |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Our Partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
