From the editor

As I think over the past week's education events in Colorado, a troubling question arises: has our political system become so compromised that fundamental change is now impossible? The question applies to all manner of issue areas -- the environment, health care, campaign finance, and so forth. And it most definitely applies to education.

A couple of recent blog posts (reproduced below) focus on Gov. Bill Ritter's P20 Council, and the final recommendations it approved last week. Both posts are critical; one of them states that the outcome was predictable, given the multiple-interest-group composition of the panel.

On the surface, the recommendations sound good: pay teachers more; expand full-day kindergarten and early childhood education; create more robust state data systems; take steps to reduce dropouts. The list goes on.

There's not much that's objectionable. It just doesn't go nearly far enough. And even the cautious changes recommended are likely to be diluted further in the legislative process.

It's a big come-down from 11 months ago. Back then, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff and Sen. Peter Groff were fired up by the "Tough Choices or Tough Times" report from the National Center on Education and the Economy. The report calls for the kinds of sweeping changes to our educational system that might actually make a difference. Groff and Romanoff were so inspired that they left copies of the report on the chair of every legislator.

Yes, so much more seemed possible that recently. By contrast, the P20 recommendations seem milquetoast.

People will protest that this is but the first step in what will be a long and arduous process. Ultimately, they'll say, these changes will spark more profound changes, which will lead to the kind of overhaul that's so desperately needed.

I'm not convinced. Entrenched interests have become highly skilled at putting the brakes on serious change initiatives. Politics may be the art of compromise, but we've become so compromised in our politics that we've reached stasis. And, in any case, can we really afford to let more time pass without launching into some substantial changes?

Philip Boyle, president of Leading And Governing Associates, Inc, a North Carolina consulting group, frames the issue well. He says all public debates are really arguments about the relative influence of the four values on which our nation was founded and operates: liberty, equality, community, and prosperity (follow the link above and read a couple of his articles).

"Public problems arise when people disagree about which values are more important in creating the kind of school, community, or nation they want to live in," Boyle writes.

When it comes to education, and many other vexing issues, we seem to have let the pendulum swing so far in the direction of liberty and prosperity that the values of equality and community have been swamped. In other words, it's all about what's best for me and mine; the rest of you be damned.

Until we restore some balance to our values debates, we will labor mightily to bring forth mice -- like the P20 recommendations.

Brenda de Luna's latest dispatch from Manual High School departs a bit from the topic at hand to pay homage to her recently departed grandmother. It will bring a tear to your eye.

--Alan Gottlieb

Life lessons from my departed grandmother

By Brenda de Luna

When I was younger and before I started school, my family and I would return to visit my grandparents in Mexico during the winter.  Those were happy days of playing with cousins, eating all the favorites, and staying up late listening to "when I was your age…" stories. 

But soon the holidays would be over and my cousins would return to school while I was left to play alone.  I remember wanting to tag along and go to the village school as well.  It's obvious to me now why I couldn't go to school with my older cousins.  We would usually only be there for another week, time in which I would be an unneeded disruption in my parents' schedules and, without a doubt, the teacher's classroom dynamics as well. 

But back then, all I understood was that there was time for me to go to catechism -- even if it was just one Saturday -- so why couldn't I go to el kinder?  Not to worry, though: my grandma stepped up for me.  She walked me across the single (serving as a double) lane road and into one of the rooms of the granary/chicken house that was designated as the rancho's kindergarten. 

My mom had said no.  My grandma had said nothing…she just took me.  And now that she has passed I think back on that experience and what could have led my Mamá Socorro to take such action.  I also have to think about how our own students' generational and cultural understandings of education play a role in their performance here.

Mamá Socorro passed away on October 27 after having endured much sickness and pain.  She was 85 years old and the mother of 14, 12 of whom survive her.  I don't even know how many grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren she has…sometimes I try to list them and it feels like I'm counting stars. 

A very conservative Mexican Catholic woman, she imparted on every single one of us morals and values that helped us grow into gente de bien (people of good).  Although she was quiet for the most part, she was a woman of strong character that didn't allow for any messing with.  If she told you to quit doing something you weren't supposed to be doing (like stepping on the dog…which I did occasionally), you quit.  Although a lot of her spoken wisdom was about being true to our faith and starting our own families, many of her silent actions indicated that education was also one of the important things in life.

She was illiterate.  I remember when my dad was filing out paperwork for her and my grandfather's permanent residency she marked with an ‘x' where her signature was to go.  She never said to me, "Hija, it's important for you to go to school in order to get ahead in life."  She never told me that more doors would open for me if I did well in school.  I don't know that my dad ever heard this from her either, but I doubt she would express such things to him.  Instead, she showed him. 

She laid the foundations for my becoming a first-generation college graduate.  I'm not sure about the older of my aunts and uncles, but at least the younger half of them were able to get beyond the average when it comes to education in Mexico (which is usually 6^th grade).  But there wasn't a middle school or a high school back in those days; as a matter of fact, the primaria only went through fourth grade. 

So my dad took it upon himself to travel to the closest middle school around -- a twenty minute drive today, with the roads much improved. He'd hike up the slope from the rancho to the main road and then take a bus into town, then do the same in reverse order on his return. 

Then, when my dad and my younger uncles were in high school, my grandma would travel with them to the state's capital, where they rented out a couple of bedrooms and stayed during the week.  Yes, my grandmother and a bunch of high school boys alone in the capital! 

After graduating, my dad moved farther away still and went to live with one of his uncles in the neighboring state of San Luis.  It was much cheaper to go to college there than it was to go to college in Aguascalientes.  If my grandmother had seen no value in this, or if she had thought that his time and energy were better spent tending to the ranch and the animals at home, she would have kept him from leaving.  She never asked him to stay.  She never kept any of her kids from going to school, not even the girls.  And that's surprising to me.

My dad never did graduate; he ended up coming here instead.  But his love for learning never died out.  My sisters and I were always expected to have A's.  My parents not only demanded great things from us, they demanded great things of themselves as well.  I don't mean going back to school themselves, that wasn't a possibility for them; but they always helped us with our homework, they taught us at home to read and write in Spanish and they never missed parent/teacher conferences.  They've struggled to learn English, taking evening courses when their work schedules loosen their grip a bit. 

And I look at our Manual High School students and think it must be the same with them.  Parental involvement in education varies and things aren't always what they seem.  I think many of our parents don't know how to become part of their children's education the way the American education system expects them to.

But like my grandma did, they take the steps necessary to make sure they get to school.  They do things behind the scenes that are supportive of what we do at school.  They go incognito.  It's our job now, as the administration of Manual High School, to teach them these "new" approaches.  Approaches like calling teachers when there are problems, coming in to the school just to say hi, volunteering to help out, and having a voice in what their children's education looks like. 

Look at what I've accomplished in my educational career.  My grandmother never even said to me school was important, but she showed me.

Blog highlights

Greeley deal demonstrates emptiness of P20 pay rec

Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Written by: Uncle Charley

Yesterday, the governor's P-20 Council approved all its recommendations, including a tepid call to encourage school districts to look at "alternative teacher compensation," which may include pay for performance, if we can "adequately" fund education first.

At the same time, a development has arrived in another Colorado education story unfolding for quite awhile to which many of us inside the Denver bubble have paid little attention. This morning's Greeley Tribune reports that a two-year collective bargaining deal has been struck between Greeley teachers and the school district.

The contentious negotiations have dragged on for months and months, leaving Greeley teachers the last in the state to have a salary contract finalized for the 2007-08 school year. For those who may not know, Greeley also recently just came off two years of "academic watch" from the State Board of Education. So maybe that was the basis for the Greeley Education Association's demands. The union ended up getting most of what it wanted, while the school board backed down:

Under the agreement, District 6 teachers in 2008-09 will get a base raise equal to the Denver-Boulder consumer price index. If that is 3 percent — it was 3.6 this year — a starting teacher in District 6 would make about $34,000. Under the 2006-07 salary schedule, starting teachers earned $30,957….

The district will continue to cover increased costs to health insurance premiums and retirement funds.

Whatever the results, it is interesting to note that nowhere near enough pressure was exerted to get the Greeley School District to look at a new way to pay teachers. Not even a hint of performance pay to be discussed. Instead, all teachers, regardless of their quality and effectiveness, get the same raise. Meanwhile, the school district can't find enough money to restore the library budget, among other items not disclosed:

The district funded library budgets at 90 percent this fiscal year, and the 10 percent will not be restored. Other adjustments -- [school board president Bruce] Broderius stopped short of calling them cuts — will take place throughout the current budget, he said, and will soon be discussed by the finance staff, superintendent and school board.

Just something for Greeley taxpayers to ponder. Next time the district comes back asking for money because kids don't have enough books, or the library has to close down earlier, they should be reminded of this episode. Under the pressure of protracted collective bargaining, the school district has opted to make rewarding teacher mediocrity -- not forging ahead to reward teacher quality -- its highest priority. And all at the expense of the school libraries, for which the district can later come back and cry poverty.

While it's very difficult to argue that Greeley is anywhere near the forefront of reform, it's also difficult to see how the unambitious work of the P-20 Council could ever give the district the needed incentive to make the slightest move toward performance pay.

We still have a long way to go.

Moloney hits hard against P20

Sunday, December 2, 2007
Written by: Alan Gottlieb

Saturday's Rocky Mountain News op-ed page featured a hard-hitting piece by former Colorado Education Commissioner Bill Moloney, slamming Gov. Bill Ritter's P20 Council. In fact, Moloney went further, dismissing out of hand the concept of a seamless preschool through graduate school educational system.

Moloney writes:

The newest instrument of this massive American social engineering project is something called P-20, a phenomenon that has popped up in several states invariably with the strong support of those special interests who have the most to gain in terms of membership, money and political clout.

The usual drill goes like this: A task force is formed with a very carefully selected membership, meetings are held, reports are written, recommendations are made, and the governor and legislature are urged to make all this good stuff happen. Along the way, those who dare to seriously criticize are decried as selfish, uncaring or perhaps people who just don't like children. Uneasy taxpayers are assured that the new, improved society that will result from all this will be cheaper in the long run.

(Some valid points, there, though one bristles at hearing them from someone whose 10-year tenure left our state education apparatus moribund. The energetic early months of Dwight Jones' tenure as education commissioner stand in stark contrast to Moloney's reign, and demonstrate how dead in the water the department had become.)

But Moloney's strongest and most on-target attack hits those on the council who apparently want to weaken the state's accountability system:

In the fine print we discover that the real problem with our accountability system is "unreasonable proficiency measures such as the level of cut [i.e., passing] scores." Now admittedly, fiddling with these items is the fastest road to raising test scores and making everyone look good. However this ignores the fact that Colorado's CSAP proficiency measures and cut scores are already distinctly weaker than those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress which has long been the gold standard of honest assessment.

What Moloney fails to mention is that Colorado looks weak not only compared to NAEP, but to other states as well, as Pol Econ Ed detailed in an earlier post. In fact, our proficiency bar is set almost as low as any state's in the nation. Do we really want to lower it further?

You can hate standardized tests -- and the absurd overemphasis we now place upon them — ‘til the cows come home. But is the only alternative a return to the days of no accountability?

2 Responses to "Moloney hits hard against P20"

1. Quique Says:
   December 2nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Just to clarify, I think it's our "partial proficiency" bar that is comparably low. We've defined that threshold as "proficiency" for purposes of NCLB, but not for purposes of the state's own accountability regime.

2. pol econ ed Says:
   December 3rd, 2007 at 11:41 am

Yes, the good old days of cynicism, negativism, and few new ideas offered. It is indeed nice to have fresh leadership, even if the P20 group doesn't solve all problems right away.

Just like we can't "choice" or "throw money at" or otherwise get out of our education problems with a single, simple solution, I think the accountability mavens never understood that you can't just "account" your way out, either. I never liked the "weighing" the pig" analogy to education, and of course you need to know how schools are doing, but a few annual statistics in a report card doesn't turn around a poorly performing school. It does take money, intense effort, culture change, leadership, and lots of other things, besides just an embarrassing CSAP score.

False, cheery optimism from the feds

Thursday, November 29, 2007
Written by: Sari Levy

Adam Honeysett over at the US Department of Education sends me an email now and then. I don't know who he is, but I like him. He always makes me feel that our country is making great strides in education. Which, of course, it probably isn't. The most recent newsletter cheered that,

"the percentage of students achieving at or above the state's proficient level rose for most student subgroups in a majority of states.  Also, both National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state assessments results indicate that the achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other students may be narrowing."

A couple of things:

1. Subgroups' didn't really improve on those tests more than non-subgroups. (skip to page 33) Almost everyone is getting better at state tests. Spellings knows this well, and in fact questioned in the Washpost "while test scores are up, has the academic bar been raised?" A disappointing NY Times article comparing national scores to state scores did not exactly validate the state exam.
2. The achievement gap, (using state scores in 4^th grade reading and math) went from, 12.5% to 11.7%. At that rate, the achievement gap will close in -- I don't know -- 2065?

Now if that's not cause for an e-newsletter, I don't know what is.

2 Responses to "False, cheery optimism from the feds"

1. Sean Stewart Says:
   November 29th, 2007 at 2:48 pm

It is interesting that schools are getting better at standardized tests. However, I think that twisting such statistics as this is a definite problem. We need to determine problems with our schools, not cover them up with phony stats.

2. Bert Stoneberg Says:
   November 30th, 2007 at 8:44 am

It's unfortunate but the NYT staffer who wrote the editorial comparing state and NAEP scores mentioned above was unaware of (or chose to ignore) published information about the valid use of NAEP scores for confirming state test results. Want to know more? See http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/naep/data/using-naep-scores-01.htm

DPS' silent crisis: substitute teacher shortage

Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Written by: Visionary Teacher

Denver Public Schools has managed to keep one little secret out of the press that is slowly eating away the lower performing schools. Substitute teachers willing to teach challenging classes are becoming harder and harder to find.  And why should they teach in DPS?  For the lack of pay?  The great side benefit of classrooms full of defiant students?

Unfortunately, those of us in the classrooms everyday are forced to pick up the slack.  This, in turn, negatively impacts our regular classes. If our school is short  substitutes (which happens often; at least a few times a week), the students of the class have either to be taught by an adult in the building who is not a regular classroom teacher, or the students are divided up amongst other classrooms.  Option A means the assistant principal or literacy coach cannot do their regular jobs.  Option B translates to classrooms having anywhere from 5 to 25 extra students all day long.  Either option equates to not fully serving our students.

I wonder if my colleagues across the city are struggling with the same substitute shortage.  Or is this just one more dividing line between the lower performing and the higher performing schools?

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form