| February 5, 2008 |
|
|
| Tuesday, February 05 2008 | |
|
From the editor
Senate President Peter Groff's bill creating autonomous schools and clusters of schools is a bold and groundbreaking piece of legislation that ultimately lacks teeth. But even without providing an avenue of appeal for schools desiring autonomy that are turned down by local boards (or recourse for districts turned down by the State Board of Education), Senate Bill 08-130 creates ample room for schools and districts to break the bonds of over-regulation. And, perhaps more significant, the bill is a full frontal assault on the power of teacher unions in
Prospects for passage through the Democrat-controlled state House of Representatives and Senate are murky at best. But even an open debate on the issues at the heart of the bill would be a positive step. The bill essentially foments rebellion by overtly encouraging individual schools, and clusters of schools, to shake off the shackles of bureaucratic over-regulation by school districts. And, for districts with the foresight to play along, the bill dangles the possibility of release from a wide array of state rules and regulations. Districts willing to set some of their schools free can win "Districts of Innovation," designation from the state school board. This would free them from "statutory provisions" and accompanying regulations related to performance evaluations of teachers, principal and teacher hiring, teacher transfer and compensation, firing of teachers, teacher licensure and teacher salaries. Schools and districts could not, however, opt out of the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) or requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind law. The real stinger in the bill, however, is the provision allowing any innovation school or "innovation zone (cluster of schools) to "be removed from the collective bargaining agreement." To get out from under the union contract, a school must win approval from a simple majority of "the personnel employed at the innovation school." The bill's vague language makes it unclear whether only certified teachers have a say in the autonomy bid, or whether all school employees -- including secretaries, para-professionals and custodians -- have a vote as well. Schools or "zones" turned down by a local district in their bid for autonomy can reapply and be reconsidered. But the bill provides no avenue of appeal to a higher body -- the state board, for instance, or even the Charter School Institute. While it's easy envision an increasingly creative district like
Perhaps Groff and co-sponsors, Sen. Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, and Rep. Rob Witwer, R-Golden, assume that the carrot of winning "district of innovation status," and release from key state regs, is sufficient inducement to prompt districts to set some of their schools free. We shall see. It's also not difficult to divine why the bill contains no appeal provision. It's hard to imagine the Colorado Association of School Boards or the Colorado Association of School Executives not fighting tooth and nail to defeat a bill that essentially stripped away key elements of local control. Without a doubt, the Colorado Education Association will marshal its imposing forces to fight the bill. This will be a fun battle to watch over the coming weeks. The following is this month's article from the
--Alan Gottlieb Great schools need great teachers AND great teaching
By Alexander Ooms I firmly believe there are more good teachers than there is good teaching. This distinction is critical: many teachers are asked to work within a system which makes excellent teaching difficult, if not nearly impossible.
At West Denver Prep we are not unique in our belief that teachers are paramount to student achievement. However, merely recognizing this correlation makes nothing happen: we try to act on this belief by removing the barriers to teacher success. Unlike the Denver Plan, with its one-size-fits-all curriculum, endless lists of input variables, and emphasis on historical teacher credentials, we propose an alternative. Give teachers considerable participation in creating the material they teach, focus on a limited number of result-based metrics, remove operational barriers, create accountability to tangible results, and reward achievement. We don't pretend that there is one solution, or that every school should follow the same system. There are many different paths to success. These are the ones we have chosen: Curriculum Development: Our teachers are professionals, and we believe they can -- and should -- contribute substantially to the material they teach. Under supervision and in adherence with national, state and district standards, our teachers engage in a four-week summer session where they plan curriculum and regular assessments for the entire year. Our teachers have a personal investment in the materials they teach. Planning Periods: Great teaching requires efficient use of classroom time, which means allowing teachers ample time to prepare. Every teacher at WDP gets an average of three planning periods a day. We encourage and expect collaboration among both subjects and grades, and we design this planning time to foster that collaboration. Our intention is that no WDP teacher will enter a classroom unprepared. Organization: Our Director of Operations, a full-time member of our school administration, has the unofficial job title to "do everything that gets in the way of great teaching." This means the classrooms are prepared, textbooks and materials are available, and all the equipment works (a perpetual challenge to our copying machines). Basic school operations should never be a barrier to teaching. Consistent Discipline: Teaching in a disruptive environment is nearly impossible. We have a consistent, building-wide discipline system where students receive clear, fair consequences which are the same in every classroom and taught explicitly by every adult in the building. Students know exactly what is expected of them; in the event that this structure is insufficient, administrators step in to ensure that disruptions are quickly eliminated. Assessment: Every teacher has four formal observations each year and weekly informal visits. These observations are critical to our professional development - they prompt a valuable dialogue on effective teaching -- what is working, what can we do better? And we allow for quick solutions -- if a teacher has an idea, she can suggest it to the Head of School, and more often than not it is in place the next day. Base Compensation: Many of our young teachers are remarkably effective. This is hardly surprising -- legions of companies have been created on the contributions of software programmers of a similar age. General practice in education is to pay a salary based on years of service; our board just approved a compensation plan where all teachers will earn the same salary in their initial year at WDP (exceptions are possible, if rare). This base salary is set at 20% more than the DCTA salary schedule for a third-year teacher: so for 2008-2009, all entering teachers will earn a base salary of $43,122, regardless if they have been teaching for one year, or for five years. We expect the same levels of student achievement from our teachers regardless of years of experience, so we will pay teachers the same initial amount. Annual raises include a cost-of-living adjustment and a discretionary percentage based on criteria set by the Head of School. Performance Bonus: In addition to the base salary, our teachers can earn up to an additional 15% of median salary in bonus pay. The average performance bonus in 2006-2007 was $4,344. This bonus is based entirely on objective data: longitudinal student achievement on two standardized tests: the CSAP and Stanford 10. The bonus is calculated 50% based solely on the teacher's students, 33% on all students in that teacher's subject, and 17% on all students in the school. We want first to encourage great teaching, second to encourage collaboration, and third to foster learning throughout the school. And if our teachers continue to create results far in excess of other local schools, we believe they should be rewarded appropriately. Lastly, and across all of these factors, are high expectations. Our school is geared around the clear belief that student achievement is paramount, and our every effort is focused on that goal. We believe the above is critical because we don't want any teacher to say "I could have done much better if only…." We give our teachers input over what they teach, try to provide the optimal conditions in which to teach, and reward them based on their results. A school cannot make great teachers, but it can enable great teaching. Alexander Ooms is Chair of
Blog highlights
DPS moving in right direction with new budgeting planThursday, January 31, 2008 The Rocky Mountain News reports today that the DPS board has agreed to adopt a new budgeting system, which will change how money is allotted to individual schools: DPS is adopting student-based budgeting, where dollars follow individual students wherever they go, and abandoning its old method of funding schools based on classrooms of kids. Under the old way, a school received resources based on a set number of students, such as one teacher for every 25 students. But that hurt schools when, for example, a class increased to 38 kids, still 12 pupils short of getting teacher No. 2. Under the new system, principals would receive an amount per student, based on factors such as grade level and free lunch status, and would have greater flexibility in spending it. Sounds a lot like a significant step toward Weighted Student Funding (WSF) -- an education reform idea that has elicited broad support across much of the philosophical spectrum. Proponents say the proposal -- fully implemented -- enhances equitable funding, school-level autonomy and flexibility, and parental choice. The idea also was touted in the now legendary Tough Choices report. To their credit, one of the driving forces behind this reform in
The DPS board and administration have recognized that such changes would occur more slowly than some of us reformer types might demand. Last night's decision affirms, though, that the district is moving steadily on the right track, after having taken some steps last year to simplify the budgeting process. Also important to note, incremental reforms like the one reported today don't occur in a vacuum. The role of
Not exactly revolutionary stuff, but yesterday's board decision gives hope and One Response to "DPS moving in right direction with new budgeting plan"
This is a big step forward, and it looks like DPS has tried to balance the competing goals of getting more resources into schools with more at risk kids, while not seeming to pull too much out of other schools. Still, a big question with WSF is how much of the per pupil money is really going to the schools, and how much stays in central admin services. The numbers noted here suggest that maybe 50% is going into the WSF, to the school. A more radical approach would be to raise that percentage. But, this is a good start. Bruce Benson!?Thursday, January 31, 2008 News this morning that the CU Regents have chosen Denver oilman Bruce Benson as "sole finalist" for university president has set tongues wagging all over the state. Two regents, Michael Carrigan and Stephen Ludwig, voted no, expressing concerns abut Benson's longtime GOP activism. True, Benson has an extensive GOP resume - champion fund raiser, unsuccessful candidate for governor, state party chair. That can't be very attractive to the chattering classes in
But, Benson has a long resume in education as well:
Benson also has been active at CU, chairing a $650 million fundraising campaign in the late 1990s. The Benson Earth Sciences Building is named in honor of him and his wife, Marcy, Given the financial problems facing public higher education, the regents may be thinking that they need another high-profile, local establishment figure to continue the funding fight started by outgoing CU President Hank Brown - another well-known Republican politician who later moved into higher education as president of the University of Northern Colorado. He also was CEO on the Daniels Fund. (Both men are CU grads.) After first serving in an interim role, Brown was selected as president in 2005. But, it was widely expected that his tenure would not be a long one. Brown is leaving at age 67. Benson is already 69. Just as Brown was brought in partly to clean up the football recruiting and Ward Churchill (remember him?) messes, one can't help but wonder if Benson's tenure also will be relatively short, with his main mission securing more money for Buffland. Benson reportedly was a leading candidate from the state, and one source candidates with academic backgrounds were not seriously considered. One Response to "Bruce Benson!?"
Benson is an interesting choice. It certainly continues the Brown regime, to a degree, in terms of non-academic, political, elder statemanship, but Benson does have more experience in education issues and has shown a willingness to be pragmatic and flexible on various topics. Partly this raises the question of what a university president should be. Most faculty, I think, would prefer to see someone who has risen up through the usual pattern of department chair, dean, provost, etc, learning as they go, but also fully seeped in what universities actually do in terms of research and teaching. The "outside" candidate appproach is not unprecedented (e.g., Eisenhower was head of
Like many others, I'm surprised that the search committee went in this direction, less so for the Regents. In the spirit of Obama, bridge Randolph gapWednesday, January 30, 2008 As I listened to Barack Obama speak this morning at the
Obama velvet-hammered home his argument for change, not just of presidential administration, but of politics as we know it. He called for "…a politics that leaves behind the fights of the past so that we can finally take hold of our future." Whether you're Democrat or Republican, it's hard not to be swayed by Obama's smoothly forceful, eloquent delivery. And though some of the policy positions he espoused in the speech were cloaked in the generalities of an election campaign, his call for fundamental change in the tenor of political discourse and behavior rang true. Perhaps it hit home for me because much of what Obama said about political change echoes what school reformers I admire say about overhauling education. A tweak here and a nudge there won't fix the enormous, structural problems we're confronting in urban public education. But what really struck me in Obama's speech was his confidence in his ability to bridge gaps, to forge coalitions, to bring together parties who have been mired in acrimony. That's when the message of hope struck home, in a local context. If no chasm is too wide to span, then isn't it time for the leadership of
Since the heady days of ProComp, relations in
If both sides insist on reliving the "fights of the past," it will be difficult to move forward on real school reform. The Michael Bennet regime is bent on pushing the kind of fundamental change that's clearly needed. The DCTA to date hasn't exhibited the same openness. But there's much to be gained if the two sides meet and discuss their differences, honestly and openly. There's no time to lose. Real enemies of public education lurk in the shadows. The current skirmish (which could devolve into open warfare) has them licking their chops. 4 Responses to "In the spirit of Obama, bridge
|
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, February 27 2008 ) |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Our Partners
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
