From the editor
My BS detector automatically activates when politicians engage in hyperbole. So when Gov. Bill Ritter announced in his State of the State speech last week an initiative he heralded as "the most revolutionary shift in education policy this state has seen in years," it set my antennae aquiver.
Certainly, the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids would signal something of a change in the state's pre-school through college education policy. But as The Denver Post opined in its January 10 editorial:
It's hardly revolutionary.
Oh, we're not saying that the proposed tinkering with the K-12 curriculum, designed to better prepare kids for college, is a bad thing. And we certainly agree with Ritter that "when nearly one-third of college freshmen in
Colorado require remedial training, something is wrong."
But that something has been wrong for a long time — and it
's going to take a lot more than another round of "standards" to make it right. Until we see real incentives for quality teachers, the ability to remove poor teachers, real loosening of bureaucratic and union rules, longer school days, longer school years — and the money to pay for such real reforms — we
'll hold our applause.
Although Ritter offered no details to flesh out his CAP proposal, it boils down to a couple of basic ideas:
Aligning K-12 content standards with college admissions standards, so that what kids learn in primary and secondary school prepares them for college-level work, without remediation. As with so many things in edu-world, this sounds like basic common sense, but it hasn't happened up to now.
Reading between the lines, some kind of high school exit exam could be in the works, so that students can demonstrate that they have acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to succeed in college.
This all sounds as wholesome as apple pie and motherhood. But read
Boulder educator Rona Wilensky's rebuttal in this newsletter, and see if it doesn't give you pause. As the career and technical education movement gathers steam, it's certainly worth asking whether a blind commitment to the idea that all kids should go to college is wise.
Before you brand me a heretic, read Rona's article. Her argument is fresh and startling. She challenges you to ponder for what, exactly, college is preparing its students. Is it the 21st century world of high-tech skills, creative thinking, and so forth? Or is it something less practical?
As details emerge, Ritter's CAP initiative may prove to be as innovative and groundbreaking as advertised. But until details emerge, a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted.
Our new website, Education News
Colorado (www.ednewscolorado.org) is up and running. Have a look. It features first-rate coverage of education legislation in the 2008 legislative session, shepherded by Todd Engdahl, a veteran
Denver newsman. There's also a real-time bill-tracking feature. And additional content will be on the way soon.
I am taking an editor's point of personal privilege to make a brief announcement here that has nothing to do with education. Please indulge me. My first novel, "Ultimate Excursions," was just published. I am doing a reading and signing tonight (January 15) at the Tattered Cover Bookstore in Lower Downtown Denver (
1628 16th St.). Other events will be upcoming. More information is available on my website, www.authoralangottlieb.com
--Alan Gottlieb
Look Before Leaping into the
Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids
By Rona Wilensky
The
Colorado education community learned last week that the Ritter administration and Colorado Department of Education Commissioner Dwight Jones are planning to bring forward legislation in this session to better align high school education with college expectations.
I will leave it to others to comment on the timing of this proposal and its relationship to other initiatives such as the P-20 Council and the 1188 Council.
I would like to use this space to address the stated goal of aligning high school education with college expectations and the excitement that the proponents have expressed at the prospect of being the first state in the nation to do so.
It is interesting that this proposal should come forward just as there seems to be a national retreat from proposals to prepare all students for college, which is an idea closely related, if not identical to aligning college expectations and high school education.
A special report in Education Week, entitled Diplomas Count: Ready for What? featured articles with such titles as "Careers Come Into Focus: Some states are placing their bets on blending academics with high school classes related to the world of work;" "What Kind of Math Matters? Some experts say the push for higher level coursework isn't a good fit with the skills used in the work place;" and "Soft Skills in Big Demand: Interest in teaching students habits of mind for success in life is in on the rise."
The articles behind these titles show that there is strong support among the public, experts and policymakers for taking a broad view of the post-secondary options for which public schools are preparing their students. In light of this change in the national debate, it is questionable whether any state should actually want to align their high school curriculum with college expectations.
In a recent article of mine, published in the December issue of the Kappan, (you can read it here) I argue that a primary cause for school failure and the achievement gap is the widespread acceptance of college expectations as the self-evident definition of a good public school education.
When the narrow hyper-academic focus of schools, which take college preparation as their agenda, meets the vastly unequal and diverse array of skills that students bring to the schoolhouse door, the consistent result has been that some succeed and many fail. We know what it would take to change that and we have never had the political will to muster the necessary resources to provide the needed pre-kindergarten experiences and the consistent, high-quality teaching that can level the playing field.
But even if we could muster that political will, it is not clear that preparing all students for colleges as we know them makes sense. In the debates over leaky pipelines and remedial course work at colleges, in the hand wringing over the United States' middling performance on international math and science assessments, and in the hyperbole about all students being proficient by 2014, it is always assumed that colleges have got it right and it is K-12 that needs to shape up and get on board
There is, however, no evidence that the standards set by college professors for college preparation, or that the standards set by the specialists who define proficiency on subject area tests, have any genuine connection to the actual skills, knowledge and competencies needed by citizens or employees.
Our definitions of academic rigor and high expectations are indeed appropriate to the world of passing academic classes and earning academic degrees. But these definitions and standards derive from an academic culture that has its roots in the middle ages.
Prior to World War Two, only a tiny fraction of the total population prepared for or entered colleges and universities. In the post war era that proportion rose to slightly more than 20 percent of the total population. Reforms that take their cue from college expectations would apply those expectations to the entire population without any conscious effort to determine whether the skills and knowledge that colleges have traditionally expected from entering students, or have traditionally taught, are the skills and knowledge needed in any other sectors besides higher education itself, and the schools that prepare students to attend higher education.
If we want to align college expectations with high school education, let us first align college expectations with the needs of the rest of the social and economic order.
Before requiring every student to meet those expectations, the burden should be on advocates for that approach to conclusively demonstrate that what higher education does now is what every other sector needs. Perhaps such an exercise will show that what the social order actually needs is something very different from what colleges now do.
That would give us the information we need to take on the daunting task of changing higher education before we take on the daunting, but now justifiable task, of insuring that K-12 conforms to it.
By law and community accord, K-12 education is expected to serve all the students of all our communities. Before we create a set of K-12 standards that align with only one of the many post-secondary paths that currently serve our society, let's take the time and effort to be absolutely sure that higher education has it exactly right.
Anything else will turn out to be a costly and painful disservice to the almost 80 percent of the community that currently does not obtain a college degree.
Blog highlights
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Written by:
Alan Gottlieb
Manual
High School is the second school seeking autonomy from Denver Public Schools regulations and the Denver Classroom Teachers Association contract. Following on the heels of
Bruce
Randolph
School, which broke from the pack last month, Manual's teachers voted unanimously to seek the freedom.
This development is interesting for a few reasons. First, the DCTA has yet to decide whether to approve the
Randolph bid. The union wants
Randolph to list specific portions of the contract the school wants to ditch.
Randolph wants a blanket dispensation, and then would opt back into those portions of the contract that make sense. Does Manual joining the movement make the union more or less likely to play ball?
Second, Manual's leadership feels more of a need for freedom from DPS strictures than the union contract. With only eight teachers this year (the school reopened last fall with just 160 ninth-graders), union issues have been non-existent at the new Manual. How will DPS leadership, which has been cheerleading for
Randolph, react if Manual pushes harder against the bureaucracy than against the union?
These issues will grow ever more compelling should additional schools make similar pitches, creating a stampede toward emancipation.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Written by: Pol Econ Ed
Education Week (EW) has released its annual Quality Counts data, and the state comparisons, as always, are revealing and fun.
Remember, unlike reports prepared by Colorado-based advocacy groups, EW has no particular bias, stake, or even interest in where Colorado ranks on any of these various measures, so I find them quite believable.
While there is much to blog about here, I'll stick to a couple of issues for now. Overall, the ratings are what you might expect if you have been paying attention to Colorado education issues -- our state has well-educated, relatively wealthy adults (graded at B+, compared to nation's C+), but we have a big achievement gap (ranked 42nd and 46th of the 50 states in reading and math poverty gaps, respectively), and low spending (36th in cost-of-living adjusted per pupil expenditures).
We also rank low (grade of D, compared to nation's C grade) on alignment between PreK, K12, and higher ed, so the Governor's P20 Council and his recent State of
State announcement seem appropriately focused on that topic of concern.
I want to assess teacher pay, and its implications. Similar to an October 2, 2007 blog I wrote for Headfirst ("Colorado teacher pay lags the nation"), with some related data comparisons, EW compares average state teacher pay to pay in "comparable professions" in each state. While Fordham's Gadfly has already disputed whether or not teachers are paid less than other professionals, when work hours are factored in, that question doesn't matter for this comparison across states.
How are
Colorado teachers paid compared to other professionals in
Colorado, and how does that compare to other states? Answer:
Colorado relative teacher pay is the 8th lowest in the nation (my earlier comparison, to all workers in a state, had
Colorado 3rd lowest, so this is in the same ballpark).
Rhode Island,
Montana, and five other states actually pay teachers more than comparable professionals, while
Colorado is at only 83% of that 100% benchmark level of other professions (
North Carolina is lowest at 79%).
Given all of the recent fuss about the governor and possible government worker power, and about teachers unions as mighty players in blocking important school reforms, wouldn't we expect
Colorado's teachers to receive higher relative wages than their counterparts in the 41 states above them, if they are so powerful?
(I was going to end with that dramatic, rhetorical question, to stimulate comment, but it is worth noting that, obviously, one reason teachers in
Colorado are paid relatively low is that because of TABOR, Gallagher, and
A-B,
Colorado is one of the five lowest tax states in the country and you can't pay public sector workers from magic fairy dust. It is plausible, of course, that as alternative compensation,
Colorado teachers more aggressively seek eased work rules or other non-salary benefits, but that is speculation, since EW does not have comparison data across states for these measures, nor does any
One Response to "If
Colorado teachers are so powerful, why the low pay?"
- Quique Says:
January 14th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Actually, EW does have a section for "school working conditions" (see page 10 of the CO section), and
Colorado does poorly there, to.
But, Pol Econ Ed, I think you've overlooked the obvious response of the union-bashers: "Of course teacher unions are mighty players in
Colorado. All this shows is that the unions are even mightier in other states." Like all true believers, union bashers are impervious to mere facts.
Oh, and all the weaknesses of CO's educational system that are identified in the EW report can be remedied if we'd just authorize more charter schools. I'm not sure how, but I'm pretty sure it involves that magic fairy dust you mentioned.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Written by: Uncle Charley
A few initial impressions from Gov. Ritter's State of the State speech and its focus on education, because I nearly fell out of my chair when I heard Ritter say:
So much of what I've just talked about comes back to education. If ever there was a place to be bold and ambitious, to push hard and fast against the status quo, this is it.
Against the status quo? Really?
Speaker Romanoff, President Groff and Treasurer Kennedy have confidently pushed against the status quo with their Building Excellent Schools Today, or "BEST," capital funding plan. I congratulate them for making safe and modern schools a priority.
"Making safe and modern schools a priority": Is this really such a radical reform? As long as BEST is about extending equity in school construction so that rural school districts with poorer tax bases can construct and renovate schools up to code, fine. But if bigger, wealthier school districts start digging into the same state funds, then the taxpayers and students of this state will have been manipulated to serve narrow interests. Either way, though, it's hardly pushing "hard and fast against the status quo."
Anyway, we know Ritter couldn't possibly have been using that phrase to describe the recommendations of his P-20 council, at least not with a straight face. Most likely he was referring to the following, as taken from another immediate reaction story on the speech:
The cornerstone of [Ritter's] speech was his education plan, which he called the Colorado Achievement Plan for Kids.
"Education is the cornerstone of our economy and it dictates how we will move
Colorado forward in the 21st century," he said.
He called his plan "the most revolutionary shift in education policy this state has seen in years."
You've got to wonder how many education policy people around
Colorado are clamoring to find out more of what's going to be in the ostensibly bipartisan Colorado Achievement Plan. On the surface, it sounds like something we've heard Speaker Andrew Romanoff talk about before.
But only the rhetoric, not the details, which we've yet to see. Is Ritter going beyond the P-20 council's recommendations? Does he really intend to do battle, as necessary, with the "status quo" forces in education? I'd like to see some evidence of this in 2008, unlike 2007.
The Governor may believe that "hope wins out over cynicism," but in matters of public policy a little healthy skepticism is to be preferred to blind faith.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Written by: Visionary Teacher
The new year promises to be interesting for those with a stake in Denver Public Schools. In late January, the school board votes on the new budget for the upcoming school year. Do board members dare to be the innovative policymakers they've promised to be, and approve the next phase of student based budgeting? The Denver Classroom Teachers Association is also about to begin master agreement negotiations with DPS. Will we see any version of the proposals put forth by
Bruce
Randolph
School?
Examining the budget first, this could be the year for bold changes. The foundation has been laid. This current school year, DPS ran the statistics and created a template for budget data. A base sum of money was attached to each student in the district. This was multiplied by the number of students the district serves to create a sum of money each school should receive if this system were implemented.
Included in the template are the old budget practices, the amount that each school would receive using student based budgeting, and the difference that the district supplemented or held back this year so no school felt the impact of any change.
Simply providing a base sum for each student is not enough. To improve equity and provide necessary services to all students, many districts across the country have implemented "weights," or a percentage of money above and beyond the base value for various categories of students, such as English Language Learners, low income students, and gifted and talented students.
Data show that to really have an impact on schools that serve the students who need the most help, DPS must "weight" these students. Many districts have used a phase-in process over a few years to avoid the political challenges such a system could create. The DPS administration and school board have the information and data to truly implement student based budgeting. The question is, will they?
The union contract negotiations also promise to be worthy of monitoring. The Bruce Randolph proposal encouraged individual schools and school board members to speak to the need in all schools for more principal autonomy in hiring practices, and no teacher direct placements in any school. DCTA describes itself as a progressive union with the best interests of the students at heart. Will we see any changes to the hiring and teacher placement policy?
Keep your eyes open. Denver Public Schools is in the process of making decisions to set their course for the next several years. Let's hope we have the strength to follow through with being the district we claim to be.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comment form
