From the editor

Randi Weingarten, head of New York's United Federation of Teachers, came to Denver last week, to speak to a scrupulously polite luncheon crowd about how the UFT is embracing school choice by operating two charter schools.

Given recent developments in the Bruce Randolph School story (local union stalling to impede change) the timing of Weingarten's visit was serendipitous. But I left her hour-long presentation and the Q&A session that followed feeling remarkably unenlightened. It was akin to watching a presidential debate: lots of talking points, little substance.

Perhaps I was put off by Weingarten's opening remarks, during which she heaped praise on the leadership of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. Please understand: I acknowledge that DCTA's leaders are good people. They are well-intentioned, with the best interests of kids at heart. But their recent actions speak ever so much louder than words: they are fundamentally opposed to change of the magnitude required to improve urban public education in this country. So, hearing Weingarten praise them to the skies was off-putting, and seemed disingenuous on her part.

Or maybe I was bothered by the all-too-typical New Yorker's "it's so nice to be in the provinces" attitude that Weingarten exuded. Had she done her homework, she might have recognized that many of those in her audience have actually visited Gotham City. Some have even lived there; others were born and raised there. So when she felt compelled to explain that "Queens is one of our five boroughs," I was tempted to stand and shout, in my best western twang, "where in tarnation is the spittoon?"

But I digress. There was promise in some of Weingarten's message. That the nation's largest teacher's union local, with 201,486 members, has been willing to put its reputation on the line by operating charter schools, completely within the strictures of the union contract, shows admirable courage.

This represents a significant gamble, because if the schools fall flat, the UFT's argument -- that union contracts aren't at the heart of the urban education malaise -- will be harder to justify.

It's too early for test scores to tell the tale. The first batch of results will come available later this school year. Every indication, Weingarten said, is positive. Both schools -- one a grades K-5, the other a 6-12, are over-subscribed with kids. Thousands of teachers are applying for a handful of positions. "It feels like these schools are working," Weingarten said.

Weingarten also discussed the internecine wars that are tearing about public education. She said the real struggle is between those she labels "instructionalists" and. "incentivists."

She defined instructionalists as people who "presuppose that teachers want to teach," and "to make a difference in the lives of kids." Instructionalists want teachers to receive adequate preparation and top-flight professional development so that they are qualified to deliver the high-quality, personalized instruction all kids deserve.

Incentivists, on the other hand, are those who "presuppose that teachers must be supervised and monitored." They believe that teachers need to be pushed to work hard, and that everyone benefits from competition.

Clearly, Weingarten was setting up a bit of a straw man here. But she also said that the goal of  the UFT charters was to "knit these two approaches together."

The UFT will also be opening a Green Dot charter high school in the Bronx (another of the five boroughs, FYI) this fall. Green Dot operates schools in L.A., that also operate under a union contract.

These experiments are well worth watching. Here's hoping they succeed. But they're not going to do much to slow the charter locomotive. Ultimately, labor-management relations in public school systems must undergo a fundamental overhaul, or the true enemies of public education will rule the day. 

This week's feature article is the latest installment from Brenda de Luna at Manual High School. She chronicles incremental progress in evidence at Manual, that keeps her and her colleagues enthused about showing up for work each day.

At Manual, improvements are slow but steady

By Brenda de Luna

It seems unbelievable that we are almost a month into the second semester at Manual.  While still filled with every-day, urban teenage troubles, these past few weeks have been a lot calmer than what we had witnessed in the previous months. 

Could it be that our "stupid" rules and expectations have succeeded in creating a positive culture within the school?  Or is it just that our fourteen and fifteen year-olds matured a bit over winter break?  It's probably both, although I don't know how much maturing can go on in two weeks. 

Dress code violations haven't completely disappeared; we still have daily battles with girls claiming sweat pants are not jeans so they MUST be acceptable.  I continue to catch students staring intently into their laps…text-messaging.  And our rival groups of girls that had their little rumble the first week of school have had yet another rematch. 

In general, though, the halls are not as chaotic, there is a lot more learning going on in classrooms, and trusting and respectful relationships between students and adults have developed.  We definitely have the good feeling that Manual is going to be OK after all.

Good feelings are always reassuring.  But I know you must be saying, "where's the proof?!"  This morning Rob emailed the staff and faculty a preliminary analysis of first semester grades.  There are positive numbers along with disheartening ones.  But they're real measurements of real growth. 

Just to give you an idea of what we're looking at, here are some statistics comparing grades at the end of the first quarter and at the end of the entire first semester: 

• The number of students with As and Bs rose from 18 to 21;
• The number of students with As, Bs and Cs rose from 40 to 43;
• The number of students with one 1 F dropped from 60 to 52
• The number of students with two or more Fs dropped from 46 to 35. 

That's good, right? More good grades and fewer bad grades?  Growth is a positive.  But even these positive numbers can't hide the fact that we've still got a lot of work to do: close to a quarter of our student population is failing at least two of their six classes.  Talk about stress!   

Blog highlights

The unseen "accountability" teachers face

Sunday, January 27, 2008
Written by: Curtis D. Holmes

Editor's note: New blogger Curtis D. Holmes is a National Board Certified social studies teacher at Smoky Hill High School, Cherry Creek School District.

In staking out positions on the issue of educational accountability through testing, the problem is often that those who debate are presenting  arguments about two different things.

What I will call the "high level" testing, for example the CSAP and ACT in Colorado, is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. There are a myriad of "accountability" measures connected to CSAP and ACT that float unseen beneath the public discussion over testing, and they continue to multiply. Most of those tests are directed at supporting the high level, high stakes assessments.

That they are time consuming is without question, that they are valuable is anything but clear.

Let me provide some examples of what students and teachers see every day. At the elementary level, testing has even begun to invade kindergarten with tests that can take an hour or more per child. And who does the testing? the teacher. Who's teaching during the testing? The same teacher. How does that work? That's up to the teacher to figure out.

In high school, classes have been required to test quarterly in all subject areas, all the while getting CSAP data on each student, and come up with a written plan for improving each student, — on forms of course. 100-120 students x data collection, organization, interpretation + formal written plan. You do the math.

And trust me that is just the tip. Believe it or not, none of this is pushed by the "union."

It is simple bureaucratic multiplication. So, when educators criticize "accountability" and testing, it is usually about this larger, more intrusive level of the iceberg that goes largely unseen in public.

Here's hoping we can begin to debate the whole picture of "accountability" to make the process rational and actually useful for our students.

Doublespeak from the Redcoats

Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Written by: Alan Gottlieb

Is the Bruce Randolph School experiment dead on arrival? Yes, if the teachers union has its way. But I'm guessing the battle is only now being joined.

Take a gander at this bit of deathless prose from the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and see if you can read between the lines. It's classic, Orwellian doublespeak.

I was going to quote the juiciest bits of the DCTA statement, but the entire,  586-word document is so patently absurd that you just have to read the whole thing.

I could also have titled this post "The Empire Strikes Back." Or, better yet, "Just wait until your father gets home." While trumpeting its munificence in the headline "Waivers Granted to Bruce Randolph School," what the DCTA Board of Directors did, in fact, was give Bruce Randolph a spanking, and sent it to bed without supper. The union is treating Randolph like a rebellious teenager, rather than a collection of serious-minded adults trying to do whatever it takes to help students learn.

So, if the DCTA wants to play dysfunctional parent, perhaps Randolph should play along. To stretch the analogy to painful extremes, here's hoping the school climbs out the window, slides down the drainpipe and has a smoke behind the garage.

Or, to extend the Revolutionary War analogy, it's time for a Boston Tea Party. If  I were a Randolph teacher and a dues-paying member of the DCTA, I'd quit the union today. No taxation without representation!

Come to think of it, why limit it to Randolph? The DCTA board's bureaucratic rope-a-dope should inspire teachers across the district to bail out, or to demand new, more enlightened leadership.

There's only one way to look at this now. The DCTA has devolved into a reactionary force, incapable of promoting change and improvement in the city's public schools. Without question, there is a place for a professional association for teachers, in Denver and elsewhere. The DCTA is NOT that association.

The union high-handedly declares that "While BR is exploring this concept, no other school autonomy proposals will be entertained by DCTA." Then it lays out a highly bureaucratic, protracted process for hashing out the Randolph proposal. Stalling for time, in other words, hoping this will all die down.

They've already lost. The time has come for Randolph, Manual and other schools to thumb their noses at DCTA and secede.

One Response to "Doublespeak from the Redcoats"

1. Van Schoales Says:
   January 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am e

It is utterly bizarre that DCTA is responding to BR calls for flexibility with a new hard to understand bureaucracy directed by the union. Al Shanker, who gave us charter schools while being the head of the United Federation of Teachers must be turning in his grave. It will be interesting to hear what Randi Weingarten the current head of New York City's teacher union has to say about Denver's Union. She will be speaking later this week in Denver. Randi recently embraced the development of several new charter schools run by the union with Green Dot. I've heard rumor that CEA is even scratching their heads about DCTA's recent moves. I hope DCTA can come to their senses and remember the good work they did on ProComp.

Should schools be excused if kids miss CSAP?

Monday, January 21, 2008
Written by: WonkMom

I'm of two minds about HB 1186 -- the bill that prevents counting the CSAP scores of absent students as zeroes for the purpose of calculating School Accountability Report grades for schools.  At present, state law mirrors the No Child Left Behind law's policy of providing significant incentives for students to take state tests by providing significant incentives to schools to make sure the students are present. 

NCLB requires 95% of students to take the test, absent circumstances like extreme physical or cognitive disabilities, as one of the factors that goes into deciding whether a school has made adequate yearly progress.

So consider the implications of HB 1186.   Consider, on the one hand, School A, whose staff is knocking themselves out daily expecting high levels of performance from their students (and creating the environment in which that high performance happens).  School A should not be penalized if the entire fourth-grade class comes down with the stomach flu during CSAP week, right?  HB 1186 would eliminate this obviously unfair situation.

On the other hand, School B is not quite so dedicated.  Staff at School B decides to take advantage of this new freedom under HB 1186 to actively encourage some families to keep their kids home during CSAP week.  Perhaps staff is motivated by a desire to protest against standardized testing; perhaps it is selective as to which families receive this message to stay home.  School B is rewarded (by seemingly higher test scores) under circumstances in which it should not be rewarded.

So we have a policy choice -- do we care more about rectifying injustices against good schools that can't help student absences, or do we care more about requiring bad schools to be held accountable for all students with no wiggle room for deception? 

That's a frustrating choice.  Much as I'd like to assign a rating under this blog's new CBAP program, I find I cannot do so with utter confidence in my decision.  Which is why I'm a policy wonk and not a politician …

Why Finland tops Colorado in education

Monday, January 21, 2008
Written by: Pol Econ Ed

Check out this fascinating map, which portrays national economies (GDPs) around the world as comparable to the economies of the fifty American states (Gross State Products - GSPs).  It is an impressive visual reminder of just how big the U.S. economy really is, even in this time of economic uncertainty.  For example, the much feared, possible world-dominating Iran has an economy comparable to, well, . . . California? Florida? Texas? . . no, um, Alabama.

 Cool yes, you may say, but how does this relate to education?

Well, in a couple of ways.  It turns out that Colorado's economy is comparable to Finland's.  Interesting, because, as we know, Finland stands out on the international comparisons ( PISA, TIMMS), with some of the highest math, reading, and science scores.  Colorado scores a bit lower, in all of these comparisons. 

So, let's talk about Finland and spending.  Finland, according to OECD data, spends about 6.5% of its GDP on education.  With $5.7 billion in spending, Colorado spends about 2.9% of its GSP (estimated at $230 billion in 2006) on K12 and higher education.  (It is true that, to be more comparable, American federal spending should be added to the Colorado equation, but it would only raise it by about 10%, to maybe 3.2%).  So, Finland is "trying much harder" to achieve better education outcomes, in terms of spending, and it is succeeding.

More generally on spending, these international comparisons help raise interesting questions about what the right comparative measures are.  Finland's absolute per pupil expenditures are not much higher than Colorado (or the U.S.), because they have fewer people and their GDP per capita is lower.

So, is it the absolute dollars, or the percentage of economic activity that matters?  After all, one reason to get richer is to be able to spend more money on more things, including not just cars and houses, but also important things like education.

Another related point is raised by these comparisons: like all dollars, education dollars need to be put into a context of the size of the economy, especially as the Colorado legislature considers various reform options. 

The extreme anti-tax crowd likes to point to any "--illion" number as a big number, since, after all, most of us don't deal in "--illions" of dollars every day.  But, it is remarkable how small some of the proposals and programs look when placed into the proper context.

For example, at $230 billion per year for Colorado's GSP, over the 5 year "TABOR refund timeout" of Referendum C, Colorado's economy will generate more than $1.15 trillion dollars in output -- that's $1,150,000,000,000 +, a lot of "-illions." 

Jon Caldera of the Independence Institute is suing over the idea that Ref C's added investment into Colorado's education, health, transportation and other services might be as much as $ 6.1 billion (if the economy stays strong over that entire period, a bit questionable these days) rather than the initially projected $3.7 billion, a whopping $2.4 billion difference.  That sounds like a lot of "-illions," at least for you and me, the taxpayers.

But, how big does that difference look in a $1.15 trillion dollar Colorado economy over the same five year period? -- it's only 0.2%.  Would you go nuts if your household budget had to be adjusted by 0.2% up or down?  Would you even notice? (On a $50,000 median household income in Colorado, that would equate to $100 over a year.)

So, let's keep things in perspective.  If $200 million dollars is proposed for new PreK or full day K programs in Colorado, remember that less than 0.1% of the $230+ billion annual gross state product in Colorado.  We can afford that, easily.  But, current Constitutional constraints make it really hard to generate even that amount, and they require loads of creativity in finding the funds to do it.

One Response to "Why Finland tops Colorado in education"

1. Ben DeGrow Says:
   January 21st, 2008 at 4:37 pm e

"Jon Caldera of the Independence Institute is suing over the idea that Ref C's added investment into Colorado's education, health, transportation and other services might be as much as $ 6.1 billion (if the economy stays strong over that entire period, a bit questionable these days) rather than the initially projected $3.7 billion, a whopping $2.4 billion difference. That sounds like a lot of "-illions," at least for you and me, the taxpayers."

Correction: The lawsuit is over the property tax increase contained in last year's School Finance Act, not on revenue reports from Revenue C. And the substance of the lawsuit is in defense of the state constitution's mandate that tax increases must go before a vote of the people, not on the policy itself.

"The extreme anti-tax crowd likes to point to any "--illion" number as a big number, since, after all, most of us don't deal in "--illions" of dollars every day. But, it is remarkable how small some of the proposals and programs look when placed into the proper context."

Rhetorical hyperbole, plain and simple, with no examples cited to make the case. What is the proper context, after all? A context that conflates the decisions of free individuals with the decisions of a coercive state & the efficiencies of a market economy with the inefficiencies of a state-run economy?

A household budget is better compared to the state's budget, not the GDP. And then there's the implicit assumption that taxation has no effect on the size or productivity of the state's economy, which is simply not the case. I could go on, but I think the point is clear enough.

Finally, the comparison between Colorado & Finland on GDP, spending, and education outcomes lacks any real meaningful conclusions. Among other things, it neglects questions of systemic structure & student demographics.

Is the point that Colorado should aspire to be like Finland's socialist paradise, or only that if TABOR were destroyed state government could really start spending our money without any sense of accountability or priorities?

When I started to read this post, I was hopeful for some interesting new arguments. Sadly, I was disappointed.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form