From the editor

We're speeding into mid-July, the one time of year when obsessing over education takes a breather. Everyone is waiting to exhale. CSAP scores will be released late this month. As much as we might not like the over-emphasis on test scores, the stakes seem especially high this year, in particular for a couple of key figures in our little education bubble:

1. Michael Bennet. The upcoming school year will be filled with challenges for our intrepid wunderkind of a superintendent. If Denver Public Schools gets a nice bump in CSAP scores, his job heading into the fall will be a little less painful. If scores are flat or, God forbid, decrease, he will have a much tougher time convincing the community to swallow the bitter medicine of school closures. Never an easy sales job in the best of time, closing multiple schools will be even tougher if Bennet's political capital is depleted by stagnant or declining CSAPs.

2. Dwight Jones. New on the job as education commissioner, he doesn't have to own the scores. In fact, the commissioner has little do with CSAP scores no matter no long he or she has been on the job. But how he plays the release of test score data will set the tone for his administration. People who have tried to breach the walls of the state education bureaucracy during the past decade are hoping Jones' appointment heralds a new era of openness and accountability. Certainly, things can't get any worse over there in this regard.

So, while we're waiting for this big shoe to drop, why not read a well-written and provocative essay by Peter Huidekoper? Peter is a true iconoclast, a free-thinker who shuns all manner of orthodoxy. His wonderful newsletter, Another View, which is featured on the HeadFirst website, is always worth reading. In coming days, we hope to post several of his past issues on the site. I fear Peter may reduce his production, because he returns to the classroom this fall. If he does scale back, students' gain will be our loss.  

Meanwhile, enjoy the heat and the dearth of education news for the next week or two. The respite won't last long.

--Alan Gottlieb

Blog highlights

As the following post, with its comet-tail of comments illustrates, people suffering from withdrawal from education news must read blogs like Schools for Tomorrow. A couple of additional posts follow the comments:

Money for nothing

Written by: Blogfather

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen's column today (also available in the print version of the Denver Post) confronts a topic troubling to many of us likely-to-certain to vote for a Democrat for president next year.

Simply stated, the Dem candidates' positions on education reform range from shallow to pathetic, with the possible exception of Barack Obama, who at least, Cohen writes, acknowledges that a lack of funding is not the only problem plaguing our schools.

Cohen zeroes in on the Washington, D.C. schools as a place where ample money has resulted in one of the worst school systems in the nation:

One candidate after another lambasted George W. Bush, the Republican Party and, of course, the evil justices of the Supreme Court. But not a one of them even whispered a word of outrage about a public school system that spends $13,000 per child " third-highest among big-city school systems " and produces pupils who score among the lowest in just about any category you can name. The only area in which the Washington school system is No. 1 is in money spent on administration. Chests should not swell with pride.

It's so easy to blame everything on a lack of money, and so wrong. Of course more funding for education would be nice. Of course teachers are underpaid (and, too often, underqualified as well). But until we get after the systemic maladies that guarantee huge sums will be poured down a rathole, we shouldn't promote more funding at the expense of real change.

As much as we respect them, this is where we part ways with our friends at Great Education Colorado, who never miss an opportunity to beat the "a lack of money is the root of all evil" drum.

11 Responses to "Money for nothing"�

1. Quique Says:
   July 3rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm e

Perhaps Cohen is the one who is " in his words " ineducable. Washington DC's public schools are illustrative of the problems of concentrated poverty. The huge issue affecting DC schools is the gap between rich and poor, and the degree to which the poor are now destitute. And that is precisely the issue that John Edwards has placed at the center of his campaign. If (by some miracle) Edwards is actually able to implement many of his anti-poverty policies, those schoolchildren in DC will be helped much more than they would be by NCLB or charter schools or vouchers or "Reading First" or any of the current fad reforms that purport to offer hope to the impoverished families. Cohen is smart enough to understand that, but he would, it seems, rather insult the candidates for their failure to say things that would annoy teachers unions. Gore describes this nonsense well in his "Attack on Reason" book. And you, Blogfather, by tacking on a caricature of "Great Education Colorado" (as caring only about $) are falling into the same trap.

2. Ax Says:
   July 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pm e

Did we read the same article? Or do you just believe that poor children cannot be educated. There are schools all over this country - even a few in Denver - educating poor children. It's just that the current public school system is not good, even with plenty of money, at education. Period. The idea that you cannot educate poor children without solving poverty is defeatist, dangerous and wrong.

3. Quique Says:
   July 4th, 2007 at 4:40 pm e

Ax, my friend, I completely and absolutely agree with you basic statement. Children raised in families with little money or family resources can, of course, be educated. Perhaps I should have clarified that in the original note. The point I am making is that schools serving children under conditions of concentrated poverty are up against huge odds. Even within those schools, some children will excel, but the chances for a child in such a school suffer tremendously. My overarching point is that changing the overall environment " decreasing overall poverty and addressing the issue of schools with concentrated poverty " is likely to be a more successful approach than ignoring that poverty and, e.g., exhorting teachers and others to leave no child behind.

4. Blogfather Says:
   July 4th, 2007 at 6:47 pm e

I agree with both Quique and Ax. To the extent possible, doing away with concentrated poverty in schools is perhaps the most effective strategy for educating low-income children. I've been working on this issue for a long time. But it's probably naive of people like me to keep believing that in some perfect future we'll be able to eliminate high poverty schools. To be blunt, this country, despite lip service, doesn't care enough about poor kids to take the radical steps needed to help ensure a better future for them. So, then, what do we have? To me there is hope in schools like KIPP and West Denver Prep, which are demonstrating that concentrated poverty does not have to be an insurmountable obstacle. Can these schools be taken to scale nationally? I hope so, but have my doubts. And it's never going to happen under current structures, where the perceived interests of adults continually trump those of the children they're supposed to be serving.

5. edmove Says:
   July 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am e

Well Cohen is right about the Dems so far. I hope they can get their act together on education reform before the Republicans take the civil rights agenda away from them once again. It's embarrassing to have the Republicans more articulate than most Democrats on issues related to educating poor and minority kids. The rhetoric by the candidates at this week's NEA convention is indicative of how much the Democrats have been co-opted by the teacher unions. While Obama has not come out with any bold proposals yet, at least he hasn't been singing the same tune as the NEA.

As far as improving poverty in the short term, I agree with Edwards on most of his ideas but long term improvement will have to include dramatic changes in our education system. Quique is dreaming if she/he thinks that anti-poverty programs by themselves are going to improve achievement for low-income kids. I'd like to see an example of this anywhere in the US. She/he has clearly never spent much time in your typical urban school or looked at much research about what works. Dismissing all "Reading First," charters or NCLB (which does need some significant change) as meaningless fads shows her/his ignorance. Families should be provided quality health care, jobs with a living wage, early childhood support and housing but these relatively expensive programs will not result in better learning without changing our dysfunctional urban public education systems.

6. Quique Says:
   July 5th, 2007 at 2:14 pm e

I'm not sure if edmove is just being sloppy with his/her language or if s/he really thinks that reducing poverty will not improve achievement. Perhaps s/he means that this would completely close achievement gaps (I agree). But of course it would help. My point (sorry for being so repetitive, but the point keeps getting misconstrued) is simply that a dollar spent on school reform is likely not as efficient as a dollar spent on reducing poverty.

Since edmove seems to care about scholarship, which I commend, s/he might want to read the following two recent publications:

Berliner, D. C. (2005). Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform. Teachers College Record, Date Published: August 02, 2005. http://www.tcrecord.org; ID Number: 12106.

Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Another good book on this point is Ghetto Schooling by Jean Anyon.

A couple other "¦ clarifications. I did not and would not call these fad reforms "meaningless." They have huge impacts. But, notwithstanding some wonderful instances of success (e.g., some great charter schools) their overall effects are not positive. Again, since edmove and I both care about research, I sure we agree on this.

And yes I have spent considerable time in urban schools. Let's not devolve into ad hominem attacks, okay?

Finally, edmove, I do agree that many schools in urban areas offer very low opportunities to their students. And I believe that these schools could do many things better than they currently do them. To some extent this requires improved approaches (and we may actually agree on some of those), to some extent it requires better resources, and " in my view " to a large extent it requires addressing issues of concentrated poverty that currently place a huge burden that must be overcome by every student, teacher, and administrator in those schools.

7. Quique Says:
   July 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pm e

I also wanted to respond to blogfather, who I find myself largely in agreement with. No country has fully addressed problems of poverty, and we're father away than many. Children raised in conditions of poverty will remain a problem throughout my lifetime, at least. And our schools need to continue searching for the best ways to provide full opportunities to these kids.
I also find hope in schools like KIPP and W. Denver Prep, and I agree with blogfather about the scaling up problems. In the case of choice schools like these, the scaling-up problem is increased, since we know that at least part of the measured results are very likely attributable to non-random enrollment. It's hard to figure out what would happen if these schools' approaches were used in a school serving a cross-section of the population. But it makes sense to try.
What I would like to understand better from blogfather concerns the comment about "current structures, where the perceived interests of adults continually trump those of the children they're supposed to be serving." One instance of this (and one I agree is a problem) concerns the seniority issue, whereby more senior teachers move away from the schools that need them most. What else is blogfather thinking about here?

8. Uncle Charley Says:
   July 5th, 2007 at 3:09 pm e

A fascinating and passionate discussion about an important topic. But to provide clarity for the uninitiated like myself, could someone do two things for me?

1) Define poverty.
2) Explain how to eliminate poverty (in a basic sense).

"¦And let me add that reform-minded Democrats still have a ways to go to overcome the NEA's clout within the party. Despite Obama's new-wave campaign, expect Hillary to be the nominee in "˜08, opening the door for Republican victory.

9. edmove Says:
   July 6th, 2007 at 10:41 am e

Actually, I did mean to say that an investment in a quality school is less expensive and likely to be more effective than a general strategy to reduce poverty. In addition, I'm not sure there are many proven strategies to reduce poverty. We need to make much larger investments on this front but according to my read of the literature few strategies have been shown to work. A few initiatives like Earned Income Tax Credits and really high quality early childhood seem to have broad impact on reducing poverty but many of the other classic programs seem to do little to change outcomes. Most of the economists that I have read return to quality education as the cheapest and most effective remedy to poverty.

10. vinroc31 Says:
    July 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pm e

To add a couple of more references to Quique's excellent primer on societal reforms to improve education for urban or disadvantaged youth, see:

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. Routledge.

Rothstein, R. (2002). "Out of balance: Our understanding of how schools affect society and how society affects schools" Conference report for Traditions of Scholarship in Education, The Spencer Foundation. http://www.spencer.org/publications/conferences/traditions_of_scholarships/traditions_of_scholships.pdf

Holzer, H.J., D. W. Schanzenbach, G. J. Duncan & J. Ludwig. (2007, January 24). The economic costs of poverty in the United States: Subsequent effects of children growing up poor. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/01/pdf/poverty_report.pdf

Abravanel, M.D., R.E. Smith, E. Cove. (2006). Linking public housing revitilization to neighborhood school improvement. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411462_public_housing.pdf

Boring school names: abandoning civic virtue?

Written by: Uncle Charley

Once in awhile, I look at a new education report and see a topic that's just a little bit off the wall. In the case of the Manhattan's Institute What's in a Name?, what's on the walls of more and more schoolhouses are place names rather than people names. The evidence of the trend is indisputable. Colorado is not one of the seven states examined in the report, but there's little doubt that we would find similar results here.

But why exactly is it occurring? Cultural forces? Local politics? What is it?

The "why" in this case is a fascinating question. (No, I'm not suffering from heat stroke.) But mid-summer seems like an ideal time to grapple with an issue that on the surface appears so trivial. Maybe that's the starting point for discussion. Should I be even a little bit worried that more Emily Dickinson Elementaries and Franklin Roosevelt Highs are dropping their connections with famous personages to adorn themselves with the moniker of the nearest grassy knoll or city drainage ditch?

The paper concludes:

We should continue to monitor trends in school names and to explore the relationship between what we name schools and the civic outcomes of public education.

I believe we must at least consider the possibility that the public education system may be broadly abandoning external civic virtues to embrace the bland, the tepid, and the inoffensive. While many "Traditionalists" might bemoan renaming George Washington Junior High, and many "Progressives" might applaud a change to Cesar Chavez or Gloria Steinem Academy, wouldn't most school boards and administrators find it easier to avoid the conflict and just name it Mesa Creek Middle School?

Okay, so it's not going to be a burning issue for the state's new P-20 Council. But there isn't anything wrong with observing a rarely-noticed trend and applying a little healthy intellectual curiosity to the matter. Such curiosity should be one of the goals of education, after all.

Scholarship fund tiptoes around immigration minefield

Written by: Blogfather

The Denver Scholarship Foundation  has at long last produced clear guidelines for its "last dollars in" scholarships for Denver high school graduates.

Months of miscommunication that led to dashed hopes and bruised feelings among students should be resolved by this latest decision by the foundation's board.

Beginning next year, students attending  a participating public university can receive up to $3,200, and those choosing a pricier private school can get a maximum of $5,000.

What's less clear is why the foundation board so quickly backed away from providing scholarship aid to undocumented students. At the risk of incurring the wrath of anti-immigration crazies (and please note that I'm NOT saying that anyone who opposes aid to undocumented immigrants is crazy. But the crazies are out there as well), this decision looks so risk-averse as to be self-defeating.

Just a wild guess, but I'd bet a significant percentage of students at Lincoln, South and Montbello high schools " the three pilot schools for the program " are undocumented. The 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Plyler v Doe) mandating free public education for undocumented children found that a Texas law withholding education from undocumented children

"impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" " namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents.

How is withholding scholarship money any different? These kids are most likely here to say. Do we want them to be fully participating members of our society, or menial workers hamstrung by their lack of educational opportunities? Which of these scenarios actually serves our self interest?

The foundation board explained its decision by saying attorneys cautioned them not to walk into this particular minefield. My guess is that it's all in how you frame the question. Ask a  lawyer how to avoid risk and you get one answer. Ask how to make this work for undocumented kids and, I'd bet, the answer might be different.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form