From the editor

Peter Sherman makes a key point in his first contribution to this e-newsletter (see below). As an experienced Denver Public Schools principal, Peter believes that meaningful reform in our school systems will happen one student at a time at the school level. Aggressive, system-wide reform (which I, and many of my peers, regularly promote) helps, and in many ways is necessary. But school change will still need to occur at the school level,ā€¯ Sherman writes.

Upon reading this, my immediate reaction was to disagree, at least in part, and to insist that without systemic change, no real change can occur at the school level, or at least not of the kind and magnitude that will make a real difference for large numbers of kids.

But after giving it more thought, I realized that Peter's point is valid. From the principal's perspective, a big district change initiative can do one of two things. It can help, if the initiative is well thought-out, and detailed, and if support flows from the central office to schools to implement the changes.

Or it can hurt, if the initiative follows close on the heels of other initiatives, partially implemented and then abandoned. In such cases, remnants of old efforts build up like layers of wallpaper in an old house. Someone needs to steam off the old layers of paper and start fresh. Instead, the tendency is to slap new wallpaper atop the old, until the wall looks lousy and the wallpaper starts to bubble and peel.

There are districts that know how to roll out a change initiative; to make a plan and to stick with it long enough to see it start working. But Peter's statement about change needing to bloom first at the school levels comes, I suspect, from the other kind of experience.

When district offices overwhelm schools with blizzards of paperwork and mandates, but offer little or no support, principals feel frustrated and stretched thin.  When districts whipsaw from one change agenda to another, allowing insufficient time for any changes to take effect, principals burn out.

Part of what Peter is saying, I suspect, is a common principal's refrain, aimed at the central office. Stay out of our way, principals say, and let us do our jobs, and we will make good things happen. Your help would be most welcome. Meaningless bureaucratic interference would not.

With Peter Sherman added to our collection of contributors, the e-newsletter will now have a rotation of writers on a monthly schedule. Peter will provide a principal's perspective from within the system. The staff of West Denver Preparatory will give us a look at education from reform from the vantage point of a promising charter school. Brenda de Luna writes about the challenges in an urban high school a someone who now works for such a school, but not long ago attended one. And Kate Rapisarda offers the fresh perspective of a newly-minted Teach for America corps member teaching at Denver's North High School.

Challenges and Potential in Northwest Denver

By Peter Sherman

Soon after moving to Denver eight years ago, I began to meet educators in northwest Denver and, besides the good coffee, I was drawn to many of the educational issues in the area neighborhoods.  Low socioeconomics, English language learners, active community organizations, diverse and changing demographics... 

My first principalship was at Park Hill School in northeast Denver where I helped transition the elementary program to an ECE-8 program.  Park Hill serves a very diverse community and one with approximately 30% low-income families (qualifying for free and reduced lunch).  The issues that face Park Hill as an average (according to state rankings) school include:  an achievement gap between low and mid-level income families, implementation of an E-8 program, and maintaining an inclusive school culture. 

Park Hill also benefits from an involved parent community that organizes many events and raises a great deal of money each year.  These were challenging issues, but I was ready to work with a Spanish-speaking and lower-income community.

Last spring, I began to hear about an extension of the reforms being made at North High School that would include Valdez Elementary School, which sits adjacent to North.  Most of my professional interests seemed to align with the planned changes for Valdez and North.  I would have the opportunity to lead a whole-school reform effort, I would develop a dual-language program, I would be able to utilize my Spanish-speaking skills, and I would apply my experiences and skills learned over the past years to a lower-income community. 

Valdez sits in a transitional zone between the mostly-Latino neighborhoods of northwest Denver and the professional developments of the LoDo and Riverfront neighborhoods.  Looking almost any direction from the school playground, one can see construction cranes and hear the sounds of hammering and heavy equipment.  Within the school attendance boundaries, one can find apartments occupied by several families, old Victorian homes, and new condominiums.  One can eat in authentic Mexican taquerias as well as at trendy bars and restaurants.  This part of the city would not only be interesting, but would evolve into a perfect demographic for a dual-language program.  I jumped at the chance to apply and was eventually chosen.

Valdez is one school where the potential for change and success is great.  It will be a school where we can improve the education for under-performing students and it will be a school where we can build an integrated and diverse socioeconomic community. 

We began by adding a dual-language/Montessori ECE/Kindergarten program for 3-5 year olds to our existing elementary grades.  Our program follows in the footsteps of the successful model at nearby Academia Ana Marie Sandoval; however we will only offer Montessori at the ECE/K level.  The dual-language model will grow each year to eventually encompass the entire school. 

The reforms at Valdez and North High School align to establish an E-12 campus -- the first of its kind for DPS.  We are planning for and will serve 6^th and 7^th graders in 2008-09 and 8^th graders in 2009-2010.  Students can begin school at age three and continue on this campus until age eighteen.  The campus will be united by a rigorous academic program linked by a focus on native, second and third language acquisition and development. 

Students will become bilingual and bi-literate by sixth grade, take high-level content courses in English and Spanish and be able to take courses in Chinese and Arabic.  With an E-12 campus we will work backwards from rigorous graduation requirements and plan instruction to prepare all students along the way.

Educators (and their taxpaying clientele) perennially point fingers of blame for poor student performance.  High school staff point to middle school staff.  Middle school staff point to elementary school teachers, who in turn, point to pre-school programs.  At all levels, educators point to parents for not properly preparing their children for school.  Teachers point to administrators for either not supporting them or for mandating too many requirements.  We all point to the government for state and federal laws and restrictions and for not providing more funding. 

Each of these players has valid perspectives and gripes.  However the result leads to a system that is stressed, under-funded and that faces significant challenges.  My belief is that meaningful reform in our school systems will happen one student at a time at the school level.  I also believe that effective instruction will have to happen with intelligent, collaborative, creative, and dedicated work informed by data and research evidence. 

To succeed in this work, we will need to align efforts around marketing and enrollment, hiring staff, training and supporting teachers, building an adequate budget and nurturing a positive and resilient school culture.  We will also need to partner with parents, community organizations and politicians.

Under the leadership of Michael Bennet and others, Denver is experiencing a renaissance of education reform -- the potential is there for significant success.  This helps, and in many ways is necessary. But school change will still need to occur at the school level.  So, a disciplined and creative approach to building relationships, working with teachers and focusing on students will lead us to improving the educational opportunities for the Valdez students.

Peter Sherman is principal of Valdez Ece-8 school in northwest Denver.

Blog highlights

What does today's CEA stand for?

Monday, October 29, 2007
Written by: Uncle Charley

For those of you not too busy poring over the post-mortems in the sports pages this morning, here's a little pre-election analysis. No, not the kind of horse race prognosis that would be more at home in other corners of the Web.

I'd like to stir up a little discussion that seldom receives careful attention. Oh, maybe somewhere like the Education Intelligence Agency probes into this stuff. But if we're really concerned about the direction of school reform and making a genuine difference, we need to give it some careful thought.

Quite simply, boiled down to the most clear and simple terms, what is the agenda of the teachers union today? Savaged as a punching bag by some and sidestepped by others, the union holds as much clout as any other entity when it comes to setting policy at the State Capitol or any of the numerous school boards across the Colorado landscape.

Now, of course, it goes without saying that the reach of the union -- and let's be specific here, the Colorado Education Association -- is neither monolithic nor unchallenged.

And we know CEA quite well by what it tends to work against: more parental choice, rigorous accountability, merit-based pay, and the like. But what is it for?

And who is CEA working for? It has been contended before that the union is a rational actor operating in defense of teachers. But the multi-tiered construction of the NEA/CEA through the unified dues racket makes this much more complex. Not only are there serious internal political power plays between the different tiers, but there remains the question: Which teachers does CEA work for?

How do you explain the union as a rational actor in Denver when it fights so hard to steal from the future to protect the fat pensions of senior teachers? Given the reality of limited resources and having to refinance the pension plan to cover a huge unfunded liability, can it honestly be said that retired teachers are the ones being shortchanged?

DPS, facing the unique challenges of an urban school district, struggles to offer competitive entry-level pay and experiences a high level of teacher turnover in the first 5 years. The many teachers who never stick around long enough to get vested pensions are being used to subsidize the golden parachutes of those who endure the system. Who in the end is a winner with this scenario?

Local union presidents confessed some similar sorts of problems to Education Sector. But we may only know the half of it.

A knowledgeable someone recently observed to me that it seems CEA/NEA's agenda has whittled down to a perpetual battle to re-elect supportive Democratic legislators in suburban districts, while painful but needed urban education reform languishes. Do you think this person is right? How would you respond? If the assessment is correct, what can be done, if anything, to help the union find its way?

A little pre-election analysis, indeed. For those casting ballots in the Denver school board race, stop and think about it.

Recycled political hackery in board races

Thursday, October 25, 2007
Written by: Alan Gottlieb

Northwest Denver politics has always had a colorful, Chicago ward heeler-style to it, with outsized egos clashing over petty grievances, often at voters' expense.

But now, in the current school board races, and with northwest kingpin Dennis Gallagher enthroned in the City Auditor's office, the contagion has spread.

Today's Denver Post story illustrates just how bizarre the school board campaign has become, with Gallagher, apparently speaking as much as auditor as private citizen, endorsing the same three non-incumbent candidates the teachers union endorsed last month.

The message, in part, from Gallagher: throw the bums out, because they don't encourage recycling.

Say what?

In a school district crippled by financial woes and struggling to overcome decades of stagnant student achievement, how can any credible candidate -- or politician seeking headlines " list the lack of a district-wide recycling program as among the top issues facing Denver Public Schools?

And exactly what is the City Auditor doing injecting himself in school board races? It's his right as a private citizen, of course. But it doesn't sound like Gallagher's endorsement are coming from Private Citizen Dennis.

And his mass mailing to city employees in support of certain candidates, as reported by the Post, smells fishy. Gallagher claims the mailing broke no laws, because the list came from his private St. Patrick's Day party mailing list.

Whenever politicians claim their behavior broke no laws, one has to wonder how low they set their ethical standards bar. 

Don't show me the money

Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Written by: Sari Levy

The stack of Economists I haven't yet read is stacked neatly beside the stack that I have, and didn't understand (but still have the bad taste to reference at dinner parties).  Because I won't get to this week's issue until 2011, I'm glad that Eduwonk picked up on an article on education policy recommendations recently made by McKinsey.

It's worth mentioning because there seems to be a general agreement in Colorado and the U.S. (with the exception of folks like Cato, Heritage, Independence Institute) that we don't spend enough money on education and that we must reduce class size. McKinsey seems to disagree.

 American [education] spending has almost doubled since 1980 and class sizes are the lowest ever, but there has been no measurable improvement in the standards of literacy and numeracy in primary schools for 50 years. The article argues that America Canada, Finland, Japan, Singapore, South Korea) spend neither more money nor more time than the rest of us. Instead, they do 3 things: 

1. get the best teachers
2. get the best out of teachers
3. step in when students lag behind.

What does the article suggest we're doing wrong?

Among other things, we're recruiting teachers from the bottom third of college grads (with the exception of Teach for America). And, we're reducing class sizes, increasing the number of teachers paid from the same pot of money, producing lower salaries and lower professional status.ā€¯

Are districts right to gripe that they can't get the best teachers because they can't pay them enough? Personally, I do think teachers are underpaid and that there is validity to districts' claims, regionally.

But, McKinsey says that from a global perspective, this is not true.   Germany, Spain Switzerland pay their teachers the most, but don't get the best teachers. and In practice, the top performers pay no more than average salaries.ā€¯  Instead, top performers have made teacher training programs very competitive to enter and then continue to train them extensively throughout their careers.  Read more.

One Response to Don't show me the moneyā€¯

1. Uncle Charley Says:
   October 24th, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Thank you, Sari, for bringing this to our attention. I see it as further validation for my own broader thinking on education reform. It certainly aligns with the growing body of research we've seen.

The question we're left with is what policy levers or incentives should be used to guide education reform in this direction. The current system seems nearly incapable of effecting such a move.

Or do we throw our hands up and say Americans don't want anything more than the mediocre education they're getting as a whole? Good food for thought ā€¦

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comment form