Another View #123 Peter Huidekoper, Jr.
Dec. 18, 2014
Redefining “local control” in 2015 –
A hopeful look forward
“The Phantom slowly, gravely, silently approached.….
Shrouded in a deep black garment, which concealed its head, its face, its form,
and left nothing of it visible save an outstretched hand…. ‘You are about to
show me shadows of the things … that will happen in the time before us,”
Scrooge pursued. “Is that so, Spirit?’”
Hey, you say, “I don’t need
this!!!” No ghoulish ghost, please! It’s bleak enough out there as we approach
“the darkest evening of the year”! Bring
me light! Bring me good news!
At your service.
In the spirit of the holidays, a
message of hope. So rest assured, I will not echo The Economist’s bleak assessment in its annual forecast of the year
ahead. “Optimism is in short supply as thoughts turn to 2015….” (Daniel
Franklin, Editor, “The World in 2015,” Dec. 2014).)
I will,
however, cite one modestly hopeful passage from the magazine’s analysis:
“Democracy is the
worst system of government except for the others: that is another of the
torrent of Churchillian quotations you can expect to hear in the year ahead. He
was right: democracy is still more flexible and fair than any alternative. But
that is not an excuse for failing to tackle its imperfections. And 2015 is a good year to start.”
Yes, “a good year to start” to
tackle a fundamental imperfection in how our schools are governed. Which is
nowhere near as democratic as we suggest by affirming, ad nauseam, our faith in
“local control.” In 2015 we will take
steps so that our schools are governed by
the people who make up the school community. Which is not—in our big districts—the school
board, or the central office.
So–Happy New Year!–here’s to the GOOD
NEWS! Two changes ahead for public education in Colorado!
1. We will re-examine and redefine local
control
"The general assembly
shall, by law, provide for organization of school
districts of convenient size, in each
of which shall be established a board of education, to consist of three or more
directors to be elected by the
qualified electors of the district. Said directors shall have control of instruction in the public
schools of their respective districts." Constitution Article IX, §15. Effective Aug. 1, 1876. (Bold mine.)
In 2015 Colorado citizens will
realize that what was written in 1876 in the state constitution, 140 years
before anyone imagined school districts with 86,000 students (a “convenient
size”?) and 185 schools (Denver Public Schools- http://www.dpsk12.org/communications/facts.html),
no longer addresses our current reality.
We will take to heart Checker Finn’s words—and his recommendation in
“American Education in 2014: Where We’ve Come, What’s Ahead”:
“The basic
structural and governance arrangements of American public education are
obsolete. We have too many layers, too
many veto points, too much institutional inertia. Local control should be reinvented…. the vast
majority of U.S. schools remain locked in structures that may have made sense
around 1900, but not in 2014.” (Education
Week, 8/27/14)
In 2015 Colorado
policymakers, parents, and educators will start by acknowledging that “local
control” might well apply to most of our districts
(enrolling under 1,000 students), but not for most schools or students.[1] “Local” means just that for our small rural
schools. However, in the 20 districts
with between 10,000 and 87,000 students, we now see it is time for a
redefinition. I suspect that those who wrote the 1876 Constitution would be
shocked that anyone would call “local control” in DPS or Jeffco even remotely
what they had in mind.
The Colorado Department of Education’s
spreadsheet of school district size for 2013-14, Rural Definition
Spreadsheet, includes data that shows, of 179 districts, we have:
106 - Under 1,000
– All small rural
41 - Under 5,000
(0ver 1,000) – 39 rural and 2 urban (Sheridan, Englewood)
11
- 10,000 (0ver 5,000)
158 school districts with fewer than
10,000 students
21 - 20 districts (and the Charter School
Institute) with anywhere from 10,100 students (Westminster) to the 86,000 or
so in Denver Public Schools* and Jefferson County**
*DPS reported 87,398 in 2013-14-http://www.dpsk12.org/communications/facts.html
**Jeffco anticipates 85,383 in 2014-15-http://www.jeffcopublicschools.org/schools/profiles/district_profile.html
|
Perhaps the size of school districts changed so little between 1876 and
1926 that the definition in our Constitution still applied back when Babe Ruth
was setting homerun records. But growth
since then has created fundamentally different organizations; see chart on next
page: “LOCAL CONTROL in Agate and Campo has a different meaning than in DPS and
Jeffco. True?”
And with the
passage of the charter school law in 1993 “control of instruction in the
public schools of their respective districts” began to change. That phrase from the Constitution had one
meaning in 1994 for the Denver and Jefferson County school board before they
opened their first charters (Clayton Charter in DPS; Center for
Discovery Learning and Collegiate Charter Academy in Jeffco).
It has a different meaning
in 2014 with 46 charters in DPS and 17 in Jeffco—and 218 charters across
the state, enrolling 11% of K-12 Colorado students (http://www.coloradoleague.org/?page=charterschoolfacts). One example: School boards approve of a waiver request from
state law in which they, in effect, outsource—or surrender—to the schools what
has been the board’s responsibility: “To determine the educational programs to
be carried on in the schools of the districts and to prescribe the textbooks
for any course of instruction or study in such programs.” (22-32-109 – 1
(t)). And this is just one of 23
“automatic waivers” granted most charters regarding Local Board Duties
(22-32-109), Local Board Powers (22-32-110), the Teacher Employment Act
(22-32-63)—and more. (See Addendum A)
Obviously the local board in Denver, for example, is not
in “control” of what takes place in its semi-autonomous 46 schools. Many of us celebrate this change: no more
“one size fits all,” and a healthy diversity in the curriculum and instructional
practices. I have visited DPS schools that are part of the STRIVE, DSST,
Highline Academy and Girls Athletic League networks, as well as Ace Community
Challenge, Odyssey School, Rocky Mountain Prep, and Wyatt Academy. “Local control,” if we wish to apply that
term, is essentially in the hands of these schools—not 900 Grant Street. (con’t on p. 4)
LOCAL CONTROL in Agate
and Campo has a different meaning than in DPS and Jeffco. True?
Same words,
different meanings
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to
the Republic for which it stands….”
Words have different meanings in different contexts.
“The People’s Republic of China” carries a different meaning of republic than it does for us. China makes claims to “human rights” and
“democracy,” but in our country we define those terms differently. (See “What
China means by ‘democracy’” - http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/11/economist-explains-21)
District
& # of students enrolled – 2013 figures
|
||||
Agate 300
|
12
|
Does anyone doubt that “local control” in our
small districts – left – with no more than three schools—has a different
meaning than it does in our “big 12”—right?
Does anyone disagree that “local control” in
the Douglas County School District, which enrolled about 12,000 students when
I arrived in Colorado in 1990, has—or ought to have—a different meaning for
today’s district, with over 66,000 students?
|
Greeley 6
|
20,450
|
Campo Re-6
|
44
|
|||
Kim Reorganized 88
|
46
|
Mesa County Valley 51
|
21,894
|
|
Pritchett Re-3
|
53
|
|||
Silverton 1
|
64
|
Academy 20
|
24,481
|
|
Liberty J-4
|
69
|
|||
Plainview Re-2
|
72
|
Colorado Springs 11
|
28,404
|
|
Creede School District
|
80
|
|||
Hinsdale County Re 1
|
80
|
Poudre R-1
|
28,439
|
|
Pawnee Re-12
|
88
|
|||
Woodlin R-104
|
90
|
St
Vrain Valley Re 1J
|
30,195
|
|
Karval Re-23
|
100
|
|||
Aguilar Reorganized 6
|
107
|
|||
Platte Valley Re-3
|
109
|
Boulder
Valley Re 2
|
30,546
|
|
Arickaree R-2
|
114
|
|||
Kit Carson R-1
|
114
|
|||
Hi-Plains R-23
|
121
|
Adams-Arapahoe
28J
|
40,877
|
|
Lone Star 101
|
121
|
|||
Vilas Re-5
|
127
|
|||
Bethune R-5
|
132
|
Adams
12 Five Star Schools
|
42,230
|
|
Mountain Valley Re 1
|
135
|
|||
Manzanola 3J
|
137
|
|||
De Beque 49Jt
|
146
|
Cherry
Creek 5
|
54,226
|
|
Walsh Re-1
|
156
|
|||
Briggsdale Re-10
|
162
|
|||
Deer Trail 26J
|
176
|
|||
Genoa-Hugo C113
|
178
|
|||
Cheyenne County Re-5
|
179
|
|||
Eads Re-1
|
181
|
Douglas
County Re1
|
66,230
|
|
Idalia Rj-3
|
182
|
|||
Stratton R-4
|
186
|
|||
Arriba-Flagler C-20
|
187
|
|||
Moffat 2
|
189
|
|||
Edison 54 Jt
|
191
|
Jefferson
County R-1
_________________________
Denver
Public Schools
|
85,983
|
|
La Veta Re-2
|
191
|
|||
Plateau Re-5
|
196
|
|||
Prairie Re-11
|
196
|
|||
Primero Reorganized 2
|
196
|
86,043
|
||
Ouray R-1
|
197
|
|||
Elbert 200
|
198
|
|||
Granada Re-1
|
202
|
|||
(con’t from p. 2)
Moreover, when we see that 11 of the 22 schools rated
Distinguished on Denver’s School Performance Framework are charter schools,
such local ownership—schools with their
own governing boards—our school boards and our central offices have to accept
that greater freedom can lead to
great results.
In 2015, then, the
size of our largest districts and the impact of “local control” by
semi-autonomous schools will demand that we re-examine this term. It cannot be seen as a magic talisman when
its definition is so amorphous—or even (in a district with 86,000 students) an
oxymoron. Especially, I would add, when “local control” is now used as a defense
against appropriate measures of accountability.
2. Just as the Copernican Revolution gave us a
new way of seeing our solar system—and much more—we will realize that the K-12
education system does not revolve around the school district.
A corollary: We will realize that the school—school
leaders, teachers, and staff—matter most (not the superintendent, not the central
office, and not the school board).
Re-interpreting
local control for today’s realities will cause us to renounce a world view that
put school districts at the center of the K-12 universe. It took us 15 centuries to accept that our galaxy,
to say nothing of the universe, does not revolve around the Earth. Call it ignorance, or arrogance—either way,
the establishment sure put up a fight (Galileo facing the Inquisition) when
challenged to see the Earth was NOT the hub of the wheel. In 2015 we will undergo our own Copernican
reset. No doubt the education
establishment will resist, but we will place the school where it belongs; it
will no longer be seen as just one of 9—or 179!—planets spinning around the
source of light and life itself: the district.
Views of the universe:
Ptolemy vs. Copernicus
Ptolemy's model:
"Earth-centered," or "geocentric"
Ptolemy (100 A.D. – 168 A.D. ?)
|
Copernicus’ model:
"Sun-centered,"
or "heliocentric"
Copernicus (1473-1543)
|
When we place each school at the center of the K-12
universe,
with parents in the orbit of Mercury,
the school’s immediate community in the orbit of Venus, and the district out there—oh say 93,000,000 miles
away—about where Earth revolves
around our sun, with the state much farther out, with Jupiter and Saturn, and let’s
put the federal government on the edge our galaxy, near poor old Pluto, 3.6 billion miles away from the
school – then we will envision the
K-12 system in a better way! (As for consultants and newsletter writers, given
their uselessness, I hear there’s an even more distant region of space called the
Oort cloud….)
Earlier
this fall, when we read the following study, was anyone really surprised?
District
Leadership - "School Superintendents: Vital or Irrelevant?" (Sept.
17, 2014)
Superintendents have very little influence on student achievement
in their districts, a report suggests.
The Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution examined the role of
superintendents in Florida and
North Carolina … The study found that hiring a new superintendent has little or
no meaningful impact on student achievement, nor is there any association with
superintendent turnover and improvements in student test scores.
It analyzed a decade's worth of 4th and 5th grade mathematics test
scores in North Carolina, and found that superintendents accounted for only 0.3
percent of student differences in achievement—a statistically significant but
small effect.
The
same could be said, I believe, of the huge number of folks in the central
office in Denver, Jeffco, and any of our 13 school districts serving over 20,000
students (page 3). And ditto for school
board members. This is not to dismiss the incredible commitment and hard work
of most superintendents, board members, and district personnel. It is simply
common sense, in my view. We can’t keep saying that good principals and
teachers make the biggest difference in a school’s success for kids, and then
pretend that decisions made some late night at a school board meeting deserve
front page news.
In
2015, happily, as we rediscover that responsibility and authority for what
happens in a school should largely be in the hands of those IN THE SCHOOL and
IN THAT SCHOOL’S COMMUNITY (which is not the entire city of Denver or the 770
square miles of Jefferson County!), we will question the absurd amount of time
spent by district leaders, staff, and board members preparing for and sitting
in school board meetings, which spend an amazing amount of time on matters that
have remarkably little consequence for the teaching and learning of our students. It looks important. Often it is not.
Surely
not as important as what takes place where parents send their kids, where
students and teachers show up every day, where learning and attention to the
individual boy or girl and kindness and laughter and guidance and encouragement
do or do not happen. The school.
“Ptolemy thought,” we read, “that all celestial objects —
including the planets, Sun, Moon, and stars — orbited Earth. Earth, in the
center of the universe, did not move at all.”
Kind of like the education system, at times.
Three
cheers to 2015 – when we re-define “local control” in a way that moves our
schools back to the center of K-12 education.
Another View, a newsletter by Peter
Huidekoper, represents his own opinion and is not intended to represent the
view of any organization he is associated with.
Comments are welcome. 303-757-1225 / peterhdkpr@gmail.com
Addendum A
Waiver Request Guidance
- Charter Schools (from CDE*)
Automatic Waivers are waivers from state statute and rule that do not
require approval of the state board of education. These waivers have been
identified over time as those that should be easier to receive either because
they contradict the intent of the Charter School Act in terms of autonomies
offered to charter schools, or have been requested so frequently that it is
deemed more efficient for both the state and local boards.
CHARTER
SCHOOL WAIVER REQUESTS
Last
Modified: 12/14/2012
State Statute Citation Description
22-9-106 Local
Board Duties Concerning Performance Evaluations
22-32-109(1)(b) Local Board
Duties Concerning Competitive Bidding
22-32-109(1)(f) Local
Board Duties Concerning Selection of Staff, and Pay
22-32-109(1)(n)(I) Local
Board Duties Concerning School Calendar
22-32-109(1)(n)(II)(A) Determine
teacher-pupil contact hours
22-32-109(1)(n)(II)(B) Adopt
district calendar
22-32-109(1)(t) Local
Board Duties Concerning Textbooks and Curriculum – “To determine the
educational program to be carried on in the schools of the district and to
prescribe the textbooks for any course of instruction or study in such
programs.”
22-32-126 Employment
and Authority of Principals
22-32-110(1)(h) Local Board
Powers-Terminate employment of personnel
22-32-110(1)(i) Local
Board Powers-Reimburse employees for expenses
22-32-110(1)(j) Local
Board Powers-Procure life, health, or accident insurance
22-32-110(1)(k) Local Board
Powers-Policies relating to in service training and official conduct
22-32-110(1)(ee) Local Board Powers-Employ teachers'
aides and other non-certificated personnel
22-33-104(4) Compulsory
School Attendance-Attendance policies and excused absences
22-63-2011 Teacher
Employment Act - Compensation & Dismissal Act-Requirement to hold
a certificate
22-63-202 Teacher
Employment Act - Contracts in writing, damage provision
22-63-203 Teacher
Employment Act-Requirements for probationary teacher, renewal &
nonrenewal
22-63-206 Teacher
Employment Act-Transfer of teachers
22-63-301 Teacher
Employment Act-Grounds for dismissal
22-63-302 Teacher
Employment Act-Procedures for dismissal of teachers
22-63-401 Teacher
Employment Act-Teachers subject to adopted salary schedule
22-63-402 Teacher
Employment Act-Certificate required to pay teachers
22-63-403 Teacher
Employment Act-Describes payment of salaries
*http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/documents/cdechart/download/waiverguidance_121312.pdf
[1] Our 15 largest school district, “with a total enrollment of 596,868, represent 68 percent
of the total statewide enrollment. On the other end of the size spectrum, 136
of Colorado’s 185 local education agencies (excluding detention centers) have
an enrollment of fewer than 2,000 students. These 136 agencies currently enroll
7.9 percent of the total number of students in the state.” http://www.cde.state.co.us/communications/20140114pupilcount
No comments:
Post a Comment