Peter Huidekoper, Jr.
Oct. 7, 2014
An independent voter’s thoughts on the gubernatorial
campaign prior to Nov. 4
"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 August 1, 1876. (Bold mine.)
“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—to me, it should look more like a
charter school governed by parents and community leaders than a vast Houston-
or Chicago-style citywide agency …. the
vast majority of U.S. schools remain locked in structures that may have made
sense around 1900, but not in 2014.” “American Education in 2014: Where We’ve Come, What’s Ahead,”
Checker Finn, Education Week, 8/27/14.
|
See
page 4 for my suggestion on how the Jeffco board, teachers, and students
might find common ground: real “local control” through waivers.
|
The mistakes made by the
Jefferson County school board led Lesley Dahlkemper, now in the minority on the
five-person board, to say, “A lot of us believe there shouldn’t be partisan
politics in education” (Denver
Post, 9/28/14). As much as I’d like
to agree, good luck with that.
We vote for the school board
members in our districts, for the seven individuals on our state school board,
and then we find—surprise, surprise—they have convictions that overlap with
their political beliefs and—what a shock—that those political views play a role
in who the local board hires as a superintendent, and who the state board picks
as our Commissioner of Education. Leaders who then in turn work for a board
elected by the polis—i.e., us.
Not only do we vote for our state
and local school board, but for those state leaders—politicians in political
office—who bring their partisan positions in deciding laws that impact 1,800
schools and nearly 900,000 students.
We can’t escape it. Public schools, funded with public dollars. In most Colorado
districts today, the majority of funds supporting our schools are state funds,
not money raised by local property taxes.[1]
This former
teacher knows the mindset of many educators towards lawmakers who draw up
school policy: Please don’t stick your nose in K-12 matters! Stop with the you-think-you-know-best
legislation! Leave us alone! But we’re dreaming. Of Colorado’s general fund in 2014-15, 48.5%
goes to education (see next page).
Follow the money. Of course our
elected officials will have their say, whether we like it or not.
Politics and education. I won’t
fall back on, “It is what it is,” as I am sure we can rethink the structures to
create a healthier environment for public education. Which I will only hint at here. But with Election
Day four weeks away, a few thoughts from an independent voter disappointed by
the bland conversation (debate? what
debate?) about K-12 education in the gubernatorial campaign.
A clear
vision for K-12 education? Where are we headed?
I will hardly be the first to ask who, here in 2014, stands out as our
leading spokesperson for better schools?
Who offers a clear vision of the need for a stronger K-12 public
education? Who ties together the various
strands of leadership and teaching, standards and assessment, choice and
accountability to explain to Coloradans where we are, and where we need to go?
Does anyone find either of our
two major candidates offering useful insights on the main challenges facing our
schools, or any meaningful proposals for improvement? I know, it’s terribly narrow-minded of me, a
slightly education-obsessed individual, to want the person who would lead Colorado—in
which P-12 Education is the number #1 item in the general fund budget (41.1% in
2014-15, compared to item #2, Health & Human Services, and where another
7.4% goes to Higher Education)—to show a strong understanding of and a deep
concern for public education.
Composition
of FY 2014-15 General Fund and State Education Fund Budget, $ in Millions*
P-12
Education - $4,246 – 41.1%
Health &
Human Services - $3,154 – 30.5%
Higher Education
- $762 - 7.4%
*Colorado Office of State Planning and Budgeting - The
Colorado Economic Outlook – Sept. 2014 (see Fig. 24)
And yes,
narrow minded of me to wonder why a full page profile in the Denver Post on each man, Hickenlooper
and Beauprez, managed to say nothing on K-12 education. Zilch.
When our next governor oversees a budget where 41.1% goes to K-12. (Or did I already say that?) It did not surprise me that Sunday’s Denver Post endorsement of Hickenlooper
made no mention of K-12 education. Not
much to say.
We read of the Hickenlooper-Beauprez
debate September 26. Any discernment
here? Any depth?
Governor, opponent talk schools
Beauprez,
Hickenlooper address curriculum flap
The Durango Herald
DENVER – The two
main candidates for governor in Colorado were asked during a forum Friday to
discuss mounting tensions between students, teachers and Jefferson County
Public Schools….
Multiple days of
student protests have gained national attention after the conservative school
board majority in Jeffco proposed a new curriculum review committee….
Beauprez said it
is important for the school board to evaluate curriculum, and he said if
community members don’t like the outcome, then they can judge at the polls.
The Jefferson
County school board tilted to the right after the 2013 election.
“An elected
school board not only has the right to speak up about curriculum and what they
think are the wisest choices ... but they have an obligation to do that,”
Beauprez said.
Hickenlooper
said lessons should include a wide range of issues.
“You want your kids
to learn about Dr. Martin Luther King, but you also want them to learn about
the Boston Tea Party,” Hickenlooper said. “You want them to learn about all of
history.”
Somewhere, in a galaxy far, far away – or perhaps when Roy Romer (D) or
Bill Owens (R) led the state –we might have heard more thoughtful comments from
those who would be our governor. Asking
voters, perhaps, if “local control” by a 5-person school board overseeing
86,000 students is still a useful definition of local control. Perhaps commenting that in 112 of our 185
districts—small rural districts that
|
“Local control” – a different meaning,
based on size
A board of
5 or 7 – for districts of 20,000 or more students
Denver
Public Schools (86,043 students)*
Jeffco
Public Schools (85,983)
Douglas
County Schools (66,230)
Cherry
Creek Schools (54,226)
Adams
12 Five Star Schools (42,230)
Aurora
Public Schools (40,877)
Boulder
Valley School District (30,546)
St.
Vrain Valley School District (30,195)
Poudre
School District (28,439)
Colorado
Springs School District 11 (28,404)
Academy
School District 20 (24,481)
Mesa
County Valley School District 51 (21,894)
Greeley-Evans
School District 6 (20,450)
vs.
A board of 5
- 7 – for districts of 1,000 or fewer students
In Colorado, 112 districts enroll fewer than 1,000
students.
|
serve under 1,000 students—local
control actually means just that; but in DPS, Jeffco, and our largest districts
(see box), here in 2014, the words chosen in the 19th century have
lost their meaning.
In fact, the Jeffco fiasco should
give Denver’s former mayor a chance to note that the DPS school board has transferred “local control” over
curriculum to over one third of its 183 schools: 43 charters and 18 innovation
schools. My word choice—if you think
about where that control was 50 or 100 years ago (and where it remains in most
Colorado districts)—would not be transferred,
but rather returned—put authority back in the hands of the principals in
the other district serving over
86,000 students. Someone needs to point
out that we’re debating what three board members think is right for 86,000
students in part because the governance structure for our K-12 schools no longer
represents true local control.
The Jeffco story also gives a
candidate like Beauprez, eager for less “federal intrusion” in Colorado
schools, a perfect opportunity to explain to his fellow conservatives that this
outdated structure grants too much authority to a few school board members in
our bigger districts. He could point
out that so-called local control in such communities can be as intrusive on our
schools as anything Washington, D.C., has concocted. He could be bold and propose that all public schools
be granted the waivers from rules and regulations that have proved so helpful
to charter schools (see page 4).
Let’s try again. A second debate, a few
days later. Any better?
Hickenlooper,
Beauprez talk education funding during debate
Chalkbeat Colorado - Sept. 30, 2014
Hickenlooper, commenting on the
voters; rejection of Amendment 66:
“[T]hey
want to see smaller, local based funding for their schools,” Hickenlooper said.
“They want to make sure they control what can happen in their schools — how
much is going to go to teachers, how much is goes to the building.”
MY COMMENT: Smaller? And if
voters want “want to make sure they control what can happen in their schools,” they
won’t choose an antiquated structure where a board has “control” over 155
schools—true?
In his rebuttal, Beauprez pledged to expedite student achievement,
especially third grade reading levels.
“We’re going to bring opportunity to every
child that has a chance to learn how to read,” Beauprez said.
MY COMMENT: OK, but we need specifics
on HOW “we’re going” to do this. Who
does it well? Following what practices? And what will be the state commitment
to early childhood to help achieve this goal?
Beauprez, Common Core, and local control
In AV#115, I challenged the “marketplace”
vision for schools offered by Hickenlooper and many other state leaders: “Sorry,
Governor(s), but the purpose of education is not ... a job.” So, to be equitable in my criticism, let me
now challenge Mr. Beauprez. I realize he
can be more nuanced in his comments on education than we have seen in the
debates. One of the more informative
pieces on Beauprez and education is available at watchdogwire.com, summarizing
a Sept. 3 conference call. I responded there to one phrase that
felt inaccurate; I applaud the candidate’s commitment to choice and local
control, but I do not believe they are compromised by our new standards. Beauprez insists that Colorado should opt out
of Common Core, in part, he says, as this will bring families “greater choice
in education.” I wrote there that in
reviewing charter applications for the Colorado League of Charter schools for
many years, I find the recent proposals continue to represent a wide range of
educational choices and curriculum—all committed to meeting the Colorado Academic
Standards.
For the 100th
time, “standards are not curriculum.” (My
response is at http://watchdogwire.com/colorado/2014/09/04/bob-beauprez-local-education/)
(NOTE: In AV#82-Aug. 2011
and AV#112-April 2014 I wrote on the merits of Common Core and how well it
matches up to the guidelines in Core Knowledge schools, which have drawn much
of their support in Colorado from conservative families. I am happy to send any reader a copy of these
newsletters.)
To our gubernatorial candidates: This is
important
I taught Laura, one of my favorite students, over 10 years ago in
middle school. When I saw her this
summer I was not thrilled to hear her say that some students in our class were
a little scared of me. But I didn’t mind
the next sentence: “You were so into it, it seemed so important to you.”
It still is. Gov. Hickenlooper
and Mr. Beauprez have devoted a good portion of their lives to public service,
and I respect them for it. But—I hope
without sounding condescending—on policies pertaining to K-12 education, they
remind me of the 7th grade boys in the back row, half asleep. As I had occasion to do in a classroom, this
is my tap on their shoulder to say: “John, Bob - wake up guys. This is
important.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________
A suggestion for a charter-friendly
school board and disgruntled teachers and students:
In light of the events in
Jeffco, I imagine a number of parents and teachers might meet with their school
principal and ask for some of the key waivers that charter schools have received
in order to operate with greater freedom from district control. Perhaps beginning with these two rules:
From the Charter Schools Act
22-30.5-102. Legislative
declaration.
(1)
The general assembly hereby finds and declares that:
(b) … the best education decisions are made by those who know the
students best and who are responsible for implementing the decisions, and,
therefore, that educators and parents have a right and responsibility to
participate in the education institutions which serve them. (Colorado School Laws)
|
C.R.S. § 22-32-109. Board of Education-specific duties
C.R.S. § 22-32-110.
Board of Education-specific powers
I imagine teachers and
students at Arvada West, Columbine, Conifer, Golden, Jefferson, Lakewood,
Ralston Valley, and other Jeffco high schools will especially see the benefits
of obtaining a waiver on C.R.S. § 22-32-109 (l)(t), which has been so helpful to charter schools seeking
to commit to their own curriculum. No school board overstepping its role, as
long as you meet state standards.
C.R.S. § 22-32-109(l)(t)- Grants board of education authority
to determine the educational program to be carried
on in schools of the district
and to prescribe textbooks.
As Jeffco’s board majority has
been so supportive of the greater school autonomy and flexibility granted to
charters, it seems natural that it would support such waivers. A step towards more genuine “local
control.” Imagine. It could become a school
board’s counterpart to Mikhail Gorbachev’s “perestroika.” Bring an end a system that is still too
top-down. Return authority and
responsibility to each school, where it belongs.
[1] Public School Finance – CDE web site –
“In budget year 2014-15, this legislation
provides for over $5.9 billion of funding to Colorado school districts via
state taxes ($3.95 billion), local specific ownership (vehicle registration)
taxes ($135.4 million), and local property taxes ($1.85 billion).” - See more
at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdefinance#sthash.SoPrMLY5.dpuf
No comments:
Post a Comment