READ THE LATEST FROM EDDIE

Are great teachers just born that way, or is there a proven method to train many instructors to become much more effective? In one of the most fascinating (and longest) education articles out there, Elizabeth Green wrote in the New York Times Sunday magazine about “Building a Better Teacher.” The experts she talked to suggest that the answer may be the latter, that there are specific methods and techniques (and a new vocabulary of teaching terms) that can be used more successfully train high-quality instructors. However, over at Education Next, Harvard’s Paul Peterson says one of Green’s key conclusions is misguided: …She says we will need millions of additional teachers to cover baby boom retirements, and wonders how we can find enough good ones. The answer is that we can’t–not even with more effective education schools or elaborate merit pay programs or by ruthlessly dismissing ineffective teachers.

The Denver Post‘s website yesterday published an opinion column by Alliance for Choice in Education executive director Norton Rainey, decrying the “unsurprising” but disappointing defeat of House Bill 1296: HB 1296 would have provided low-income families with an annual $1,000 tax credit for enrolling their child in a private school. The bill would also have provided a grant of $1,000 to any public school that loses a student to a private school as a consequence of the tax credit. The legislation would have given low-income families a financial incentive to send their child to a private school, reduced public school class sizes as more children took advantage of the tax credit, and provided public schools with a $1,000 grant to help them give the children that remain a better quality education. What’s more, HB 1296 would have saved the state millions of dollar, according to the official fiscal note prepared by Legislative Council: $4.9 million in savings for the first year, $6.9 million in the second year, and as much as $26 million by 2022. [link added]

I pause from my regularly scheduled juvenile opining to acknowledge the passing of someone who gave many years of service to the state of Colorado — including many on behalf of public education. He and I wouldn’t have agreed on every issue, but there’s no doubt he was independent in thought, well-informed in his views, and passionate in his work. I’m talking about former Arvada state senator Al Meiklejohn, who died Monday at age 86 and will be put to final rest today. As reported in this week’s Denver Post obituary, Meiklejohn served six years on the Jefferson County Board of Education and “constantly pushed for public-school reform and better salaries for teachers.” For his service he has a Jeffco elementary school named after him. You know Senator Meiklejohn was a man of influence and stature when in the week of his death he has received such high praise from two very different sides of the education spectrum.

It’s March — which means, if you like basketball as much as I do, there’s a really big tournament coming up. And after a team wins two games in that tourney, then they become part of the cleverly named “Sweet Sixteen.” But what about states that filled out applications for competitive federal K-12 grant money? How does it work out for them? Well U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan is a big basketball fan, too, and was once a good college basketball player. No doubt about that. So in one sense I understand why this morning Duncan announced 16 states are finalists for the first round of Race to the Top money. Colorado, which asked for $377 million to implement reforms, is among them. Since no one knows exactly how many grant awards will be distributed, it’s hard to say how this all will play out and whether states will even get the amount they asked for. But Colorado hasn’t helped itself with a consensus approach, which among other things has created a council to study how to tie teacher tenure and evaluations to student academic growth, rather than actually try to fix the law itself. And today Ed News Colorado […]

The Denver Post followed up its Sunday story on local school district expenditures with an editorial today that says “Shine the light on school spending”: A bill now advancing in the General Assembly would require school districts to make budget information available online, including discretionary spending. House Bill 1036 argues that districts ought to take advantage of technology to allow for greater transparency. We question whether a mandate is needed, but agree with the intent and urge districts to use the technology on their own. As my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow noted in his recent report “What Should School District Financial Transparency Look Like?” (PDF), HB 1036 is a small step forward but a relatively weak mandate.

If you can dig way back into your memory banks, four months ago the Colorado Supreme Court decided it had a say in determining the state’s school funding policy — giving new life to the Lobato v State lawsuit. Recently, two of the plaintiff lobbying groups have been urging local school boards to agree to help pay the legal fees. In essence, this means taxpayers are funding both sides of a lawsuit to force taxpayers to spend more money on schools. As News 5’s Andy Koen reports, Colorado Springs School District 11 last week voted to spend $50,000 on the lawsuit, even though a Democrat state legislator says the money simply isn’t there in the budget, and an education legal expert says these lawsuits are ineffective (click here to watch a 2-minute video of the news story):

In recent weeks I’ve told you about the recent successes Colorado has seen in the area of school financial transparency — namely, the detailed online financial databases created by two of the state’s three largest districts (Jeffco and Douglas County). Yesterday the Denver Post‘s Jeremy Meyer and Burt Hubbard reported some of what can be learned by having an easier peek behind the financial curtain: Spending on items other than salaries and bonuses by the Jefferson County and Douglas County school districts totaled $106 million and $91 million, respectively, from July 2009 to mid-February this year. And while the bulk of that money is spent on necessary supplies for maintenance of schools, and for direct classroom expenses (such as books, office supplies and other items), millions are spent annually on restaurants, travel and training.

I know this sounds a little weird, but I think I’m experiencing a bad case of deja vu. The topics of three posts I wrote last week all re-emerged this Friday morning: On Monday the 15th I noted that the school spending transparency debate had returned to the State Capitol. While Senate Bill 91 here was killed, I see that our neighbors to the Southwest – Arizona – are giving serious consideration to a bill that would bring detailed spending transparency to public school agencies and all other governments. On Wednesday the 17th I highlighted our new podcast with Harrison superintendent Mike Miles about his district’s groundbreaking performance-based teacher pay program. Today the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) posted their interview with Miles about the very same topic in its weekly Teacher Quality Bulletin. Last but not least, on Thursday the 18th I brought your attention to Rick Hess’s new blog and promised to cut back on using the “It’s For the Kid” line. This morning the Education Intelligence Agency’s Mike Antonucci observes that it didn’t take very long for NEA to help make Hess’s argument for him. Here’s hoping the month of March brings something new. Have a […]

The same day that I promised to stay away from using the “it’s for the kids” line to make an argument, the Denver Post published an online column by University of Northern Colorado education professor Spencer Weiler doing just that: …Colorado is only as strong as the quality of education children throughout the state receive each day. And the quality of education is directly correlated with the funding the state ensures for its public schools. Money matters when it comes to educating children. It is with that backdrop that I wish to comment on the state’s failure to adequately fund public schools and the current fiscal crisis. When Colorado passed Amendment 23 in 2000 the state was $696 below the national average in per-pupil funding. We are now over $1,400 below the national average in per-pupil spending and the gap will continue to grow as a result of the current recession…. Let me explain…. No, let me sum up. According to Dr. Weiler, we must take away reasonable controls on the growth of government and the right of citizens to vote on tax increases because Colorado schools aren’t funded as much as in many other states. In other words, it’s […]

Ed News Colorado’s top-line story today details the “surprising findings” of a new National Association of Charter School Authorizers report that a majority of Denver Public Schools students attend schools that don’t meet district performance expectations: “There are 20,000 elementary school students in the Denver Public Schools system who … don’t have a performing elementary school to go to,” said NACSA vice president William Haft. “That’s half the elementary-aged students in the system.” Discouraging results? In some sense, yes. But we have known that a lot of hard work remains before us in improving educational outcomes for American students, especially poorer students in urban settings. And the fact that Denver actually has been serious about establishing and using a performance framework puts the district ahead of some of its peers. The report is fascinating, with a lot of detailed information, so it’s worth a read. But one observation highlighted in the Ed News Colorado story caught my attention: