A new law aimed at saving millions of teaching jobs and protecting school programs across the country may not accomplish either goal here in Rhode Island.

Instead, Governor Carcieri intends to use the $32.9 million Rhode Island is eligible to receive to plug an estimated $38-million deficit in this year’s budget.

Now, let me be clear: I don’t necessarily see this same sort of scenario happening in Colorado. But how many other states will use the federal printing presses and the public sympathies “for the children” to take some of the education jobs money in order to cover general shortages in their budgets?

Because we still don’t know the extent of how many teacher and other school employee positions actually have been cut, much less how many of those cuts are needful corrections of past hiring binges as opposed to serious shortages. Somehow, I have a very difficult time believing there are $10 billion worth of the latter. And Rhode Island is just doing what it can… with your federal tax dollars.

First, Education Next recently released the results of its 2010 annual survey. The bottom line?

With the exceptions of school spending and teacher tenure, the divisions between ordinary Democrats and Republicans on education policy matters are quite minor. To be sure, disagreements among Americans continue to linger. Indeed, with the exception of student and school accountability measures, Americans as a whole do not stand steadfastly behind any single reform proposal. Yet the most salient divisions appear to be within, not between, the political parties. And we find growing support for several strategies put forward in recent years by leaders of both political parties—most notably online education and merit pay.

In particular, Education Next’s Paul Peterson and Marty West talk about the growing support for charter schools — most notably among minority groups and parents who live in neighborhoods where charter schools operate.

Second, this morning the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released its latest version of the Report Card on American Education. Matthew Ladner, Andrew LeFevre and Dan Lips analyze and rate each state on two basic frameworks:

1. Measured performance and academic growth among the state’s low-income students; and
2. The quality of the state’s education policies in the areas of choice, accountability and educator effectiveness

Interestingly, Colorado ranks 17th in the former category and second nationally in the latter category. (Which is the only state leading Colorado? You guessed it: Florida.)

As we move forward, I hope both sets of data help to inform Colorado’s education reform strategies and efforts.

That may be true, but I do like to understand where the people running for office stand on education issues, so I was glad to see today’s story by Todd Engdahl in Ed News Colorado on Democratic candidate John Hickenlooper’s education agenda — which breaks down the campaign’s official issue brief:

Education needs to be about what is best for our kids and that means raising the level of their achievement in knowledge and skills necessary to be successful adults. We must continue our investment in building a 21st Century education system in Colorado. Without a strong education system, job creation and economic development cannot be sustained. Making Colorado synonomous [sic] with innovation has to include supporting great teachers, and engaging parents and local communities as partners to improve our schools.

Key Priorities

• Build on the work that is currently underway involving the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) to develop a more strategic assessment tool to inform and impact student outcomes and respond accordingly.
• Improve transparency in our school districts and hold leaders responsible while giving them the authority and tools to effectuate change.
• Develop and support better teachers and better principals using more integrated technologies across the State.
• Create and expand career-oriented partnerships with community-based organizations and businesses.

I know: Some thoughtful broad-stroke ideas, but not a lot of depth. It’s actually pretty good as campaign policy documents go (spelling goof aside), and much more substantive and engaged than any education briefs I’ve seen from other gubernatorial candidates.

Though to be fair, the other candidates deserve time to weigh in. In addition to placing a footnote or two so readers know who says Colorado ranks 12th or 28th in this or that, they also should be careful about the claims they make that could be challenged by statistics. From the Hickenlooper education brief:

One of the biggest challenges we face is that other states are spending more on education than we are. Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico and Wyoming all spend more per pupil than Colorado. In fact only two neighboring states (Arizona and Utah) spend less on education than we do.

Wait… Not so fast! A look at the most recent financial data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) show that Colorado ranks ahead of all neighboring states except Wyoming and Nebraska in total dollars spent per student (chart below compiled from Table 6 and Table 8 of revenue and expenditure data):

NCES 2007-08 Total Spending Per Pupil
And of course, a look at static rankings leaves out the perspective of how much per-pupil education funding in Colorado and the nation has grown over time, using real dollars for comparison.

Hats off to the Hickenlooper team to weigh in first on education issues, setting a high bar for a substantive discussion. Hopefully, they clean up the typo and clarify the claim about Colorado’s K-12 funding record while listing more sources. But maybe this post just all goes to show how much of a little geek I can be (in which case I may give out a letter grade later).

Why? Because some of the fuel behind getting the State Board to adopt the interstate educational compact was the value it would add to the state’s RTTT application — despite objections laid out by state senator Keith King (R-Colorado Springs) and others. Word on the street is that some local school officials have been raising the specter of repeal, feeding on the RTTT loss to add momentum to their cause.

In a new blog post, the State Board’s Marcia Neal (R-Grand Junction) reasserted her deep skepticism toward federal involvement in education and what she sees as a course of action leading Colorado down a path toward greater national dictates on our schools:

We’re told Washington doesn’t understand local control. Might I provide an example School districts and personnel, as well as the public, have been very involved in the development of Colorado standards, adopted by the SBE in May, 2010. Following adoption of the Common Core (by 4-3 vote), anxious to move forward, they asked us what they should do next. The answer…nothing, “wait until we find out.” Is that not indicative of the future?

One thing the R2T announcement made clear, Colorado is one of the leaders in educational reform. Others are woefully unprepared. Are we to wait for them or are they to make a gigantic leap forward? We already work and collaborate with other high achieving states like Massachusetts, Indiana and others.

Given the current state of events, two of the State Board members who voted to adopt Common Core — Republican Randy DeHoff and Democrat Elaine Gantz-Berman — penned the column “Standards a must for schools” for Sunday’s Denver Post, seeking to allay fears:

The only role the federal government has played in encouraging states to adopt the Common Core was to tie it to points earned in the Race to the Top grant application. Although Colorado is disappointed that we did not earn a Race to the Top grant, we firmly believe adopting the Common Core was the right step….

There is healthy skepticism that adopting the standards will lead to too much federal intrusion in our classrooms. But standards don’t tell us what to teach or how to teach it. Rather, they describe at what level students must grasp the depth and complexity of subjects at each grade level.

Those seriously interested in rolling back or repealing Colorado’s adoption of the Common Core standards would have to change the mind of one of the four original Yes votes to be successful. That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen.

What about in 2011? At least two new members will join the Board: It looks like they will be Republicans Paul Lundeen and Deb Scheffel. Lundeen has sent an open letter to the State Board declaring his opposition to Common Core. Scheffel — who also has a Democratic opponent William Townend running in her overwhelmingly Republican district — most likely will fill Randy DeHoff’s seat. Where she stands on the issue might foretell the fate of the movement to see Colorado “unadopt” Common Core.

I’m not sure if she was thinking it would happen this week, but open up the opinion section of today’s Denver Post, and you’ll see a guest column written by Cherry Creek educator Brian Kurz titled “Go back and fix SB 191.” My modest suggestion would be for the author to go back and check some of his facts and assumptions. First:

[Bill sponsor] Michael Johnston authored SB 191 and pushed its passage as a way to better position Colorado for Race to the Top money. Johnston knew first-hand the obvious flaws with both the language of [sic] bill and the ambiguity of how to achieve its goals. Despite the lack of specifics, the bill was Colorado’s chance at a $175 million lottery.

While Johnston certainly expressed hopes of winning Race to the Top, I don’t know how many times he scrupulously stated that SB 191 was the right thing to do regardless of Race to the Top — something he expressed in public legislative meetings and on widely-heard radio interviews. By the same token, I can’t say we’ve heard Johnston expound on the “obvious flaws” and “ambiguities” in SB 191, but Mr. Kurz seems to know the bill sponsor’s mind.

What “obvious flaws” and “ambiguities”? Check out this rhetorical sleight of hand:

During debate about the bill, the Colorado Education Association and other concerned opponents brought up several problems with the language in the legislation. No definitions for “growth” or “effective education” were provided. No consideration was given to teachers of students with extreme truancy issues. No latitude was provided for students whose home lives made performance at school a challenging endeavor. Instead, Colorado’s teachers, families and students were told that a blue ribbon panel would decide what growth and effective teaching meant after the passage of the bill….

Where do I begin? First, who were the “other concerned opponents”? That’s right. CEA was pretty much all alone in opposing this commonsense legislation.

Second, the bill was clearly amended to give consideration to several mitigating factors (“EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENT ACADEMIC GROWTH SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION DIVERSE FACTORS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SPECIAL EDUCATION, STUDENT MOBILITY, AND CLASSROOMS WITH A STUDENT POPULATION IN WHICH NINETY-FIVE PERCENT MEET THE DEFINITION OF HIGH-RISK STUDENT…”). Maybe not enough latitude was given for the columnist’s taste, but that doesn’t mean the issue isn’t addressed here.

Third, the term “effective education” isn’t included anywhere in SB 191 (a quick word search on the PDF would show that). But if he’s talking about “educator effectiveness,” check out the next point.

Fourth, the “blue ribbon panel” (aka the Governor’s Council on Educator Effectiveness) was created by executive order months before SB 191 was introduced. Governor Ritter already had tasked the group — including several representatives chosen by the Colorado Education Association — with creating statewide definitions of “teacher effectiveness” and “principal effectiveness” long before Johnston introduced his bill. SB 191 focused the Council’s work on creating definitions of, and quality standards for, effectiveness that are based at least 50 percent in student academic growth (using multiple measures).

That brings me to the fifth and final point — which is the column’s complete omission of the barest hint that SB 191 (widely touted as the “Great Teachers and Leaders” bill) places virtually identical responsibility on school principals to be evaluated significantly on the basis of student academic growth.

The bill isn’t just picking on teachers. Anyone who questions the construct of “teacher effectiveness” such as Mr. Kurz argues against also should grapple with the argument that the legislation builds incentives for school leaders to be quality evaluators and to invest personally in the effectiveness of their teaching workforce. Maybe the author doesn’t want to fix that part of the legislation?

Now I don’t mean to imply that Mr. Kurz meant to distort the truth when he sat down to write his piece railing against SB 191. But he could have been more careful in making sure not to be misinformed. Whatever the cause, it seems some people are taking all the wrong lessons from Colorado’s unexpected RTTT loss. Which is their prerogative. Just don’t re-write history.

But since I can’t get my mind off being aghast that Colorado missed out on its chance at $175 million, you just really need to check out some of these reactions. First, a trifecta from our friends over at EdNews Colorado:

1. Alexander Ooms reminds us not to overreact, that outcomes are important and we can effect positive change without the $175 million
2. Robert Reichardt points out that Colorado and other Western states can’t win until we effectively explain how local control really works
3. Ben DeGrow from our own Education Policy Center notes how Colorado’s RTTT loss could open the door for the unions’ “politics of blocking”

Put together, a wide range of observations on the Race to the Top results raises plenty of questions, and ultimately casts doubt on the value of the program:

• The Eduwonk Andy Rotherham highlights some of the problems with the grant-review process and suggests Secretary Arne Duncan convene a commission to improve the process for future versions of RTTT (or other large-scale federal education grant programs)
• Rick Hess feels sorry for Duncan for all the messes created, including having “to tell strong-willed reform leaders like Colorado state senator Mike Johnston and state chief Dwight Jones….’Sorry about that, but go check out Hawaii’s reform agenda.’”
• Mike Petrilli points out that when reviewers updated their scores, mediocre Ohio somehow passed up reform mecca Louisiana: “Ohio’s surge allowed Ted Strickland to edge out both Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie–and the White House can’t be too upset about that.”
• In a similar vein, Harvard’s Paul Peterson says the process is suspect, bringing attention to the fact that 9 of the 10 winners were Blue States (Democrat-leaning) and concluding that “RttT is as much or more a partisan boondoggle as an education reform strategy.”

All that being said, if Colorado still feels bad about losing out, at least we’re not New Jersey — where a bureaucratic mistake on the application form cost the state $400 million in federal education funds. Talk about a political hot potato….

At my age, I figured I knew pretty well how the world works. I told you that Colorado’s green light from the National Council on Teacher Quality made them practically a sure thing to win a share of Race to the Top round two federal dollars. Was I wrong or what? Instead of Colorado becoming one of the 10 winners, our state finished 17th out of 19! Let me tell you what: I can’t wait to see the explanation for this one. It’s not just me. Education policy guru Rick Hess says it’s ludicrous that Colorado and Louisiana were “left out in the cold.”

Curious themselves, my Education Policy Center friends asked some Colorado State Board of Education members for their reactions to the surprising news.

“It’s a shame funds purloined from Colorado taxpayers will now head to other states, in greater quantities, for the education of other people’s children,” said State Board chair Bob Schaffer, R-Fort Collins. “Nonetheless, accepting cash from the federal bureaucracy always comes at a competing price. In this case, the attached strings and red tape are considerable. In the end, the opinions of Washington, D.C.’s government workers are not what matters most when it comes to the quality and direction of Colorado’s schools.”

Another board member chimed in with her initial reaction. “It was a disappointment as, without those funds, Colorado will be hard pressed to complete reform plans associated with SB 212 (CAP4K) under the present time line,” said Marcia Neal, R-Grand Junction. The state’s hopes to fully implement the new academic standards and adopt new assessments is a lot less likely to take place in the next couple years.

Neal noted the possibility that we might see an effort to slow down or roll back Senate Bill 191 — the tenure and evaluation reform legislation that passed with bipartisan support and with many believing it would put Colorado on the inside track to win RTTT. She also mentioned that she has “received significant communications from various school leaders asking me if the decision to sign on to the Common Core standards might be reversed if we don’t secure the award.”

“If we are to remain a great nation we absolutely must produce students that are prepared for the technological future that they will inhabit,” Neal concluded. “There is a lot of great work going on at [the Colorado Department of Education] and we must be sure we continue on that path.” [Links added]

Chairman Schaffer also ended on a hopeful note. “Our goal will continue to be toward the establishment of world-class schools — moving toward more academic choices and options for parents to select for their own kids, moving toward internationally competitive academic standards and moving toward treating teachers like real professionals rather than union workers,” he said. “I think, in the long run, the independence of states to innovate will be more valuable than the short-term infusion of federal cash that comes at a price of mediocrity and servitude.”

—
State Board member Randy DeHoff brought attention to a key fact that begins to explain why Colorado lost out today: “…what was immediately obvious is that two of the five [RTTT grant] reviewers don’t understand local control. It also appears they scored us significantly lower because we did not have teacher union support for our application. Those two reviewers gave us an average of 350 out of 500 points. The other three reviewers gave us an average of 450 points, which would have placed us among the winners. Obviously there was a problem with the way the applications were scored – a problem that was pointed out after the first round but was not changed.”

DeHoff concluded, “I believe the reform agenda we are on is the right agenda. We had adopted these reforms before Race to the Top, and we will continue pursuing these reforms with or without [it]. Without those extra resources, it will obviously take longer to do some things (but not everything), but that doesn’t mean we should stop trying to do them.”

Who qualifies as a “non-instructional employee”? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, anyone who works for a K-12 public school but does NOT have one of the following positions:

[C]lassroom teachers, principals, supervisors of instruction, librarians, teacher aides, library aides, and guidance and psychological personnel.

Anyway, here are the top 10 states with the highest per capita ratios of “non-instructional employees”:

1. Wyoming
2. Kentucky
3. Kansas
4. Iowa
5. Colorado
6. Minnesota
7. Indiana
8. Missouri
9. Arkansas
10. Vermont

Number 5? Not exactly great news for Colorado. The Census Bureau says that in the 2006-07 school year, for every 100 people living in our state we had nearly 1 non-teacher working for the public school system. Only four states had a higher ratio. What Tapscott did was interesting, but then I thought maybe we should divide by the number of students enrolled rather than the number of people living in the state. Well, guess what? You get a very similar list:

1. Wyoming
2. Kentucky
3. Kansas
4. Iowa
5. Colorado
6. Missouri
7. Vermont
8. Minnesota
9. West Virginia
10. South Dakota

Colorado K-12 public schools had one “non-instructional” employee for every 16.37 students enrolled in 2006-07. That adds a little perspective to the recent layoffs in some Colorado school districts that have not yet been quantified.

While this exercise is interesting, it’s not foolproof. It appears that the Census Bureau data is somewhat incomplete. Three states and the District of Columbia report having zero non-instructional K-12 employees — which is impossible — while five or six other states have numbers that look unreasonably small.

But in any case, this small exhibit raises further questions about the Education Jobs bailout recently passed by Congress.

As Marci Kanstoroom reports at Education Next, traditional P.E. courses aren’t doing much at all to curb the problem of childhood obesity. But some schools are experimenting with innovative new ways to offer P.E.:

One reason more P.E. has not led to weight loss might be that traditional P.E. classes do not always offer students a real workout, particularly in high school. As students and teachers explain in this new Ed Next video, students don’t like having to change into gym clothes and get sweaty in the middle of the day. So P.E. teachers may end up grading students in part based on whether they change into their P.E. clothes.

The 25th Hour P.E. class at T.C. Williams High School in Alexandria, Virginia, featured in the new video, is different. Students enrolled in the class don’t break a sweat during the school day. Instead, they work out three times a week, before or after school. While the students are jogging, swimming, playing pickup basketball, going to soccer practice, or walking the dog, they wear monitors that track how long they exercise and whether their heart rates are in the target zone. Students meet with a P.E. teacher once a week to download the data from their monitor to her computer and discuss their workouts. Grades are based on how long students keep their heart rates in the target zone.

As long as the innovation is coming from the bottom up and schools aren’t being crushed by federal rules and mandates, we could be onto a good thing here. It’s probably about time we do P.E. a different way than my parents learned it. But let a thousand flowers bloom.

While certainly some of the new schools I’ve highlighted will be eligible for funding, there’s another new school featured today in the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

Wednesday was the first day of classes for approximately 200 students at Liberty Common High, 2745 Minnesota Drive. The high school is an extension of Liberty Common School, a tuition-free charter school contracted through the Poudre School District.

For now, seventh- through 10th-grade students inhabit the building, a 27,000-square-foot facility with 14 classrooms, a library and a large space being used as the gym, auditorium and lunchroom, said Bob Schaffer, director of secondary schools for Liberty Common. The building, which formerly housed a now-defunct charter school, underwent some minor renovations during the summer to get it ready for students this fall, Schaffer said.

Liberty Common School will expand into a K-12 school by the fall of 2012, Schaffer said. Students in kindergarten through sixth grade will continue to attend classes at the other Liberty Common facility, 1725 Sharp Point Dr.

Yes, THAT Bob Schaffer — current chairman of the State Board of Education, among many other things.

I don’t know who wrote it, but you really have to read the news from Liberty Common High School. Entertaining, informative, encouraging, optimistic, compelling… all in one! On the surface at least, this looks like a successful school in the making (following in the tradition of Liberty Common K-8). Can’t wait to see the results!