School-of-Thought

This video stirred me. 

The state board of education just made it harder to graduate from South Dakota high schools.  The change is the result of a new law passed by the legislature that eliminates the “basic” curricular option for graduation, and instead mandates a single curriculum designed to prepare all South Dakota students for college.  These changes come on the heels of prior legislative changes that moves the mandatory attendance age from 16 to 18.   

The current changes adopted by the state board eliminates the “basic” route to graduation, as well as increases the academic rigor of the new route.  

Beginning with freshman students entering high school in 2010, each student will be required to take three units of math, including one unit of algebra I, one unit of algebra II, and one unit of geometry.  Under the new requirements, the total number of math units required for graduation won’t change, but students will have less options and will be required to only take math classes deemed rigorous.   All students will be required to take Algebra I and II, and geometry unless the local school board opts to grant a waiver.  The waiver can be used to select another rigorous math class in lieu of either algebra II or geometry, but not both.   

Similar action was taken with the science curriculum.  The total number of science units required for graduation will not change, but rigor will go up and course selection options will go down.  Students will be required to take three units of science, including one unit of biology, one unit of chemistry and one unit of physics.  Local school boards will have the option to offer a waiver for either chemistry or physics as long as an alternatively rigorous science class is selected by the student. 

Language Arts and Social Studies awill not affected. In LA, South Dakota will continue to require four units to graduate, including 1.5 units of writing, 1.5 units of literature, .5 unit of speech or debate, and .5 units of a language arts elective. In SS, three units will continue to be required, including one unit of US history, .5 unit of world history, .5 unit of US government, and .5 unit of a SS elective. 

Additional changes provide an increase in the selection process.  Students will have the option of taking one unit of any of the following: a world language, a career and technical education class (CTE), or a capstone experience such as a research project or other approved senior-year project.

Last, the state ed board added a new requirement of one-half unit of a health class.  This will be in addition to the current requirement of one-half unit of physical education class. 

The total number of units required to graduate by the state won’t change — it will remain at 22.  And there is no discussion to change our high school requirement, now at 24. units. 

So that’s what was done.   I have mixed emotions about the changes.  Improving rigor is good.  Requiring all students to stay in school to age 18 is good.  Putting the two together probably isn’t.  

I’m concerned that we’re setting up some students to fail.  I believe every student can be successful in school.  But can every single student successfully pass algebra II or geometry?  Likewise, can every single student successfully pass chemistry or physics?  I think not.  True, local school boards can provide latitude, but our discretion will be limited. 

School should be rigorous, but also relevant.  It should provide students enough latitude to find their interests and to passionately persue them.  As much as we may want every student to attend college, not ever student will.   We can jump up and down, we can hit our heads against the wall, and we can provide them data and encouragement – but still, not every student will. Rigor is good, but rigor must be tied to relevance for a student to succeed.  Otherwise, it’s a program like No Child Left Behind,  built upon the best of intentions, but doomed to fail.  

I guess time will tell.

To my knowledge there are only four school boards in the entire US that govern both a K-12 and a post-secondary technical school — and I have the privilege of serving on one of them.  Today I’m writing about at what many in Watertown call our community jewel — Lake Area Technical Institute (LATI).  

First, a little explanation might be helpful for all my out-of-town edureaders in case you’re wondering why a K-12 School Board governs a post-secondary school like LATI.  One of the truly unique things about tech schools in South Dakota is that they’re governed by local school boards together with and the State Board of Education.   That’s just the way tech schools were set up in South Dakota in the mid-1960’s when everything got started with tech ed. The state has four tech schools (and FYI – no community colleges), with each local school board governing certain aspects, while the State Ed Board governs other aspects.

This division between central and local governance comes with a political down-side though, as there are some at the state level that believe they can do things better than the local elected folks, and for a variety of reasons have tried to change governance in recent years through the legislative process – but, gratefully, have not been successful.

From my perspective as a school board member, governing both a k-12 system and a technical school has been both educational and fascinating.  To me, educational leadership is educational leadership – my role is to participate on a board that weighs values in the community and region, and than make decisions.  I can do that equally as well on the k-12 side as I can on the post-secondary side. 

The ongoing success of LATI is testimonyof the vision of those who established the governance structure some 40-plus years ago.  LATI has grown from a single building in the mid-1960’s with an enrollment of 234 students, to a 37 acre campus with 25 instructional programs, and an enrollment of over 1300 students. How’s that for success!

What got me thinking about blogging about LATI was yesterday’s meeting between the Watertown School Board and LATI’s Strategic Advisory Council  (SAC).  The SAC was born two years ago in response to the Governor’s criticism that the state’s technical schools lacked input from regional businesses. At the time, this was one of his arguments about why tech schools should no longer be controlled locally.  To make a long story short, the state’s tech schools now have input from regional businesses through the SAC.  They meet quarterly, and once per year meet with us. 

Okay, on to the meeting.  I’ll apologize in advance if you find this boring (for passionate school board geeks, trust me, this is great stuff!) :>  Here’s what we covered:

1)    Critical Performance Update

a)    Enrollment – LATI is the only tech school that’s been up each year for the past six years in a row.  For the past three years, the unduplicated enrollment has been up 9%, and the enrollment for 2009-10 is 12%.  Annual goals are to increase enrollment 2% from the previous year.  Seems to me we’re knocking the socks off this goal!

b)    Fiscal Health – this is a big problem area for all the tech schools.  Money comes to the tech schools through the state and like most states (or even more than most states), South Dakota doesn’t have a lot of money.   If things don’t change, the quality of the programming will likely be impacted.

c)    Plant Capacity – we’re growing like crazy! My local readers, just drive around the campus and check out all the construction.  More details are provide below (# 2).

d)    Human Resources – LATI was named as one of the great places to work for in a national review of post-secondary institutions. The school is meeting its goal of less than 10% annual turnover.  If I wasn’t on the school board, I’d probably apply. :>

e)    Relationships – foundation contributions continue to increase each year.  We continue to see nearly a 100% placement rate of LATI grads.

2)    Campus Expansion Update – as I said above, the campus is growing! 

a)    Phase I should be finished and ready for student use by the beginning of the year.  Phase I will add 63,000 square feet to the current Manufacturing Education Center and provide for double the student capacity Diesel Tech, Energy Tech, Energy Operations, and Welding Tech programs.  Pretty cool, eh?

b)    Phase II is just beginning with crews working on pouring the footings. Phase II will provide space for an expanded Automotive Technology center, Building Trades Center, and new Health Sciences Lab.

c)    Phase III will begin construction sometime next spring or summer. Phase III will change the look of LATI, with a new Welcoming Center, Student Union, dining facility, and centralized admissions and student services area.

3)    Higher Learning Commission Report – The institute is preparing for an accreditation visit from the HLC. 

4)    Major Gifts Campaign Update – as part of the campus expansion project, local gifts are being sought.  In spite of the recession, things are on track.  

So that was my LATI meeting yesterday. 

It’s a priviledge serving on our school board – besides contributing to the future of k-12 students, it make me feel good to know that in some small way I’m helping with workforce development for our region. 

Thanks for joining me today.  As always, I look forward to your comments and suggestions.  Please feel free to stop by any time . . .

ADDENDUM:  One final thought.  If I’m to be completely honest, I have to tell you that governing a tech school is an ongoing learning experience.  One of the things I had to “unlearn” when first elected four years ago is that today’s vocational education is not a second-best option for students compared to going to a four-year liberal arts school, is not less rigorous, etc.  I learned that today’s tech schools are not the tech schools from my college days, nor are they  the tech schools I had preconceived notions about.  Just look at some of the progaming — Diesel Tech, Energy Tech, Energy Operations, Welding Tech, and so on.  Do those look like mushy programs to you?  They don’t to me!  And they aren’t.  The students that attend today’s tech schools are bright and dedicated students — every bit the same as those going to four year schools.  If you care to check out the school, here’s the link to LATI.

I was reviewing data from one of our school districts most important goals – graduating all our students from high school on time.  Every school has issues, including ours, but when it comes to reducing the drop-out rate, I like our trends. Here is what the data shows us over the last few years (high school size is approximately 1250 students): 

• 2005-06  -  72 drop outs
• 2006-07  -  59 drop outs
• 2007-08  -  42 drop outs
• 2008-09 –   29 drop-outs 

How are we doing it?  At the top, it requires is commitment, energy, drive, and passion by the district, a supportive community – and a good superintendent to provide the leadership to make it happen.    

I’ll provide some specifics of how we’re attacking our drop-out rate in my next blog. Thanks for reading, and as always, please feel free to leave feedback.

The Associated School boards of South Dakota reports on a interesting story concerning the financial challenges at our state’s second largest school district.

During this week’s South Dakota State Board of Education meeting, school board members from Rapid City requested the State Board to

adopt a fiscal impact policy that would direct the Secretary of Education to outline any costs to comply with new policies, mandates or standards.

According to Open Forum, Rapid City School Board Members believe “the policy would help educate the public on the costs of complying with state mandates.”

I wonder what impact a policy like this might have on state legislators when passing future education mandates. I also can’t help but ponder what the consequences of something like this might be if implemented on a national level. Would there be greater public outrage about underfunded federal mandates like NCLB and IDEA?

Great article over at the Educational Leadership site that ties into our high school and district-wide changes discussed at last night’s school board meeting.  The article is titled “Perspectives/The High School Scene.  Here’s an exerp:

. . . a wealth of new choices needs to be developed because the typical high school culture is not working for so many. Our kids, whether they are participating in activities to the hilt, just sitting quietly, or dropping out of school, are telling us something about the high school experience. It’s time to look at the whole picture and make some positive changes.

What we heard last night at the board meeting was discussion on changes implemented this year, and for plans to implement further changes next year.  Discussed was development of a  new alternative education programs at WHS and WMS, credit recovery on-line coursework, student Personal Learning Plans, development of a new team at the middle school to focus solely on alternative education, and implementation of a preschool program to adress high-risk children that currently fall though the cracks.  As Mr. Butts told the board, “we need to do whatever it takes to get all our hight school students to graduate.”  I like his out-of-the box thinking.

So far the drop-out numbers look pretty good.  Year to date, we’ve seen a reduction of about 40% in the drop out rate compared to last year.  We still have a little while to go unitl graduation, but YTD, the number look very positive.

Today’s review of a new survey by the National School Board Association found that parents who rely heavily on newspapers for their news have more negative views of school safety, teacher quality, and academic success than those of parents who get their information elsewhere. One example finds that 85% of parents who rely on their children as a primary source of information on the schools agree that “teachers care about their child’s success”—yet only 57% of parents who rely on newspapers agree with the same statement.

Since school board members are often on the front lines of education-related public debate, this review by Del Stover is one of those ‘important-to-read’ articles for school board members, or for anyone concerned about how media can affect perception.

Here’s another article supporting the US Department of Ed’s call to standardize the way states calculate high school graduation rates. Seems to me that if people knew what the real graduation rates were, it would compel everyone from parents to teachers to politicians to work together to help more of our children graduate.

Here is the link to the April 17, 2008 Tennessean.

I guess the word is getting out. A journalist from Washington DC that profiles public sector blogs interviewed me last week about School-of-Thought. He’ll be conducting a blogging class for school board members at the National School Board Association Convention later this week.

He asked me questions about why a school board member would blog, my goals, and if I have future plans for the blog. The interview hasn’t been printed yet, but when it comes out, it will be here.

Here are a few of the things I said:

• For me, blogging serves many purposes. First, School-of-Thought is a place where I record the things that roll around in my head about education as I read, listen, talk and observe. Some of my posts deal with local issues, others with state, national or international concerns – all from the perspective of a local school board member. And because what happens in Pierre and Washington DC directly impact the lives of our children in Watertown, some of my posts are distinctly political.
• Writing a blog, at its best, is like having a conversation. I blog to express my opinions, but more importantly, I blog to ask questions, and I blog to learn.
• School-of-Thought also provides me a central place to record my reflections. The benefit and the beauty of a blog is that my thoughts about education are not only recorded in a central place, but they’re open to the world to see and to comment. And as a school board member, that transparency appeals to me.

I also received a nice welcome from the blogwriters at our great hometown newpaper, the Watertown Public Opinion. Thanks for the nice hello guys!