School-of-Thought

Of the many  educational blogs I read, the ones most meaningful to me are those written by superintendents like Kim Moritz from New York, or from school board members  like Brian Wheeler from Virginia, or Jim Woods from Oregon.

Though I’ve never met any of these folks in person, we all share a common bond – improving educational opportunities in our respective communities.  What’s especially helpful in my role as a school board member is when education leaders like the folks I mentioned above write about their local efforts.  Good school boards constantly seek and plan new ways to refine, strengthen, modify, correct, and/or eliminate existing programs and practices to get better results.  

By sharing information and insights, we help each other — and that’s the purpose today’s post — to share what we’re doing in Watertown.

HOW ARE WE DOING?   

At tomorrow’s monthly school board meeting, the administration will report on the progress of one of the goals we’ve been working on — that All Students will Graduate High School on Time and be Post-Secondary Prepared.

Two of the performance indicators we’re watching are:

A. The drop-out rate.  Our goal is to continue to see the drop-out rate decrease each year.  This semester, 12 students dropped out.  While that’s 12 too many, the trend is good. Comparing apples-to-apples, 24 students dropping out the first semester last year, 23 during the same time frame in 2007-08, and 29 in 2006-07.

B. The number of students with failing grades.  Again, the number are moving in the right direction. Comparing the percentage of students with failing grade from any first quarter class this year to last year, shows:

• 4.8% of ninth graders received a failing grade in one of their classes this year compared to 7.7% last year;
• 15.6% of 10th graders received a failing grade this year compared to 17.8% last year;
• 9.2% of 11th graders received a failing grade this year compared to 12.3% last year;
• and 6.6% of 12th graders received a failing grade this year compared to 7.2% last year.

HOW ARE WE DOING IT?

We’re moving in the right direction, but like any school district we have our challenges.  The following are a few of our strategies:

1. Academic Resource Center (ARC)/Credit Recovery is offered daily from 7:30-5PM during the school year to provide struggling students additional opportunities to recover credits.

2. Summer Bridge Academy for at-risk 8th graders transitioning to the high school.  Each year, up to 30 8th graders are selected to participate in a two week, 8AM – 5PM pre-high school program designed to acclimate them to high school and allow them to see purpose in their classes as they plan for their future. 

3. After-School Study Hall is available to any student.  Academic help is provided by certified teachers.

4. Night School is offered in two hour session twice per week for students that are off grade level or for students that have dropped out and wish to return to school.

5. Coordinated Truancy Reduction.  This year an additional component of the joint community-school plan was added.  This consists of preventative educational work provided to parents who need some help with the attendance of their children.  Year to date we’ve seen a 1% increase in attendance compared to last year.

6. Supplemental Education Services in reading and math from state-approved providers are offered to all our high school’s economically disadvantaged students. 

7. Summer School Offering to aide students who continue to struggle in math and English or reading, or to aide students in credit recovery, or to help students get back to grade level in any core content area so they can stay in school and graduate on time.

8. Knowing our Kids. More of a philosophy than a program, our administration does it’s best to know every student by name.  Each student is assigned a homeroom advisor that sticks with the student through all four years of high school, get to know him or her, follows the student’s personal learning plan and so on.   The goal is to develop a relationship, and to make high school relevant.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Hit me up with feedback.  If you’re an out-of-town reader, what are you doing in your school district to make a difference?  And whether your a local reader or an out-of-towner, as always, if you have questions or suggestions, drop me a note. 

Until next time!

I enjoy Seth Godin’s blog.  He makes me think.  I read what he says, than try to apply it to my life.

Reprinted below are today’s thoughtful words from “Watch the Money:”

“How much life insurance do you have?”

Zig Ziglar liked to say that with that one question, you could tell if someone was a successful life insurance agent. If they’re not willing to buy it with their own money, how can they honestly persuade someone else to do so?

If you’re in the music business but you never buy tickets or downloads, can you really empathize with the people you’re selling to?

My favorite: if you work for a non-profit and you don’t give money to charity, what exactly are you doing in this job? I’ve met some incredibly generous people in the charitable world, but I can also report that a huge number of people—even on the fundraising side—would happily cross the street and risk a beating in order to avoid giving $100 to a cause that’s not their own. And the shame of it is that this inaction on their part keeps them from experiencing the very emotion that they try so hard to sell.

Money is more than a transfer of value. It’s a statement of belief. An ad agency that won’t buy ads, a consultant who won’t buy consulting, and a waiter who doesn’t tip big—it’s a sign, and not a good one.

Apply that to education.  How about a teacher or an administrator or a school board member that doesn’t invest in their own personal ongoing education?  As Seth says, it’s “a sign, and not a good one.”  Like I said, makes me thnk , , ,

This is the best damn description of a board member’s job I’ve ever read!  If you want to know what a school board member does, check out Jim Woods’ blog.  

A School Board positon will vary somewhat from district to district and from state to state – for example, unlike Oregon that doesn’t pay a plug nickel for serving, in our school district we receive stipend of $60/month (wow!).  There are a few other small differences, but the essence of school boarding is pretty well laid out in Dr. Wood’s blog.  Serving on a school board takes time, takes work, and takes commitment – but it’s richly rewarding, far beyond anything money can buy.  Check out what he has to say.

I received a question this morning from a reader about South Dakota’s new high school graduation requirements.   The purpose of the change is to make education more meaningful for students, and at the same time prepare students for a world that seems to be changing faster each day. 

At the state level, one of the new graduation requirements will mean that by 2013 all schools will have to offer opportunities for students to enroll in a “capstone experience.” This amounts to service or project-based learning , such as an internship, pre-apprenticeship, or research project.  The capstone experience is meant to be the culmination of, or the “crowning experience” of a student’s high school years.  In our community, we’re just beginning to explore different avenues on how we can offer this, how it will impact our teachers and their schedules, as well as how it might impact local budgetary needs.  One of the nice things about Watertown is our long history of partnership with industry, and Dr. Hanson is planning to work with our Business Industry School Coalition Organization (BISCO) to help plan the process. 

The capstone experience is part of state’s new education equation to both expand educational opportunities, but also to get student more involved in researching career interests at a younger age.  Under the new rules, beginning in 8^th grade, all students and their parents will create “personal learning plans” through a state website that match their personal career interests to specific high school coursework and post-secondary training or careers.  A component of the learning plan will require students to select taking at least one credit from a menu containing foreign languages, career and technical education, or capstone. 

Locally, the administration is also investigating how we might make high school more meaningful through expansion of online learning opportunities.  Currently, online classes are only used for credit recovery or remediation.  However, if a student wants to take a online class outside of those parameters, like taking a subject that’s not offered here, there is no mechanism to do that — yet.  I look for that to change in the not too distant future.  I envision our students with even greater opportunities to take online classes like engineering, Greek, more AP classes, and a host of other academic subjects that fit into their personal learning plan.  

What we call school is changing.   The intent is to make it more meaningful.  Hopefully the change will be for the better. 

The question I’d ask you to think about and comment on dear reader, is what does “school” mean to you, what changes would you like to see, and why?

Why do people become educators?  Why do educators become administrators?  And why do people out in the public – with no educational training – sign up to become school board members?

A Facebook note from New York superintendent Kimberly Moritz got me thinking:

I want to leave education when my time is done having done something important and meaningful that benefits our kids, our teachers and our community. I don’t think it’s my job to keep everything just as it’s always been–that’s how we will eventually become obsolete and I’m not game for sailing into retirement knowing I did nothing to change, that I didn’t lead our organization. We can do this better. Not that we aren’t doing it well, just that we can do it better. School can have more meaning and purpose for our students than it does now.

Superintendent Moritz wants to make the world a better place – or at least her corner of it.  She wants to impact the lives of children and impact her community.  I don’t think I could have said it better.  It’s the same reason I serve on a school board – to make a difference – to make our school better than it is.  When my time is done, I want to look back and know that’s exactly what I did.

Every school board faces the challenge of dealing with special interest groups.  Rapid City recently settled a federal lawsuit after denying access for a pro-life organization to use its middle school gym.  In Watertown, our special interest challenges have come mostly from sports boosters.  I’ve previously written about the proposal to incorporate our community’s soccer program into the school’s official sports program, and more recently we’ve been presented with a request by the local tennis association to upgrade the tennis courts to the tune of some $300,000.  It will be interesting to see how that one turns out.

As school boards respond to different requests, what’s important is that it ensures its response is consistent with its policy, and ensures its policy is consistently applied.  It’s when a school board deviates from this path – when it applies policy differently for different groups – that’s when it runs into hot water. 

In the world of education,  just like in life, it’s not possible to make everyone happy.   That being said, I believe a wise board recognizes that good ideas often grow out of differences – and that many good ideas have their beginnings in conversations centered on disagreements and controversies.

Special interest groups are part of the mosaic of who we are as a community.  The pressures they bring to the table may not always be comfortable, but anything that makes us think and dialog and consider things outside our comfort zone, makes us a better and stronger school district.

What do you think?

At a recent school board conference, two of the guys sitting at my table were talking about how ugly teacher contract negotiations had become at their schools.  I couldn’t help but shake my head as I thought to myself how sad that description was.  My experience has been that contract negotiations were sometimes challenging, sometimes pointed, but always fair and professional — never “ugly.” 

Later, during a time set aside for dialog and discussion, I asked the group:

“How do you reduce acrimony between the teachers union and your school board during contract negotiations?”  I got a few soft whispers and hushed moans as an immediate response, but that was followed by good, positive dialog.

 Some of the answers were:

• Make all conversations open and honest.
• Be transparent in everything. 
• Be fair.
• Understand that everyone has a role.  Don’t stray from that role, and don’t take anything personally.

What do you think?  If you were in the room participating in contract negotiations, what suggestions would you have to improve the process?

Is South Dakota Racing to the Top?  Seems nobody knows.  The education news is full of stories about states competing for the single largest amount of discretionary money ever directed toward education – 4.3 Billion dollars — but things are uncomfortably quiet here. 

The Race to the Top grant is competitive, with some 30+ criteria and a point system to weigh the factors.  The two most significant criteria are:

(1) That school districts make a significant buy-in to improve education (reform education), and;

(2) That to some degree, states evaluate teachers and principals based on student performance. 

Other factors include demonstration on how states use data to improve education (state maintains robust data system), and the friendliness of the state to charter schools (ie government supported public school competition).    

I imagine South Dakota could make a reasonable case to the Feds how we’re making strides to improve education.  On the teacher evaluation front, South Dakota assesses teachers like most other states – based on years of experience and training, not student performance —  so I imagine we’d lose points, along with most states, on this criteria.  To my knowledge, the state doesn’t have a longitudinal data tracking system to allow educators to track the academic performance of a student throughout their k-12 years, nor does the state have laws that allow for development of charter schools. 

 Maybe that’s enough of a point killer to eliminate us from the competition.  The point is, no one knows.  No one at the DOE is talking.  South Dakota could possibly receive between $20-75 million of the available money.  That’s a nice chunk of change to help our kids.   I wonder if it’s enough to get the DOE and the legislature moving.

 It sure would be nice if someone said something . . .

Has the South Dakota legislature failed in its constitutional requirement to adequately fund education in our state?  That’s the question at the bottom of a potential appeal to the South Dakota’s Supreme Court.

HISTORY OF THE FUNDING LAWSUIT   

In January, 2006, a “costing-out study” showed the South Dakota government was underfunding state schools by $154 million per year according to one methodology (the Successful School District Approach), an 18% per year deficiency,  and $482 million per year according to another (the Professional Judgment Approach), a 56% per year deficiency.    

With the state and supporting schools unable to reconcile their differences, the case went to court - alleging that South Dakota’s school finance system was unconstitutional.

 The results of the court case are summarized by our state’s Associated School Board organization and are  reproduced below:

 DAVIS V. STATE: THE CIRCUIT COURT RULING

On April 8, 2009, Circuit Court Judge Wilbur ruled in favor the state, asserting that the Legislature is meeting it’s duties under the Constitution of the State of South Dakota. The sections below outline major conclusions from the circuit court, both in the Davis v. State decision and in pre-trial proceedings.

 A few points, outlined below, were settled prior to the trial. 

1. The Courts Have Jurisdiction: The State wanted the circuit court to dismiss the case prior to trial, arguing that school funding is a political question and not appropriate for consideration by the courts. Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur denied the motion.
2. The Constitution Guarantees an Adequate Education: In a pre-trial motion, Judge Lori Wilbur granted a motion that acknowledges that the South Dakota Constitution guarantees the provision of free, adequate education.
3. The Courts Can Not Order the Appropriation of Additional K-12 Funding: Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur dismissed a claim for “judicial relief beyond declaratory judgment.” In other words, courts will only evaluate whether constitutional obligations are being met and will not, at any point, order the Legislature to appropriate additional funds for K-12 education.

 CIRUIT COURT DECISION

In a lengthy decision, Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur ruled in favor of the state, concluding that the school finance system is Constitutional. Major arguments are outlined below.

1. Education Is Not a Fundamental Right: The judge leaned on a technical definition of “fundamental right” to conclude that, because education is not listed in South Dakota’s Bill of Rights, it is therefore not a fundamental right.
2. No Constitutional Guarantee to Quality Education: Relying on citations from Bezdicheck v. State (1994), the circuit court concluded that the Constitution guarantees students “the opportunity for a basic high school education” and does not prescribe that students receive a quality education.
3. Adequate Education Defined: The circuit court defined an “adequate” education is one that “gives a student the opportunity to compete either in higher education or the work force.” The court repeatedly referred to the definition of adequate education as a “constitutional minimum.”
4. South Dakota Provides More than is Constitutionally Required: The court concluded that all South Dakota districts are offering an adequate education, and that the state can, and does, establish requirements that are more rigorous than the Constitution requires.
5. Higher Funding Does Not Increase Education Quality: The court rejected claims that higher funding yields greater educational quality. In making this determination, the court relied heavily on analysis by state witnesses that showed, among other things, that investments in education are ultimately trumped by socio-economic and family characteristics of the student.
6. The Current Funding System is Suitable: After detailing the various aspects of both state and local school funding mechanisms, the court concluded that South Dakota’s school finance system “provides a suitable means for funding South Dakota’s schools” and is constitutional.
7. Local School Officials Are Not Credible: The circuit court unilaterally dismissed the judgment of local school officials relative to the level of funding required to provide an adequate education. Instead, the court recognized the opinions of state witnesses as credible and influential.
8. Recruiting, Retaining Teachers is Not a Challenge: The circuit court, relying heavily on testimony from state witnesses, concluded that recruiting and retaining quality teachers is not a challenge for South Dakota schools.

IMPLICATIONS 

The South Dakota constitution is clear that the Legislature is to “adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.” In the state’s history, the South Dakota Supreme court has not considered whether South Dakota’s school finance system provides school districts with adequate resources to comply with constitutional requirements.

Similar to the ruling in Bezdicheck v. State (1994), the circuit court decision in Davis v. State establishes a standard for “adequate education,” concluding that the Constitution guarantees only that students have an opportunity to compete either in higher education or the work force. Should the ruling in Davis v. State stand, the “constitutional minimum” will survive as the definitive judicial interpretation of the Constitution’s education clause.

After reading the summary, I secured a copy of the Judge’s decision.  Here is a small portion of what she said:

THE DECISION OF THE COURT

Plaintiffs have brought this action seeking declaratory relief, that:

The South Dakota public school finance system violates Art. VIII of the South Dakota Constitution, because it violates the rights of South Dakota children to receive an adequate education.

 THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING

In other states, the decisions widely differ. Courts in many states have dismissed the issue as nonjusticiable. Other courts have issued strong decisions in favor of challengers, with significant litigation following the seminal decision.

Nonetheless, no real majority rule can be derived from other states. This is largely a result of the fact that issues presented in the cases are not simple “yes or no” questions, but instead have outcomes which range on a spectrum of different possible outcomes and involvement by the judiciary. Additionally, the language and structure of state constitutions’ education clauses widely varies. Moreover, states significantly differ as to the amount of judicial involvement authorized in such situations.

Despite the undisputed importance of education in society, this Court’s role in this proceeding is clear. The Court is not a “super-legislature” which is in a position to choose the best policy option for schools in this state. As recognized by the South Dakota Supreme Court, “[t]he view that judges function to fine tune legislative excess has long been discarded. Only when statutes are plainly and unmistakably unconstitutional may we declare them void. A statute is presumed constitutional until it is proved otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.”

As such, the Court’s opinion as to the best way to educate the children of this state is irrelevant. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement with the state’s educational system. The same could be said for every state in the nation. Many of the policy options discussed in this trial may improve education in this state and these options should be given serious consideration by the Legislature. Nonetheless, the Court’s judicial function is only to determine whether Plaintiffs have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Legislature is not meeting its duties under the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

FINDINGS

This Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the state system does not provide an adequate educational opportunity to students in the state. Although numerous school superintendents presented their “wish list” of needed course offerings, materials, or facility upgrades, the superintendent testimony fails to establish that absent their “wish list” they were unable to provide their students with an adequate educational opportunity.

The Court finds that (1) Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to prove that there is a meaningful relationship between spending and student outcomes in South Dakota or elsewhere; and (2) no one has yet determined what group of replicable strategies can eliminate an entire district’s (much less a state’s) achievement gap for at-risk kids.

Although the Court finds that the testimony the various superintendants presented in this case was heartfelt, the testimony of such was inherently biased. Most districts have built-in pressures and demands which weigh heavily on administrators, including providing the best possible education to their students. That pressure clearly affected the ability of the superintendants to give a fair and impartial opinion as to the adequacy of the education students were giving in their districts. Additionally, a review of the evidence shows that many superintendants were advertising the quality of education offered at their school district to the public but coming into court and stating the opposite. As such, the expert opinions of the various superintendents as to the sufficiency or adequacy of education offered in their respective districts are not deemed credible.

 So what do you think?

I’m reading an excellent book, “Catching Up or Leading the Way” by Michigan State’s distinguished Education Professor Yong Zhao.  Born and raised in China, Zhao writes that America’s education gap is a myth that’s been fueled by the fears of competition from the Chinese, Indians, and others. He believes that by all measures of what’s important to a country, the America education system is  “leading the way.” However, he’s concerned about  America’s current course of centralization and standardization — in other words, he’s concerned about letting Washington dictate what and how students should learn — and as a result, concerned that America is in danger of becoming more like China is and was.

Zhao writes that China is going through reforms to create a less rigid educational system the emulates the US, while our country’s NCLB and national standardization of curriculum is bringing us dangerously close to China’s system.

From the preface, Page vii:

China is determined to transform from a labor-intensive, low level manufacturing economy into an innovation-driven knowledge society. An innovation-driven society is driven by innovative people. Innovative people cannot come from schools that force students to memorize correct answers on standardized tests or reward students who excel a regurgitated dictated, spoon-fed knowledge. Thus China decided to change its “test oriented education” into “talented oriented education”. To engineer this change, China made a conscious, global search for models-education systems that are good at producing innovative talents. As a country with the most Nobel laureates, most original pats, most scientific discoveries in the 20th century, and largest economy in the world, the United States of America seems a reasonable candidate.

On page ix he writes:

The spirit of NCLB is a chain of reasoning that goes like the following: American education is in a crisis. This crisis is proven by two “achievement gaps”: one international and the other domestic. The international gap is indicated by American students consistently poor performance in international process. The domestic gap is the gap of test scores and other achievement measurements such as high school graduation rates between intercity minority students and their suburban peers. The crisis is assumed to have resulted from teachers and school leaders who are unwilling or unable to hold high expectations of their students and deliver high quality instruction because they become complacent or lazy. The solution is to hold these educators accountable for producing measurable outcomes with a variety of incentives and punishments including publishing school performances, allowing school choice, reorganizing low performing schools, and possibly using performance-based teacher pay.

From page x:

Standardization and centralization of curriculum and assessment are essential ingredients of the solution for an obvious reason. Unless all schools in the state or the whole nation is held to teach the same curriculum and all students are assessed using the same tests, it is impossible to compare what and how such students are taught or to distinguish good schools and teachers from poor ones.

And finally, from page xi:

As the result of adopting national standards, schools will produce a homogeneous group of individuals withthe same abilities, skills and knowledge. Such a result will be disastrous to America and Americans because as globalization and technology continue to change the world, America needs a citizenry of creative individuals with a wide range of talents to sustain its tradition of innovation. Americans need talents and abilities that are not available at a lower price elsewhere on earth.

I’m enjoying Zhao because his message is so different than all the other messages that permiate American education.  A quarter of a century ago, the seminal publication of A Nation at Risk told us:

. . . the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.

Zhao, gives me food for thought:  maybe things aren’t as bad as the Nation-at-Riskers and other education nay-sayers tell us.  Maybe as a country we really are doing okay.   

And what of Zhao’s concerns about our current educational course causing a decline of our country’s creativity and innovation? 

Are his concerns credible?   

What do you think?

Later this month, representatives from the Associated School Board’s of South Dakota (ASBSD) will gather in Pierre to debate policy positions we believe are important for education in our state.  One of the new positions concerns Indian Education.  I’ve reprinted the position in full from the ASBSD site: 

South Dakota’s public education system, for all its successes, consistently struggles to serve American Indian students.  A range of statistical indicators reveal persistent and dramatic achievement gaps between American Indian students and their peers, depriving a significant portion of South Dakota’s children with an equal opportunity to claim a more prosperous personal, social and economic future. 

All students can face barriers to learning, but many of South Dakota’s American Indian children are surrounded by a concentrated and generationally pervasive poverty that jeopardizes an individual’s health, safety and personal belief in the value of education.   

ASBSD believes all students can learn and achieve. South Dakota’s American Indian students deserve the attention of state, local and tribal leaders who are willing to deliver on the promise of public education.  South Dakotans must work toward solutions while embracing the pride, heritage and dignity of American Indian culture. 

ASBSD supports South Dakota’s recent efforts to make Indian education a priority, including the official creation of a state Indian education director within the Department of Education. ASBSD encourages state policies that foster collaboration and establish long-term commitments to improving educational outcomes for American Indian students. 

While grant funding can be a powerful incentive, state leaders must recognize that effective programs deserve reliable funding streams. ASBSD believes state aid formula funding needs to address the unique learning challenges of at-risk students to allow local districts to better serve American Indian students through instructional strategies focused on student results. 

What do you think?

Education Week reports that some high schools in Illinois have found a way to beat the state NCLB accountability exam given to juniors each year.  Their technique is to redefine the Juniors who are behind on credits as sophomores and suddenly the lowest achievers don’t take the test!  The following year the demoted students become 12th graders, and all is put right with the world – with the exception that these students never take the test. Pretty sneaky, eh?  Here’s what Education Week had to say about it:

Rich East High School has seen state test scores for its 11th-graders improve by a stunning 37 percent during the last two years — a gain so impressive that regional education officials asked the Park Forest school to host a seminar to help others emulate its success.

There’s only one problem: Rich East did not give the Prairie State Achievement Exam to about 40 percent of its juniors last school year. And it excluded the ones furthest behind academically. A Chicago Tribune analysis found that 20 percent of Illinois sophomores weren’t counted as juniors the following year and didn’t take the Prairie State Exam, which includes ACT questions.

What do you think?