The power of affluent parenting

Posted on January 29, 2009 by axooms

The principal at Denver School for the Arts (DSA) has resigned (see here). DSA is one of the most lauded schools in DPS, drawing students from well outside the district (side note that this is not necessarily good).  The principal has been there 18 months.  What went wrong?

Parents of children at the exclusive school began an e-mail campaign last school year, flooding Superintendent Michael Bennet’s voice mail and e-mail box with comments of their dissatisfaction about the direction of the school.

Earlier this year, the Principal at Bromwell Elementary announced that he would not be returning. While this is anecdotal, it’s clear that there was a similar undercurrent of parent dissatisfaction.

So let’s get this straight: two of the schools with the best students in DPS (on the School Performance Framework, DSA has a status score of 93; Bromwell is 100) have parents so unsatisfied they influence a leadership change.  These are affluent student bodies; Free and Reduced Lunch Students comprise 11% and 10% respectively.

And it is not good enough for these parents.

My point is not to be critcal of the behavior – parents should be advocates for their children, and better for the district to hear these concerns than to silently lose the kids to private schools.  DPS needs to listen when appropriate and draw the line if this dialogue moves from constructive to harmful.

What amazes me here is the sheer efficacy of affluent parents, and the disparity with populations who have no such savvy and organization.  Of all the schools in DPS that need reform, these two were considered untouchable.

Why do schools in poor neighborhoods suck?  This is one of the exhibits.

Posted in Engagement | Leave a comment

Bureaucracy is as bureaucracy does…

Posted on January 20, 2009 by axooms

EdNews Colorado has a story which encapsulates so much of why entrenched systems in public schools don’t change. It’s about school lunch and the Colorado Department of Education. And it ain’t healthy.

Poor kids get screwed in many ways, and school lunches are among them.  This is a complex issue, and until recently there did not seem to be an adequate solution, particularly since the federal FRL program is difficult to untangle at the state level. But a coalition of groups in Colorado was willing to take it on. Having found a company (Revolution Foods) in California successfully addressing this problem, and after spending well over six months wooing them to consider Denver and gaining support from numerous foundations, legislators, and even district food programs, they run smack into CDE:

According to CDE spokesman Mark Stevens, the department is engaged in discussions on this issue and has been for a couple of months […] “It’s possible a state statute fix will be needed, not just a state rule change,” Stevens said.

Well gee, lots of things are possible (such as my not gagging on the above), and I’m sure Mr. Stevens can wax at some length about the difference between a “state statute fix” and a “state rule change.” I’m sure he even believes the importance of the distinction and the merits of taking months (yes, months) to really weigh all of the paper-pushing possibilities. But having seen the school lunches poor kids endure first-hand, I think it’s well past time for CDE to decide they are committed to helping to solve this problem, and not being an impediment.

And missing is the State Board of Education.  Having recently written at some length on the merits of a municipal BOE taking quick action, I admit I am befuddled that the State Board seems willing to watch at a distance as if they were the audience and not a fellow actor.  I even had a short conversation last week with a State BOE member who says that this issue is her passion (and she has the bona fides to support it) — who apparently found the statue/rule debate a mood-killer, retired with a headache and allowed the January meeting deadline to pass.

I could even understand this delay (well, sort of) if there was opposition, but there appears to be none.  On one side: the Colorado Children’s Campaign, the Colorado Health Foundation, numerous other interest groups, schools and families.  On the other side: a few bureaucrats hand-wringing linguistics.

The problem here is that Revolution Foods does not have the luxury of a few more months to discuss and debate the finer distinctions of statute fix vs. rule change.  They have to hire and train staff; find, lease, and furnish food preparation space; determine and provide logistics and a transportation system, and work with schools.  Their deadline has long since stretched. Even if this statute/rule change had correctly made it to the State BOE in January, it would have been a full year from when Rev Foods were initially interested to the delivery of the first meal.  And if you can’t manage the process within a year, you might well decide its time to move on. As a local foundation leader puts it:

“All this backs up to right now and, if not, it could certainly delay this to next January, if not a year—and if Revolution Foods is still interested in coming to Denver.”

For small companies like Rev Foods, the snails pace of state government is not conducive, particularly if they have other options where they are treated as part of the solution, and not as a regulatory burden.  My belief is that continued delay is much more fragile than CDE recognizes, and puts Rev Foods in a increasingly untenable position.

If and when this coalition falls apart, CDE will undoubtedly have reasons why they were being prudent, which is of no interest or use to any child who can’t afford the same food choices their more affluent peers take for granted. If there was ever an easy school issue where action trumped indecision, this is it.

—

If one has an interest, I recommend both The Lunchroom Rebellion (The New Yorker) and The School Lunch Test (NYT Magazine). Why does school food matter?  Here an an excerpt from the latter article:

By any health measure, today’s children are in crisis. Seventeen percent of American children are overweight, and increasing numbers of children are developing high blood pressure, high cholesterol and Type 2 diabetes, which, until a few years ago, was a condition seen almost only in adults. The obesity rate of adolescents has tripled since 1980 and shows no sign of slowing down. Today’s children have the dubious honor of belonging to the first cohort in history that may have a lower life expectancy than their parents. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has predicted that 30 to 40 percent of today’s children will have diabetes in their lifetimes if current trends continue.

Oddly enough, there is no mention in either article of the improved nutrition if one pursues a state statue fix versus a state rule change.

Posted in Nutrition | Tagged | Leave a comment

Media Coverage (sigh)

Posted on January 19, 2009 by axooms

Here is the headline on an article from the Rocky on Wednesday:

DPS has no plans to close schools, job finalist says

Here is the information that led to the headline, five paragraphs later:

[Boasberg] said there were no plans to close any more elementary schools, because most are 95 percent full, with some even reaching 100 percent to 110 percent capacity.

It is not just that Boasberg says ELEMENTARY schools won’t be closed (and if you follow DPS, you know this is not where the problems are), but he goes on to state the reason: capacity.

Is it so much to ask that media coverage might both consider that not all schools are elementary, and that since there remain middle and high-schools that are severely under capacity, there might be a reason he was so specific?  Especially since much of the rationale for Boasberg’s appointment includes continuing policies that would not forgo closing additional underperforming, under capacity schools, and it’s reasonable to assume no sensible superintendent would take this issue off the table entirely before they even started.

In all fairness, headlines are usually written by the editors, not the reporter, so don’t blame the byline.  But still, to write a headline committing a yet-to-be-superintendent with an established position on a controversial topic which is not supported in the same story is pretty ugly.

Posted in Media | Leave a comment

The difficulty of community engagement

Posted on January 13, 2009 by axooms

Much hay is being made over the lack of community participation in the DPS superintendent announcement.  In my mind, this decision suffers primarily from its unfortunate timing downstream from the appointments of CO Secretary of State, and US Senator.

By far the weakest argument over exclusion is the selection of DPS superintendent. The other two are elected positions where one could argue that the will of the people is a considerable factor – in contrast, the superintendent is appointed by the Board of Education .  So the decisions that deserve the most scrutiny and any heat rest squarely at the top of the Colorado political establishment with Governor Ritter, not with the elected and unpaid BOE.  I am no DPS apologist, but when the protest march headed to 900 Grant instead of the state capitol or (governor’s residence) it was off track.

And there are other questions here.  For starters, how much engagement would be enough? Community engagement is one of those non-quantifiable items where more is pretty much always considered better.  Is there a recent political decision where community leaders would say they were overly solicited?  Where they wanted to be consulted less? Where groups convened to raise their collective voice to say:  Stop asking us already and make your decision? 

Community engagement is one of those rare criteria where one can always argue for more, more, more — and it is an impossible critique to avoid. The BOE’s superintendent decision emphasized continuity and speed over inclusion – it’s hard for me to see the calculus by which more dialogue trumps those considerations. When one argues that more openness is always better, one usually ignores that other factors get pushed out. And, as I’ve argued, this was ultimately not a choice between candidates.

As with the decision to close Manual, the emergence of a group stirred to public protest by the fulcrum of a specific BOE decision merits serious questions about where the outrage has been quietly napping.  The chronic underachievement of Latino students in DPS cited as a partial basis for the protest is ongoing, and has persisted for generations. Bennet’s administration – from the very beginning – did as much (or more) than anyone to call attention to the achievement gap and the problems encountered by African American and Latino students in DPS.

At the finalist announcement, Boasberg called urban education “the civil rights issue of our time.”  These guys are not late to the issue of minority achievement – they have been leading it. As others have noted, groups such as Padres Unidos — who have been deeply involved with reform in DPS for some time — supported the appointment. For me, Padres (especially with North High) have walked considerable miles in the shoes of DPS.  Their outrage would have had some shoe leather behind it.

Lastly, what happened to representative government?  The basic idea of democracy (despite the fashion of ballot amendments) is that we elect our leaders, and entrust in them the ability to make decisions.  Citizens vote for the BOE, and the BOE selects a superintendent – that’s actually how it is designed to work.  The spilled tea cry has moved from No Taxation Without Representation to No Taxation Because Here Is A Small But Loud Group That Thinks It Is A Bad Idea.

To claim that this elected BOE is neglectful of issues regarding Latino children would need some stronger evidence than the continuity of an adminstration which has made closing the achievement gap one of its top priorities. Let’s hope this energy is channeled back into the schools where it is sorely needed.

Posted in Engagement | Tagged | Leave a comment

The DPS supt.: person or process?

Posted on January 8, 2009 by axooms

Media reports discuss the current “choice” for DPS superintendent, but that is a misnomer.  There is no existing choice between qualified candidates. The alternative here is between a person and a process.  There are two different paths.  One of them is fraught with difficulty and potentially catastrophic. The other is not.

The person is Tom Boasberg, the current COO.  For the board, he is a known quantity, and they have had the chance to work with him closely.  There should be little about him they do not already know.

When the BOE hired Michael Bennet, they did so with a five-year commitment.  This commitment should be to the ideas and the reforms Bennet espoused, not just to the person.  Appointing Boasberg fulfills this commitment to a five-year effort, and to continuing the nascent and fragile work of reforming Denver’s schools. As has been reported early and often, Boasberg has virtually universal acclaim for his work as COO.  While that does not automatically make him the perfect superintendent, it certainly limits the downside.

The alternative is to engage in a national search.  This will take at least six months and potentially more, during which Boasberg will leave (wouldn’t you?).  DPS will be without an superintendent, and also without experience in both the COO and chief academic officer positions.  The vacuum of experienced leadership would be catastrophic. With it, the second tier of management at DPS — built slowly over the past three years and currently more skilled than it has been at any time in recent memory — will look to leave as well.  Momentum will stall — indeed, someone at this week’s principal’s meeting says it is already stalling amid the uncertainty  about leadership. Even if a top super can be both located and is willing to take the position (no guarantee), it will be another 3-6 months before they have their own team in place and have the traction to get anything done.

This decision is an alternative between a known and liked executive and continuity of the reforms which have been widely embraced by citizens across Denver, or a year of paralysis and attrition, with no guarantee of a better outcome.

And if Boasberg does not work out, guess what: the board has the ability fire him and engage in a national search – they do not lose this option.  Choosing Boasberg does not limit the board’s ability to go down the second path.  But it makes that decision — as it should be — one of last resort.

Posted in District Performance | Tagged | Leave a comment

Education resolution: diminish dualism

Posted on January 2, 2009 by axooms

The mind tends towards division and opposition: heads v. tails, black v. white, defense v. offense, progressive v. conservative, Capulet v. Montague.   This simplicity has its advantages, but considered and thoughtful debate is not one of them.

In education generally — and on this blog — this dualism is found in various forms: charter schools v. district schools; pro-union v. anti-union; teachers v. nonteachers.  Nationally, the debate has also been shaped by defining opposing factors: reformers v. establishment,  disrupters v. incrementalists,  Broader, Bolder v. the Education Equality Project.  My own writing has been subjected to this constricting binary paradigm, as an Op-Ed that I submitted under the title of Schools, Competition and Choice (“and” because the latter two are differences of degree, not of kind) was instead published with the oppositional titleCompetition vs. Choice.

The implication in all of this is clear: pick sides.

To choose opposing sides is to agree to a zero-sum game with a winner and loser — where the advancement of any one group means the diminishment of another. Turning the discussion about how to improve education into a polar debate with forced encampments fighting not to lose is a recipe for stasis. There should be healthy debate among the groups on their respective merits, there will (and should) be vibrant disagreements, there will be ways and times in which one group may claim “victory” over another.  But hopefully the discussion is not about these differing groups, but the specific ideas and practices which each contributes.

Good ideas can come from anywhere (and some of the most revolutionary often come from those people or parties furthest outside the existing system); and operational practice makes tremendous difference, as even the best idea implemented badly produces little benefit. There is no group listed above who does not have something to contribute, and there is no single party that will not be better off if its evil twin improves as well.  Moreover, we can pursue many of the strategies essential to these groups in parallel with others: to improve district schools does not require that charter schools fail (and vice-versa).

The tendency to polarize reminds me of Lord Palmerton’s famous remark: Nation’s have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. There is no permanent ally for education reform, no single silver bullet, no one group that has an overriding claim on what is right. However there are permanent interests: quality, learning, achievement — the ability for all children to have educational opportunities, regardless of who they are and where they live. Let’s diminish the dualism and focus on these permanent interests.

Posted in School Performance, Teacher Unions | Leave a comment

The charter difference in D.C.

Posted on December 19, 2008 by axooms

Having just posted on the need to close bad charter schools, it’s good to end the week on a positive note.  In Washington D.C., long one of the cities with the worst public education system in the nation, charters are showing some considerable gains (full article):

Students in the district’s charter schools have opened a solid academic lead over those in its traditional public schools, adding momentum to a movement that is recasting public education in the city.

The gains show up on national standardized tests and the city’s own tests in reading and math, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. Charters have been particularly successful with low-income children, who make up two-thirds of D.C. public school students.

The article is instructive on both why many of these schools work, and some pitfalls to avoid (there has been accusations over conflicts of interest from the Charter board). It’s excellent reading.

Posted in Charter Schools, School Performance | Leave a comment