Increased Education Spending in Federal Budget

by the American Association of Educators

This week President Obama outlined the federal budget at a middle school in Baltimore. While he discussed the scope of the entire federal budget, education was a major focus. Obama called for increased spending for education programs despite the call for cuts from congressional Republicans.

If approved, federal spending for public schools will increase, and the maximum federal Pell grant will remain constant at $5,550 per college student. Obama's education proposal asks for $77.4 billion, a 4 percent increase from the 2010 budget.

The cornerstone of the spending centers around the Race to the Top campaign that last year gave $4 billion worth of stimulus funding to various states for enacting school reforms. The 2012 budget proposal includes $900 million for Race to the Top, which the administration says would be awarded this time not to states but to school districts.

The administration's education proposal also includes $600 million for School Turnaround Grants, a $54 million increase above 2010 levels. The turnaround program, which the Department of Education hopes will finance overalls of thousands of the country's poor performing schools, was also financed with billions in economic stimulus money.

Another program that will see increased funding under the proposed budget is Title I, which channels money to school districts to help them educate disadvantaged children, would receive $14.8 billion, an increase of $300 million over 2010.

The proposed spending comes on the heels of recent education rhetoric, culminating at the State of the Union with a call to increase our "investment" in education. Obama has pushed to take advantage of this "Sputnik moment" to increase our college graduation rate and renew our commitment to the STEM subjects to ensure American success in a changing global economy.

Obama and his administration are experiencing significant push-back from congressional Republicans who warn that we cannot afford to increase spending for any department.

Among the many cuts proposed, is a $1.1 billion cut from the Head Start program, which, according to estimates by the National Head Start Association, would eliminate services for children and eliminate positions within the Head Start organization.

Top Down or Bottom Up in School Improvement

By: Bill Jackson

I've been making my way through a new book edited by John Simmons, an advisor to superintendents of large urban school districts. Breaking Through: Transforming Urban School Districts focuses on the Chicago experience over the past twenty five years, but includes insights from more than a dozen districts.

Simmons breaks down Chicago's elementary schools into two groups based on the progress they made in raising student achievement during the past 15 years. As a group, the 181 "high-gain schools" raised the percentage of their students scoring at or above average on a national reading test from 20 to 49 percent, a gain of 29 percentile points. In contrast, the 179 "low-gain schools" managed only a gain of 11 percentile points--from 19 to 30 percent .

What's the difference between these two groups, according to Simmons? The high-gain schools developed the capacity to improve themselves. The high gain schools selected and supported principals who recruited a strong teacher corps, involved parents, and improved instruction. Among his findings:

* The principals in the high-gain schools removed 50% or more of their teachers

* High-gain schools had Local School Councils (mandated in all Chicago Public Schools) that   effectively assessed and directed principals and budgets

* Training and professional development in high gain schools raised the quality of performance for teachers and principals.

(Interestingly, many of the new teachers at the high-gain schools had previously been the better teachers at the schools that would become low-gain schools. To some extent, it was a zero sum game.)

The Simmons thesis is basically this: American public schools need to learn from the experience of American business. Top-down command and control doesn't work. If you want a high-performing system, you've got to build the capacity of the people working at the front lines. Whether you're talking about a factory or a school, this means that small teams must have the authority, responsibility and skills they need to recognize and solve problems and to make their operation run better.

Former San Diego Superintendent (and current California State Secretary of Education) has some of the most interesting things to say in the opening chapters of this 250 page volume.

"The notion of what standards-based reform is, the place that it has in replacing the bell curve in American public education, is something that has not been gotten across, either to the opinion elite, or to the parents or voters, and so the entire effort suffers from lack of support.

"The communication link we need most is at the school site with information and points of view circulating back and forth among site leaders, parents, students, teachers and the local community on a whole variety of matters. This takes enormous effort, critical insight and local leadership to build effectively."

This strikes me as absolutely correct. Most of us haven't really gotten it into our heads that it is NOT OK that most students, especially the children of the disadvantaged, leave school without many of the skills they'll need to enjoy a full range of personal, civic and economic opportunities in our society.

The valuable perspective in this volume is that there are no top-down shortcuts in the path from here to there. If we really want to transform the nation's education system to the point where the large majority of kids are leaving school with a wide range of options, then we have enormous work to do to develop leaders at all levels--parent, teachers, principals, and district--who know how to build teams and improve instruction.

Skandera's Outside Consultants: A case for change

One has to wonder why the educational establishment, unions, large urban districts and superintendents would be concerned about Secretary of Education Hanna Skandera bringing in consultants from across the country to assist New Mexico in climbing out of the hole that has been dug for our kids?

Two complaints continue to emerge.  First, it has been asked, “is there nobody from New Mexico qualified to serve as an advisor to the new Secretary?”  Secondly, concerns over spending state money on “no bid” contracts have been questioned.  Let us evaluate each of these concerns individually.

“Is there nobody from New Mexico qualified to serve as an advisor to the new Secretary?”  Logically speaking, if there were anyone in New Mexico qualified to do this work it would have already been done.  Educators in New Mexico have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the student’s best interest and look out for their well being.  Failure to do so can lead to one’s loss of teaching credentials or even criminal prosecution in some cases.  Therefore, the answer to the question must be “no”.  To answer in any other way would be an admission that one did not perform the duties and obligations required by their license. 

One of the largest beneficiaries of outside help over the past few years has been the Albuquerque Public School district.  However, APS Superintendent Winston Brooks is quoted as saying in an Albuquerque Journal article on Monday, February 14, 2011 that, “I think it sends a bad message when you’re only an expert if you’re from outside the state”.  However, he failed to remind the board that he was hired from out of state.  Superintendent Brooks just recently received his second contract extension.  He is an example of the talent available outside of our state.  Regardless of his politics, statements to the Board, or his interpersonal communication style (bullying those who disagree), nobody would argue that he has become a stabilizing force within the APS district.  He has provided direction and stability to a perennial problem.  Unfortunately, APS and Superintendent Brooks have been some of the loudest critics of Hanna Skandera’s efforts to bring new ideas to the problems facing New Mexico’s schools.

The late, great college basketball coach John Wooden said, “it is amazing what can be accomplished when nobody cares who gets the credit”.  This is the attitude New Mexican’s must insist upon if we truly have our kids’ best interest at heart.  It is not about “who” has the ideas that improve education.  It is about learning those ideas and then working together to implement the ideas to improve education. 

“Concerns over spending state money on “no bid” contracts” have been thrown out by the American Federation of Teachers and others in recent days.  In short, this is a red herring for two reasons.  First, the State Procurement Code which governs governmental purchases specifically states that contracts for professional services are required to go to bid when they exceed $50,000.00.  The individual contracts issued in this instance do not meet this requirement.

Secondly, the contracts actually save the taxpayers money.  By way of example, the entire amount spent on the contracts in question amounts to approximately $152,000.  The AFT recommends a “quick hire” to fill the position instead - thus creating another permanent, full time position at the Department of Education.  In fact, the AFT recommends eight people be hired!  The cost for a full-time employee at the PED is the salary cost plus approximately 40% for benefits (health, dental, vision, life, educational retirement, FICA, etc.).  Therefore, a $70,000.00 employee actually costs taxpayers $98,000.00 per year.  For the same money spent, Secretary Skandera could have only hired 1.5 full time employees.  And, these people would have continued on the state payroll for life (if they qualified for retirement at some point in the future).  The overall cost to the state would have been extreme, and the ideas and talent New Mexican’s have access to would have been cut by 75%.  It is exactly this type of thinking that has put New Mexico in the educational predicament it currently finds itself.  It is also this type of “union math” that is a major contributor to the state’s current economic condition.

People are quick to point out when something is done poorly.  They are even quicker to point out when they disagree with an idea or concept.  Rarely, if ever, do leaders hear when they do things correctly.  They move through life often questioning their decisions.  The Southwest Learning Center wants to let Secretary Skandera’s office know that we support her decision and appreciate her standing up for what is right – both by New Mexico’s kids and by New Mexico taxpayers! 

Secretary Skandera is Right to Bring in Outside Help

We are acutely aware of the harsh criticism of our new Secretary of Education, Hanna Skandera.  The New Mexico Coalition of School Administrators and the New Mexico chapter of the American Federation of Teachers are upset over a decision by Public Education Secretary, Hanna Skandera to hire out-of-state consultants.  Once again, the educational establishment appears to have embraced the status quo as “good enough” even in the light of  Education Week magazine's annual report that revealed the drop in New Mexico's national ranking from 24th last year to 32^nd this year.  Furthermore, in the most important categories (student learning and chance of success) New Mexico received an F for achievement in kindergarten through the 12th grade, and D+ in "chance for success," a category looking at factors such as graduation rates and parental education. 

Presumably, if the “local experts” had the skill set and knowledge to “fix” the problems that continue to plague New Mexico’s schools, they would have done so already.  Clearly, New Mexico public education could benefit from an outside group examining current practice and policy.   As educators we must acknowledge the weaknesses in our systems and adjust and embrace new ideas in order to increase the number of students in New Mexico who have yet to experience success. 

New Mexicans need innovations in education that challenge the status quo.  How can any organization insulate itself from an opportunity to learn from a network of individuals with specific areas of expertise?  The growing complexity and interconnectedness of a global society has challenged the effectiveness of our traditional education systems and sadly too many of our children are not prepared for the future.  In order to look forward we need to be willing to examine every facet of what we do, what we think and how we can modify and change.  To thrive in the 21st century, however, we need to go beyond that — and teach people how to learn, engage, and create. As Albert Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” The new model is about the constant creation of knowledge and empowering individuals to participate, communicate, and innovate. The new consultants engaged by Secretary Skandera bring their experience and expertise to a public system that is need of fresh ideas.  As lifelong learners, our schools welcome a visit or any advice they will bring.

It will be a challenge for the small group of eight to shake up the bureaucratic inertia in our school systems that has given permission to educational leaders to happily stay in the same place - at the expense of our kids. The new Governor and Secretary deserve our help and support for the herculean effort that will be needed to reverse the mediocrity foisted upon our kids by the educational establishment that will stop at nothing to keep education on its’ current course.  Failing schools equal failing citizens; failing citizens equal fiscal crisis; and choice equals a chance.  And a chance is certainly worth more than the year-to-year decline in our national rankings.

In coming submissions, we will highlight the innovations begun at the Southwest Learning Center and trace the success the students have experienced.  We invite your feedback, ideas, and suggestions.  For without communication and dialogue, nothing will change.  And that will only serve to continue the disservice to our kids and our great State.

Three Approaches to School Improvement: Will Any Work?

This is the second in a series of articles focusing on nationwide school reform ideas.  Please reply with your thoughts and ideas on the articles and recommendations for improving education at the Southwest Learning Center.

By Rick DuFour

It seems to me that there are three competing approaches to school improvement in the United States today that are based on very different assumptions.

1. We’re okay; they are not okay.

     This approach operates from the assumption that educators are doing a superlative job and need not consider making any substantive changes either to their professional practice or the structure and culture of their schools. The problems lie elsewhere. Society must solve the cycle of poverty. State governments need to pass more enlightened educational policies and provide more funding. Parents need to become more involved in the education of their children. Students need to become more responsible.

     The logic behind this approach is that the traditional practices of schooling continue to suffice despite the fact that the purposes of schooling have changed dramatically. Schools in the United States were not created to ensure all students learn: they were specifically created to give students the opportunity to attend school where they are sorted and selected according to their perceived aptitude, ability, work ethic, and likely occupation. The fact that the majority of students dropped out of the K–12 system throughout most of the 20th century was not a concern because there were ample opportunities for employment at a decent wage in agriculture and manufacturing. Clearly this situation no longer exists. Yet, despite the fact that we have dropped from 1st in the world in high school graduation rates to 21st out of 27 advanced economies and from 1st to 14th in college graduation rates, some educators continue to insist that there is no need for them to change. This is a perfectly logical approach to school improvement only if one assumes that educators bear absolutely no responsibility for the current conditions of schooling and no obligation to improve those conditions.

2. Sticks and carrots

     The assumption driving this approach is that educators have known how to help students learn at higher levels, but have lacked the motivation to put forth the effort necessary to attain these higher levels of achievement. If this assumption is correct, the solution to the problems of education can be solved by creating sufficient penalties and incentives to elicit the required effort. Thus, No Child Left Behind offered vouchers and charter schools to apply more competitive pressure to public schools. The law also established 37 different ways for schools to fail and threatened increasingly punitive sanctions, including closing schools and revoking the jobs of teachers and principals in those schools. Although those threats have failed to raise student achievement, they continue but are now coupled with financial incentives. Race to the Top (or as I prefer, “Dash for the Cash”) funds are now available for schools and districts that create improvement plans that align with federal guidelines. Merit pay incentives are to be offered to individual teachers to spur them to greater effort. These are perfectly logical strategies if it is true that educators have always had the ability to improve their schools but have been too lethargic to do so.

3. School improvement means people improvement.

     The assumption behind this approach is that educators have lacked the collective capacity to promote learning for all students in the existing structures and cultures of the systems in which they work. This strategy recognizes that the quality of a school cannot exceed the quality of its personnel, and so it deliberately sets out to create the conditions that ensure the adults in the building are part of a job-embedded continuous improvement process that results in their ongoing learning. Educators are asked to work collaboratively so they can learn from one another and support one another. They are asked to check for student learning on a ongoing basis, use the evidence of that learning to inform and improve their professional practice, and create a plan of intervention that guarantees students who struggle will be provided additional time and support for learning in a way that is timely, directive, and systematic. Above all, they are asked to work interdependently and to take collective responsibility for the learning of each student.

      The first approach contends educators have no responsibility for either the current state of public education or the effort to improve it. The second approach views educators as the cause of the problems of educators and sets out to coerce and cajole them into better performance. The third approach assumes that educators are working hard and doing the best they can in the flawed systems in which they work; however, if that system is to be improved, educators themselves will play the major role in doing so.

      Which assumptions and approaches seem most likely to improve schools? Which are driving the improvement efforts in your school?

School Improvement: A counter-narrative

This is the first in a series of blogs looking at ideas for school improvement. We invite readers to compare the ideas presented with the practices utilized at the Southwest Learning Center.

By: Derek Wenmoth

I spent last week on the West Coast with my two youngest children, introducing them to the joys of the outdoors and a bit of tramping in a part of the world that I once lived and taught. On the way in to Karamea we stopped off at the last school at which I was principal – Granity School, located right on the beach front about 30km north of Westport.

When I took on the principal role at this school it was in serious need of attention. Due to a combination of unfortunate circumstances that included a significant change in the social infrastructure of the district and having had four principals in the year before I took over, the school was in poor shape. In addition to the evidence of student under-achievement, the buildings were also in a grave state of disrepair. It was quite a challenge, but together with the staff I had in the school and the support of the community, we did manage to make a significant difference for the youngsters attending that school. We did this through a range of strategies, including raising the level of community participation, strengthening channels of communication with parents, investing in property development to create a more inspiring learning environment, and by committing to a school-wide process of professional development to address specific areas of need.

My reason for reflecting on this is that I read this morning about new book based on 15 years of data on public elementary schools in Chicago. While many of the current approaches to school improvement focus on things like ‘quality outcomes’, ‘standards’ and ‘effectiveness’, the researchers in this report identify five tried-and-true ingredients that work, in combination with one another, to spur success in urban schools. Based on a series of studies drawn from the database that the consortium has built up over the years, the five ingredients they identified are:

• Strong leadership, in the sense that principals are “strategic, focused on instruction, and inclusive of others in their work”;
• A welcoming attitude toward parents, and formation of connections with the community;
• Development of professional capacity, which refers to the quality of the teaching staff, teachers’ belief that schools can change, and participation in good professional development and collaborative work;
• A learning climate that is safe, welcoming, stimulating, and nurturing to all students; and
• Strong instructional guidance and materials.

It’s worth reading the review of the book, as it identifies the context within which these schools were studied as having similarities with what we’ve experienced in NZ over the past 20 years where move decision-making power was moved to schools. The key point the authors appear to be making is that success comes through attending to the combination of factors listed above – and that the inter-connectedness of these things at a system level means that improvement cannot be achieved through a single issue focus.

For me it’s a very useful list, and one that we’d do well to read and reflect on, and seek to incorporate its messages into policy development for the next 20 years of schooling in NZ! Perhaps in that way we can take a more holistic look at what our schools are about, working from the bottom up where appropriate, intervening with some ‘top-down’ support where required, and promoting greater, purposeful and strategically organized, collaboration among and between schools.

Report examines promises, pitfalls of charter school autonomy

By the Center for Reinventing Education:

Seattle, WA, February 10, 2011 - A new report finds that charter schools use the freedoms they have from traditional school district mandates to define and operate schools in innovative new ways. However, expectations about what a school “should look like,” the stress of tight and unstable budgets, and overwhelming administrative demands are powerful forces pulling charter schools back to traditional practice.

This report offers great reason for optimism that charter schools are well positioned to answer President Obama’s call for public schools to innovate. But it also cautions that traditional regulatory structures and weaknesses in capacity must be addressed if they are to fully meet the challenge of innovation.

Based on a four-year study of the teachers, leaders, and academic programs in charter schools in six states, Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success observes that “autonomy only creates the opportunity for high-quality schools, it by no means guarantees it.”

Author Betheny Gross, a researcher at the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) at the University of Washington, argues that autonomy makes it possible for charter schools to: 

• Organize themselves around mission, not a collection of individual teacher or parent preferences.
• Develop programs that serve diverse student interests and needs (e.g., those of immigrant children, returning dropout students, or ethnic minority students in impoverished neighborhoods).
• Increase disadvantaged students’ access to college prep programs.
• Give principals real power to lead, with more control over staffing, budgets, curriculum, and programs.
• Enter into new teacher compacts that emphasize professional development linked to the school’s mission and give teachers substantial influence in the classroom and the school.
• Turn on a dime. The combination of a focused mission, strong leaders, a committed team, and an informal structure allows charter schools to assess how they are doing and quickly change direction when they feel they are off course.

However, increased autonomy brings new challenges. The study found that school leaders take on sweeping responsibilities that many are ill prepared to handle. Too often, their governing boards receive minimal training and offer little help. And retaining a stable staff can be difficult in urban charter schools with high-needs students. Operating with informal structures, charter schools become highly dependent on maintaining trusting relationships between teachers and leaders.

The report also identifies missed opportunities. Many charter schools look quite similar to district-run schools in their design, curriculum, and classroom practice. Charter schools also mimic their traditional counterparts in administrative structure and planning, as well as compensation.

To help charter schools put their autonomy to best use, the report includes recommendations for policymakers. Specifically:

• Expand charter-specific training programs to help more school leaders and governing boards overcome inevitable challenges.
• Encourage the creation of more charter school support organizations that unburden leaders of administrative functions such as payroll, accounting, or facilities leasing.
• Make state charter school funding allocations more predictable in order to minimize the uncertainty that keeps schools from trying bold new approaches to compensation, budgeting, and staffing.
• Offer flexibility in teacher certification rules and ensure that charter schools can operate outside district collective bargaining agreements in order to explore new staffing models.
• Encourage all charter school staff agreements to include basic protections for teachers.

Inside Charter Schools: Unlocking Doors to Student Success is the final report in a series of studies produced by the Inside Charter Schools initiative, part of the National Charter School Research Project. The studies are available at www.crpe.org.  

What can we learn from standardized testing?

Albert Einstein once said, “Not everything that counts can be measured, and not everything that can be measured counts.” This statement is very true when it comes to measuring success in public education. There is almost no greater catalyst in debates over education than the role of standardized testing. In the United States, success on standardized testing is used to determine school achievement, is linked to high school graduation and college acceptance, and in some communities can even determine property value. Some lawmakers have proposed that teacher pay should be linked to test results as well.

Although standardized testing does have limitations, using standard tests as a tool to determine whether or not students are getting the basic building blocks of a good education makes sense. While some would argue that a generic test is no substitute for looking at the overall academic accomplishments of a student, standardized tests give educators and leaders a picture of whether students are learning fundamental skills they will need to succeed as future members of the workforce and society.

There are two main types of standardized tests. Norm-referenced tests compare students to one another. The most well-known norm-referenced test is the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or the SAT. Criterion-referenced tests measure how well students perform relative to set standards. Criterion-referenced tests are most commonly used across the United States to determine success in K-12 education. The standardized tests developed individually by states in accordance with the “No Child Left Behind Act” are examples of criterion-referenced testing.

Standardized testing has been relied on across the world for centuries. Standardized testing was first seen in ancient China where tests were given to anyone seeking employment in government. By World War I, the United States was using standardized tests to assign jobs to Army servicemen. Standardized tests don’t tell educators everything about the kind of education students are receiving, but they do give insight on how schools are doing with the basics.

Each year in New Mexico, students are given the New Mexico Standards Based Assessment (SBA). This assessment tests students on material that makes the basic framework of what they should learn in their grade-level. As announced yesterday, Southwest Secondary Learning Center seventh graders and Southwest Primary Learning Center 4th and 5th graders received recognition for their extremely high test scores and year-over-year gains on the SBA. Although the Southwest Learning Centers recognize that the SBA can’t measure a student’s attributes like creativity, sense of humor, social skills, emotional maturity, or positive attitude, we hold that the SBAs give valuable information on student progress in core subject areas.

The information gathered from the New Mexico SBA results for the 2009-2010 school year shows that the Southwest Learning Centers’ innovative methods are successful. The Southwest Learning Centers clearly provide a superior education to students without the achievement gap seen at most other schools. While the Standards Based Assessment does not measure everything that counts in education, the recent results show the Southwest Learning Centers to be a continued model for success.

Furthermore, when policymakers, community leaders, and parents use these results to make decisions regarding their child’s education – the tests are important. And, if this is the standard that we have chosen to measure schools by, then it is also the standard by which schools that achieve this standard should be celebrated! Congratulations to the students and teachers at the Southwest Learning Center – you have achieved what very few have, and you deserve all the accolades that accompany this accomplishment!

More Money for Classrooms

This is the last in a four part series analyzing Governor Martinez's plan to reform New Mexico's educational system - from the perspective of practitioners. 

Governor Susana Martinez has this to say about sending more money to New Mexico classrooms: “We can no longer afford to fund programs that leave our kids unprepared for the rigors of college and the workforce. We must get a better return on our investment in education.” According to the budget officers group, the United States spent a grand total of $337.4 billion on education for fiscal year 2010. On average, one in three dollars in state government goes to fund primary and secondary education. For fiscal year 2010, New Mexico spent over $2 billion dollars on education.  With all of the tax dollars that go toward education in New Mexico, taxpayers have every right to demand better returns for their investment.

Currently, New Mexico ranks at the bottom of the list as far as educational achievement. Governor Martinez says, “New Mexico is 49^th in the nation in education because there is more of a focus on throwing money into the system instead of simply improving student education.” Currently, only 61 cents of every education dollar spent in New Mexico makes it to the classroom. Nearly a third of education spending goes to what Governor Martinez refers to as “the bureaucracy”: people who are not in the classroom teaching every day. As part of her “Kids First, New Mexico Wins” reform plan, Governor Martinez wants to put less of the education budget into the bureaucracy and put more money toward students and meeting their needs.

Governor Martinez has asked school districts in New Mexico to cut 1.5 percent of unnecessary administrative costs, increasing the percentage of funding available for classroom spending. While some districts have argued that there is no wasteful spending and nowhere to cut in administration, Governor Martinez pointed this out: “APS principals are making three to four times more money than teachers and its schools are still failing.” She added that bloated administration and bureaucracy could be found at every one of its schools.

At Southwest Learning Centers, ensuring funds get to the classroom is a top priority. According to the schools’ business manager, nearly 80 cents of every dollar goes straight to the classroom. The focus at Southwest Learning Center is providing students with a solid education and other opportunities that will help them succeed in the future.  By pushing such a high percentage of funds directly toward student education, Southwest Learning Center is able to provide innovative programs such as the student flight program. Because students and learning are the priorities at Southwest, students are much more successful than in nearly any other public school in New Mexico.

New Mexico’s students deserve more from the public education system than wasteful bureaucracies and imprudent spending. Taxpayers need spending priorities to be put in place to guarantee a better return on education investments. Governor Martinez’s plan will ensure positive results in education by securing access to quality schools and teachers for every New Mexico student.

Increasing Accountability in Schools

There are four key elements to Governor Susana Martinez’s proposed “Kids First, New Mexico Wins” education reform plan. Governor Martinez wants to increase accountability of NM schools by giving schools letter grades, send more money to the classrooms, end social promotion, and reward teachers based on performance. The next blog posts will focus on these four areas individually and discuss the positive effects this reform plan can have on education in New Mexico.

Increasing Accountability

Creating accountability in public education is a very complex task. The blame for the failures of the current school system cannot be placed on any one policymaker or education provider. Building accountability is also made difficult because of the problems with defining and measuring school outcomes.

There is no question that accountability is weak in the traditional school system. The RAND (Research and Development) Corporation has completed studies on the lack of accountability in the public education. Inadequate information, confusing roles in the educational bureaucracy and weak incentives all lead to the irresponsibility seen in education.

First, many of the “clients” of public education (parents, families, the community) have insufficient information about the performance of schools. New Mexico Secretary of Education Hanna Skandera writes, “Currently, New Mexico schools receive confusing, opaque labels, like ‘School Not Making Adequate Yearly Progress by 1, 2, or 3 Indicators.’” These ratings do not give a clear picture of a given school’s success.

Secondly, even if education clients have accurate, transparent information about a school’s performance, they often find it difficult to find out who is responsible for what, how to complain, or whom to complain. Navigating through the public education bureaucracy is at times so difficult that many concerned parents give up.

Lastly, a lack of strong motivational incentives has led to the current low accountability standards. A report from the United States Agency for International Development states, “In a competitive, private market, failure to meet client demand translates into bankruptcy – or at least a declining market share.” This is similar to New Mexico's charter schools - either perform or face closure.  The same should be true for New Mexico's traditional schools as well!  The report goes on to share that in Chile, managers from the public sector face criminal charges if they misuse funds. They compare these strong incentives to the American educational arena, “Teachers and principals almost never lose their employment as a result of students’ poor test performance.”

Governor Martinez’s plan to improve accountability in New Mexico’s public education system would address these current problems. She recommends an easy-to-understand “A-F” grading system for schools. Secretary of Education Skandera has this to say about the proposed system: “For the first time, parents, teachers, school and community leaders will have a clear understanding of whether or not students are learning.” Also in the Governor’s plan, schools earning an “A” grade, or schools showing improvement by moving up a letter grade, will receive recognition funds, while schools that don’t make the grade will receive more attention. By intervening in failing schools faster and giving struggling students and parents more options, accountability will improve greatly.

The changes Governor Martinez wants to implement have been successful in other states. For example, Florida’s former Governor, Jeb Bush, signed an education reform package in 1999 that included increased accountability through grading schools. Currently the effects of the push for more accountability in Florida are seen. Almost 75% of elementary students are reading at their grade level or above their grade level. The graduation rate for the state is 15% higher than in the year 2000 and Florida has been recognized by the Department of Education for making progress in closing the achievement gap.

Although the path to more accountability for the public education system will not be an easy one, implementing Governor Martinez’s proposals will lead to a better education for New Mexico’s students. With the clear lack of accountability in the current system, it is clear that the status quo needs to change. As Secretary of Education Skandera states, “Now, it is time to create a robust accountability system in New Mexico.”

The staff at the Southwest Learning Center expects to be held accountable by the students, parents, and comunity that have chosen SLC for their child's education.  We are committed to hiring the best staff, providing the best facilities, and employing the best communication strategies available to keep parents informed.  We believe that this will lead to improved student learning for all kids.  As always, we invite recommendations and responses to our innovative ideas for transforming education.

A New Paradigm for Education

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
—Albert Einstein

With all the discussion about New Mexico’s educational standing compared to the United States’ and the world’s standing, one would believe the powers that be would be seeking and embracing changes and solutions that could radically improve New Mexico’s public schools.  Einstein may not have been talking about the century-old educational model still operating in most of New Mexico’s school districts and serving as a guide for many state policies and regulations, but he certainly could have been.

Southwest Secondary Learning Center (SSLC) bases student progress and advancement on the concept of mastery of learning/content as opposed to the traditional measurement of seat time or the Carnegie Unit.  The vast majority of schools throughout the nation measure student advancement on the model developed by the State of Massachusetts in 1906 by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching for the purpose of establishing a retirement fund for elderly college professors.  The Carnegie Unit was created in order to establish a common teaching standard among various Massachusetts institutions of higher learning to determine professor’s eligibility to receive benefits from Carnegie’s $10 million endowment.  In order to keep students in high schools and from prematurely entering college and to provide colleges with uniform admissions standards, the Carnegie Unit (or credit) developed into the measurement tool for secondary schools nationwide.  The standard “unit” was further refined and defined by the amount of time spent in school for a year, week, day or class period or more simply put “seat time.”  This definition of a high school education as “time served” remains firmly entrenched in New Mexico’s schools.  Graduation, attendance, truancy, school calendars and many other state mandated requirements are all based on this antiquated measure of student achievement.  Southwest Secondary Learning Center, a state chartered charter school, is required to adhere to many state mandated requirements that inhibit moving education into the 21^st century. 

The SSLC founders acted on their belief that students’ advancement should be based on content mastery and not on “seat time” in front of a teacher.  The SSLC model uses computers as tools for instruction and teaches individual learners at the specific moment that the instruction is needed.  This model of teaching individual students instead of classes or periods should be embraced as an alternative to the traditional school paradigm that most New Mexico students and families have no choice but to accept.  SSLC students’ achievement and advancement is not constrained by the traditional classroom model; 4 walls, 35 desks and a “sage on stage.”  Students’ progress through the course outline is based on content mastery and demonstrated proficiency instead of teachers’ lesson plans.  Instruction is one-on-one and remediation is immediate, a rarity in the traditional classroom.  Students’ opportunity to self-direct their education and their parents’ ability to set individual proficiency standards and monitor progress on line is a model that should be examined by all who wish their children to reach their full potential.  Many critics of the education establishment contend that simply spending more money on the same century-old model will not improve education for New Mexico students.  To continue on the same path is truly insane.

LFC Downplaying Disaster

The following section was taken from the Legislative Finance Committee report Program Evaluation of New Mexico Charter Schools dated 7/23/10, Report # 10-09.

Despite charter schools’ position that they are dependent on the small school size adjustment, it is not clear that the purpose of size adjustments in the funding formula is to act as a subsidy for the diseconomies of scale that the small school site charter school education programs produce. There has been tacit recognition of these diseconomies; three out of the 16 charter schools LFC staff visited (La Luz Del Monte, La Resolana and Ralph J. Bunche Academy) are sharing facilities with one or more other charter schools that also receive small school size adjustment. Charter schools are envisioned as smaller school sites by choice, and are often located in urban areas where traditional public schools have available space. The purpose of the Charter Schools Act (Section 22-8B-1 NMSA 1978) is “to enable individual schools to structure their educational curriculum to encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods that are based on reliable research and effective practices or have been replicated successfully in schools with diverse characteristics,” which to a reasonable person could be interpreted as a special program.

It is clear that the Legislative Finance Committee fashioned the language in their report with the intent to eliminate only those small schools that have the leadership and common sense to share facilities in order to achieve a small economy of scale that reduces the building lease costs and serves to increase the operational fund for students. The report cites the Public School Finance Act (Section 22-8-23 (A) NMSA 1978) cites “separate schools established to provide special programs, including but not limited to vocational and alternative education, shall not be classified as public schools for purposes of generating size adjustment program units” as the rationale for deciding that charter schools sharing facilities should be considered as less than public schools, rather they choose to view them as mere special programs.  The concept is laughable if it weren’t being used as a reason for cutting the heart of the funding for charter and other small schools. No reasonable or rational person could conclude that the rigor of beginning and sustaining successful charter schools is a program level endeavor.  The accountability and responsibilities for charter schools is grounded in statute and delineated by the state PEC (Public Education Commission) advised by the PED (Public Education Department) or a local school district as an authorizer.  The Charter School statues clearly identify charter schools as public schools and as such they should be treated like all other public schools in New Mexico.

By carving charters out in carefully worded statutory language, the charters join a number of small schools in tiny districts who will lose growth units or small district support.  The Legislative Finance Committee claims that innovative charters and districts do not deserve small school funding because they choose to share viable  facilities with gymnasiums, libraries, and handicapped accessible bathrooms. 

Instead, they continue to view schools in through an old, outdated paradigm and would opt instead (during a budget crisis) to require taxpayers to incur the costs of separate facilities.  As a comical counterpoint to this rationale, there is also recommended legislation to consolidate small school districts in order to save money (see SB 90). That is exactly what these schools and districts have done …consolidate, following the successful models used by the Albuquerque Academy, Bosque Prep, and the New Mexico Military Institute.

Further, the LFC admitted that, “Exempting charter schools from small school size adjustments will make it more difficult for small charter schools to generate enough money to be self-sufficient and provide educational services to students.”  Here the LFC report is accurate.  The reality is grim because a 30% reduction in a small school budget for these schools and they will be unable to support the legislatively-mandated highly qualified teachers and the program and facility requirements. If legislation is crafted to eliminate the small school adjustment, these exemplary schools will be destroyed and the small school funding will continue to be provided to other small schools that are carved out because they are in separate buildings. A true travesty to taxpayers: lose the highest performing schools and in their place incur additional high cost schools.

New Mexico Charter Schools are underfunded when compared to traditional district public schools.  In an analysis of  charter school funding completed in 2010 by Ball State University, (Titled: CHARTER SCHOOL FUNDING: Inequity Persists) it was found that charter schools in New Mexico receive nine percent less per pupil than do school districts. This is prior to factoring in facility funds which districts have access to and charters do not.  These conclusions are based on a methodology that accurately reflects the true disparity that exists between charter school funding and traditional school funding.  The current funding formula adjustments exist based on the Legislature’s recognition of the unique needs of charter schools and small districts. Further, growth factors for charter schools are limited based on the enrollment cap for the charter school while districts have no such cap on enrollment and can receive the benefit of growth calculations ad infinitum. In smaller schools, fixed operational costs like curriculum development and administration must be distributed among fewer students.  See Lewis D. Solomon, Edison Schools and the Privatization of K-12 Public Education:  A Legal and Policy Analysis, 30 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1281, 1299 (2003) (describing economies of scale in school operation).  Because the cost differential factor used to calculate basic program units is based on estimated operational costs per student, the size adjustment factor addresses the issue that it is essentially more expensive to educate a child in a small school than in a larger one.  It does so by giving additional program units to "approved public school[s]" with small student bodies.  Section22-8-23.  For elementary and junior high schools, a school must have fewer than 200 total enrolled, qualified students to be eligible.  Id.; ' 22-8-2 (definitions).  “Public school” is defined in the "General Provisions" section of the Public School Code as:

“that part of a school district that is a single attendance center in which instruction is offered by one or more teachers and is discernible as a building or group of buildings generally recognized as either an elementary, middle, junior high or high school or any combination of those and includes a charter school.”

While this explanation is long and really difficult to understand, we must remain steadfast in our desire to change legislative minds and have a positive outcome that keeps our kids and our schools safe from seemingly small legislative tweaks that erase us from the educational horizon.

(AP) Carlsbad Newspaper: Small school districts may close

Possible closure faces small school districts

Updated: Sunday, 16 Jan 2011, 1:19 PM MST
Published : Sunday, 16 Jan 2011, 1:19 PM MST

• STELLA DAVIS,Carlsbad Current Argus

LOVING, N.M. (AP) - A proposal to close, consolidate or redistrict small school districts in New Mexico is weighing heavily on the minds of parents in Loving.  Schools Superintendent Kristina Baca, who strongly opposes the idea, said the proposal is on the table but is not a done deal.  However, fearing imminent closure, Baca said several parents have withdrawn children from Loving High School and re-enrolled them at Carlsbad High School. The middle and elementary schools have not seen a shift in student population.

Baca said it's her understanding school redistricting legislation is being drafted and will be proposed during the upcoming 60-day legislative session that begins Tuesday. "The Government Restructuring Task Force has made the recommendation. The task force was formed by former Gov. Bill Richardson to explore ways to reduce the state's budget shortfall," Baca explained.  One area the task force considered was consolidation of small school districts. Baca said there are 89 school districts in New Mexico, and more than 60 percent are considered small.

In a pamphlet sent to Loving parents and others in the community, Baca said "redistricting is premature and an ill-conceived concept to save a few bucks on the backs of small school districts. Consolidation is not the answer to closing the New Mexico funding gap."  Baca has urged parents and district supporters to contact their legislators. Before the Christmas break, some parents in Loving began circulating a petition opposing any proposed legislation to close small school districts.

"We have the ability to speak with a united voice and help our local legislators spread our message. We should not let Santa Fe make decisions for our community and rural New Mexico," Baca told parents.  Baca said research does not support the concept larger school districts will improve learning, nor will it be less expensive. "They don't have a model for that," Baca said. "It will require a costly and time-consuming study. Even if they decide to close and consolidate the small districts, it's not going to happen this year or next year. Also, I think politically, it will face great difficulty."

Baca said she believes if the proposal is approved, small communities like Loving will lose representation as they're absorbed into larger districts. Baca said that until the mid-1980s, when Loving approved a bond to build a high school, students from Loving attending Carlsbad High School had a roughly 50 percent graduation rate. Since the high school opened in Loving, the rate has increased to about 81 percent. One reason may be the low student-teacher ratio of 11 to one.

Parents said the closure of the district would be devastating to students. "It would be a tragedy," said Maria Hernandez, mother of a high school senior. "These kids have grown up together from kindergarten through their senior year. If this happened today, my son would have to start over again at another school. This school is their life. They are like family."
___
Information from: Carlsbad Current-Argus