Governor Sends Budget Back to House - Action Could Cause Problem for Southwest Learning Center

On Tuesday, Governor Martinez met with legislative leaders and asked them to re-look at the proposed state budget. It is reported that Governor Martinez is unhappy with the depth of cuts to education, medicare, and the corrections department.  The legislative leadership agreed to evaluate some of her concerns and sent the bill back to the House Appropriations Committee for further review.

The Governor would like to see the state lower the subsidy provided to the film industry when they film in New Mexico.  Currently the state reimburses film producers 25% of the money they spend in New Mexico while shooting a film.  The Governor would like to see this reduced to 15%.  The Albuquerque Journal reported today that in 2010, the state reimbursed $65 million dollars to film companies.  The proposed reduction would have presumably saved the state $6.5 million last year.  However, opponents argue that reducing the film credit will drive producers out of New Mexico.  Thus, the actual savings will be considerably less and more New Mexicans will be out of work as a result of the industry moving to other states.

This is important to the Southwest Learning Center because the original budget bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee did not contain any provisions to eliminate the small school size funding for charter schools and districts that house multiple schools in a building.  In order to meet the Governor’s request to limit cuts to education, corrections, and medicare, the funds will need to come from somewhere.  This puts the elimination of the small school size funding back in play.  We are asking all parents, grandparents, friends, and supporters to watch the proposals coming out of the House Appropriations Committee carefully.  If the small school size adjustment is brought back into play and eliminated, the three schools that make up the Southwest Learning Center (Southwest Primary, Southwest Intermediate, and Southwest Secondary) will be forced to either move or close. 

Neither option is a good one.  Moving will cost the taxpayers of New Mexico more money in the long run as facility, administration, insurance, transportation, utility costs, etc are all triplicated.  It will disrupt the educational process significantly.  Closing is even less appealing as 500+ students will be forced to change schools, 40+ people will be out of work and many families will be negatively impacted.  Furthermore, the results the Southwest Learning Center achieve continue to break the mold with no achievement gap and the highest test scores in the state on the standards based assessment.  We will continue to monitor this budget situation carefully and keep parents informed of any changes.

Finally, we want to also alert you to a rumor that has begun to spread.  It is believed that once the budget is passed from the House to the Senate, budget leaders in the Senate will move to add language to “correct inefficiencies in the funding formula”.  This is legislative language to remove the small school funding for schools that share facilities and to limit charter schools from receiving growth units when their populations increase significantly.  Charters continue to experience large growth as more parents become aware of their successes and apply to charters.  The Southwest Learning Center currently has more than 3700 students on the waiting list to get in!  Rumor has it that the most likely places this language will be inserted are in the Senate Finance Committee or when the two chambers meet in conference committee to resolve discrepancies in the budgets. 

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!

SLC Students Honored by the State of New Mexico

On Monday, the Math and Science Bureau at the New Mexico Public Education Department released their annual awards for the top achieving schools and teachers in New Mexico.  For the 5th consecutive year, the Southwest Learning Center captured many top honors.

In Southwest Secondary, last year's 7th grade students (current 8th graders) had the highest year-over-year gains in the state.  Congratulations to teacher Mike Weber and all of the SSLC 8th grade students for this accomplishment.

In Southwest Primary, last year's 5th graders (current 6th graders) had the highest percentage of students performing at "proficient" or "advanced" in mathematics in the state.  Congratulations to teacher Coreen Carrillo and all of the current 6th graders!

Also in Southwest Primary, last year's 4th graders (current 5th graders) had the highest percentage of students performing at "proficient" or "advanced" in both mathematics and science in the state.  Congratulations to teacher Debbie Doxtator and all of this year's 5th grade students.  We want to issue a special congratulations to teacher Debbie Doxtator.  2011 marks the 5th consecutive year that her students have earned the top spot in math and science for the state of New Mexico!

Congratulations to all of the students and all of the teachers!  The state legislature plans a one-hour ceremony  in honor of SLC students and teachers on Friday, March 11, 2011 at 12:00 noon in the State Capitol Building Rotunda.  Students and teachers will meet their legislators, the school's representatives and have an opportunity to talk about what makes SLC special.  Please plan to attend and support the students and SLC teachers as they are honored for their accomplishments!

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.

Merit Pay: A great idea but an implementation dilema

This is the third of four blogs evaluating Governor Martinez's educational reform plan from a practicioner's point of view.

The third component in Governor Martinez’s educational reform plan “Kids First, New Mexico Wins,” calls for rewarding teachers based on their performance.  This yet to be specified component of the Governor’s plan, like other merit pay proposals, will be extremely difficult for educators, politicians and stakeholders to reach a consensus on.  Close examination of the merit pay debate often leaves more questions than answers.  Implementation of Governor Martinez’s plan must be examined holistically and implementation will be difficult without a firm moral and monetary commitment from all New Mexico citizens.

The desire to monetarily reward top flight educators and schools and to motivate those deemed to be performing subpar has proven to be difficult to implement.  Aside from the commitment of more public revenue in these difficult economic times, a complex problem lies in determining which teachers and institutions are really best serving their constituents.  Some would contend that paying exemplary teachers more really amounts to paying more for student outcomes, which in practice means paying for standardized-test-score gains.  This standard of success will often reward communities with a desirable zip code and higher social economic level.  Solely basing teachers’ pay on standardized test scores minimizes the teaching craft and is ineffectual in any short term evaluation.  Other problems are inherent with this narrow scope evaluation: how do we reward teachers of grade levels where standardized tests are not given; what about educators of elective classes, music, drama and physical education.  With these considerations it becomes clear that evaluations of teachers and schools must be multifaceted and based on an extended period of time instead of a single year’s standardized test score.  Educators and institutions should be graded and rewarded on their body of work for multi-year gains in student learning.

The devil is in details as with all controversial paradigm shifts.  New Mexico educators will be the first to admit that student success is paramount and will join all stakeholders in a commitment to continue to improve our schools.  No one enters the teaching profession with the illusion of getting rich and not being held accountable for their efforts in the classroom.  Educators will support a compensation system that fairly rewards their efforts and does not punish them for factors impeding student success beyond their control.  Educators are not opposed to competition and understand the temptation of non-educators to compare schools to businesses.  Educators could in fact benefit from embracing the reality that our constituents really are our customers.  The stakes in this business venture require examination beyond the bottom line.  A commitment from all concerned will require a carefully crafted system that will reward education excellence and level the playing field for educational entrepreneurs.  Finally, it is imperative that we invite the best and brightest to enter the field and not force them from the profession before they master their craft. 

The Southwest Learning Centers’ highly dedicated and professional staff support Governor Martinez’s commitment to reward education excellence and embrace the opportunity to provide an innovative approach to education that empowers students and allows them to become self-motivated, resourceful, life-long learners as well as highly productive members of the workforce.

Social Promotion: A well-meaning but flawed policy

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

     Social promotion, the practice of keeping students with their peer group even if their academic achievement doesn’t warrant passing to the next grade, is a well-meaning but flawed policy. Social promotion strives to preserve the self-esteem of failing students at the expense of their education. It is clear that we aren’t doing our students any favors by passing them to the next grade completely unprepared, yet policies to end social promotion must also be accompanied by the recognition that it will take much effort and many resources to help those students who do not meet standards. Failing to take responsibility for the education of all children in our society, including failure to provide opportunity to underachieving students, holds grave consequences. With this outlook, Governor Susana Martinez proposes to end social promotion in New Mexico classrooms and help struggling students make academic gains.

      During her campaign Governor Martinez spoke out on social promotion: “When doing anything substantive or meaningful in life, the foundation one puts in place is critical to long term success…every year in the classroom – from pre-kindergarten through high school – builds on learned subject matter and experiences.” It is clear that passing students from grade to grade regardless of their achievement undermines education as a whole by stripping these students of the opportunity to create a solid base for their future. According to the US Department of Education, “More than half of teachers surveyed in a recent poll stated that they had promoted unprepared students in the last school year, often because they see no alternative. Research indicates that from 10 to 15 percent of young adults who graduate from high school and have not gone further--up to 340,000 high school graduates each year--cannot balance a checkbook or write a letter to a credit card company to explain an error on a bill.”

     The Southwest Learning Centers do not practice social promotion and have long advocatd for teh elimination of social promotion throughout New Mexico's schools. For example, the Southwest Secondary Learning Center high school curriculum does not allow a student to move forward until they have mastered a concept. Each lesson in the curriculum includes an in-depth lecture, a vocabulary assignment, and a homework assignment. Students must complete the assignments and lecture successfully before attempting to take a short assessment on the topic. A student must earn a grade of 70% - 80% to pass the topic.  Otherwise, instruction and additional practice is assigned by the teacher to insure the student has mastered the concept and not just accumulated seat time for the purpose of meeting an arbitrary, state-assigned goal. If a student is not able to pass the assessment, they receive individualized, one-on-one help from an instructor. After completing extra homework or reviewing the lecture, the quiz can be attempted again, usually with much more success. This approach to learning helps students who would normally fall behind. This approach also works very well for students that are normally bored in a traditional classroom setting. Very motivated, high-achieving students are able to work at their own pace and get extra explanation and help as needed. Students who would normally fall behind are able to get the extra attention and assistance required to move to grade-level or ahead.

     We invite your comments and suggestions. 

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.

U.S. Science Scores Drop: SLC Students Continue to Outperform Nation

 “In a world filled with the products of scientific inquiry, scientific literacy has become a necessity for everyone. Everyone needs to use scientific information to make choices that arise every day. Everyone needs to be able to engage intelligently in public discourse and debate about important issues that involve science and technology.”

 -  The National Committee on Science Education Standards

Although Education Leaders in the United States see the importance of solid science instruction as a part of education, the results of a national exam, released Tuesday, are alarming. The test scores showed that a disturbingly low number of students have advanced skills that could lead to careers in science and technology. Only one percent of fourth and 12^th grade students and two percent of eight grade students scored in the highest group on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Less than half of U.S. students were considered proficient in science.

These results are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lack of scientific literacy in the United States. According to a 2010 science education report, “U.S. mathematics and science education between kindergarten and 12^th grade now ranks 48^th worldwide.” The study also showed that almost half of U.S. adults don’t know how long it takes the Earth to circle the sun. In 2010, China debuted at the top of International Education rankings. China has now replaced the U.S. as the world’s top high-technology exporter.

“Scientific literacy also is of increasing importance in the workplace. More and more jobs demand advanced skills, requiring that people be able to learn, reason, think creatively, make decisions, and solve problems. An understanding of science and the processes of science contributes in an essential way to these skills.”

 - The National Research Council

Since achievement scores for students in the U.S. have stagnated, employers are now forced to seek qualified workers elsewhere. Charles Vest, the head of the National Academy of Engineering, stated, “We have to have a well-educated workforce to create opportunities for young people. Otherwise, we don’t have a chance.” U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan makes the connection between science education and the nation’s economic future clear: “Americans need to wake up to this educational reality, instead of napping at the wheel while emerging competitors prepare their students for economic leadership."  If we continue to allow ineffective science education, our nation will be at the mercy of other world powers that are able to successfully prepare students for the future in a scientifically advanced world.

“The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them.”

- Albert Einstein

Amidst all of the negative news about America’s school system, the Southwest Learning Centers stand out as schools that are successfully educating students in science. Last year’s test scores showed that students in the Southwest Learning Centers are far ahead of their peers. Both the fourth and fifth grade classes at Southwest Primary Learning Center scored 100% proficient in science and the sixth grade class was 85% proficient. Seventh grade students in Southwest Intermediate Learning Center earned a 95% proficient rating in science and Southwest Secondary Learning Center’s 11^th graders were 90% proficient in science. When compared to the less than 50% national average, it is clear that the Southwest Learning Centers are effective in science education and understand the importance of scientific literacy. The Southwest Learning Centers strive to show students the practical applications of science in everyday life and for future careers. For example, the flight program offered at the schools shows students the relevance of science in a tangible way. Educators, law-makers, and leaders need to look to the innovative methods of successful schools, such as the Southwest Learning Centers, to find creative ways to improve science education in the United States. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sums it up: “Our nation’s long-term economic prosperity depends on providing a world class education to all students, especially in mathematics and science.”

Charter School Options Limited Due to Parental Demand

Options for school choice in New Mexico are often more limited than they appear on paper. Although school choice does exist through charter schools and small scholarship programs such as Educate New Mexico, most New Mexican students are unable to take advantage of attending high-performing schools. Most of the State’s top-performing charter schools have long waiting lists. For example, the Southwest Primary, Southwest Intermediate, and Southwest Secondary Learning Centers have a waiting list that exceeds 3,600 students and is growing every day. The Southwest Primary Learning Center averages test scores that are 50% higher than APS and other State schools. At Southwest Intermediate Learning Center, test scores are 40%-50% higher than State and APS scores. Southwest Secondary Learning Center boasts scores that are an average of 30% higher than APS and the State. These three high-achieving schools as well as other charter schools in the state are more successful than their public counterparts.

Successful schools are in high demand for New Mexican students due to the failures of the traditional system. Governor Susana Martinez frames the debate over school choice well: “I have long said it is morally reprehensible to trap kids in failing schools.”  Yet, chances for families to take advantage of school choice in New Mexico are about to get slimmer. If passed, House Bill 120, introduced by Representative Mimi Stewart, will put an end to new charter schools in New Mexico from now until January 1, 2017. With a ranking of 32nd in the nation for education, this bill comes at a time when New Mexico’s families desperately need school choice. Daniel Ulibarri, Executive Director of Educate New Mexico, says, “Not only can New Mexico's children not wait another eight years or more for the schools to improve, but our economy needs — now more than ever — a competent, highly-educated work force and schools that will attract entrepreneurs from across the globe.”

Lawmakers in Santa Fe need to come to the realization that educational reform will not come through limiting options for education in New Mexico. School choice provides competition, which should create a competitive market for students. If enough students opt to attend quality charter schools, the existing public schools system will be forced to modify their approach, or cease to exist. Stanford Economics professor, Caroline M. Hoxby, has conducted extensive research on the economics of school choice and competition in the arena of education. She argues “…when we allowed competition in other areas of American life, say, deregulated some industries, we’ve seen enormous improvements in efficiencies, which in schools, means more achievement.” She goes on to say, “…public schools will be able to improve, especially in response to competition.” This positive competition can only occur if there are enough viable options.

New Mexico Secretary of Education, Hanna Skandera, puts it well: “If school choice is given a fair chance, its success or failure should be determined by results. If successful, all students – those that stay and those that leave the traditional public school system – would be better off, academically and otherwise.” School choice has not been given a fair chance in New Mexico and will not be given a fair chance if House Bill 120 is enacted. Placing a moratorium on all new charter schools for any amount of time will hinder the progress that can be made in educational reform, at a time when transformation of the traditional system is imperative.

President Obama: Capping Charter Schools Contrary to Improving Education

"...That leads me to the fourth part of America’s education strategy – promoting innovation and excellence in America’s schools. One of the places where much of that innovation occurs is in our most effective charter schools... Right now, there are caps on how many charter schools are allowed in some states, no matter how well they are preparing our students. That isn’t good for our children, our economy, or our country. Of course, any expansion of charter schools must not result in the spread of mediocrity, but in the advancement of excellence. That will require states adopting both a rigorous selection and review process to ensure that a charter school’s autonomy is coupled with greater accountability – as well as a strategy, like the one in Chicago, to close charter schools that are not working. Provided this greater accountability, I call on states to reform their charter rules, and lift caps on the number of allowable charter schools, wherever such caps are in place."

President Barack Obama
March 10, 2009

---

Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have some type of limit, or cap, on charter school growth. Most caps restrict the number of charter schools allowed, while others restrict the number of students that a single school can serve.

Caps on charter schools are often the consequence of political trade-offs, and not the result of agreement on sound education policy. For example, frequently policy-makers, concerned about how charter schools may affect an established school district, will mandate restrictions on the number of public charter schools in that specific district.

But the demand for charter schools shows no signs of letting up. An estimated 365,000 students are on charter school wait lists. This is enough to fill over 1,100 new average-sized charter schools. More than half of all charter schools across the country report they have a wait list, with the problem particularly acute in Pennsylvania (27,000), Colorado (25,000), Massachusetts (16,000), New York (12,000), New Mexico (10,000), and Illinois (10,000).  If this demand is to be met, states must reform or eliminate their caps on charter schools, while continuing to utilize appropriate measures ensuring that new charter schools are of high quality.

Unfortunately, New Mexico has chosen to go a different direction.  On Friday, January 21, 2011, Representative Mimi Stewart introduced House Bill 120.  This bill specifically reads, “a chartering authority shall not accept an application for a new charter school or approve a new charter school between January 1, 2011 and January 1, 2017.”

If enacted, this bill will eliminate school choice in New Mexico.  The bill has been supported by the New Mexico School Boards Association, New Mexico Administrators Association, the Legislative Education Study Committee (co-chaired by Representative Rick Miera and Senator Cynthia Nava), and the Board of Education for the Albuquerque Public Schools.

New Mexico Charter Schools: A Model for Success

Charter schools were created with the idea that one size does not fit all when it comes to education. Inspired and passionate educators wanted to have the ability to make quality education accessible to all students, promote parent and community involvement in public education, and provide a system of responsibility for results in education. Charter schools are granted more autonomy than traditional district schools in exchange for being held more accountable for student achievement. Many skeptics question whether charter schools are really succeeding and would even go so far as to say they should be closed. A look at the facts shows that New Mexico’s charter schools are raising the bar for academic success, providing unique educational opportunities, and innovatively meeting the needs of diverse students and their families.

            New Mexico’s charter schools are academically successful. The National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S Department of Education rated New Mexico’s top ten high schools; five of the ten were charter schools. Southwest Secondary Learning Center, Albuquerque Institute of Math and Science, Academy for Technology and the Classics, East Mountain High School, and Cottonwood Classical Academy made the top of the list. For the year 2010, 50% of New Mexico’s Charter Schools made Adequate Yearly Progress compared to only 41% of district schools. Charter schools are challenging the traditional public school system, achieving great things, and offering parents and families choices in education.

            Exciting and creative educational opportunities are the norm at charter schools in New Mexico. In addition to providing the required academic classes, many charter schools offer creative and engaging programs to students. For example, Southwest Learning Center offers a state of the art flight program which allows students to work towards obtaining a pilot’s license while earning a diploma. The Digital Arts and Technology Academy offers a smoking cessation program which provides resources and support to students trying to break free of their addiction. At Amy Biehl Charter School, students must complete a year-long community service project in order to fulfill all requirements for graduation. Due to the flexible scheduling introduced and offered by charter schools, many students are able to take advantage of dual enrollment programs to earn college credits. 11.6% of all charter high school students participate in the dual enrollment program at Central New Mexico Community College while only 3.1% of Albuquerque Public School Students participate. At Southwest Secondary Learning Center the dual enrollment participation rate is 41%. Charter schools inarguably cater to students’ individual goals and needs with unique and innovative programs.

            New Mexico’s charter schools provide a quality education to some of the most underserved and underprivileged students in the state. Charter schools help these disadvantaged students succeed where the conventional system has failed. Over 45% of students in charter schools are Hispanic compared to the 36% average in many larger New Mexico districts. Most districts have an African American population of less than 2% while charter schools serve a 6% population of African Americans. 61% of students served by New Mexico’s charter schools come from low-income families and qualify for free or reduced lunch programs; only 52% of low-income students are part of the traditional district student population. Because of the smaller class sizes (charter school student teacher ratios are an average of 10 students per teacher while large districts average 25 students per teacher) the engaging opportunities, and the individualized attention these students receive, New Mexico’s charter schools are closing the achievement gap. Because charter school administrations are allowed more flexibility, they are better able to respond to the specific needs of students and families.

            Because of the success of New Mexico’s charter schools, they are becoming an increasingly popular choice for parents and students. Over 10,000 students are enrolled in charter schools across the state and over 10,000 more sit on waiting lists. (The Southwest Learning Centers have a waiting list of over 3,600 students.) Charter schools offer New Mexico’s families options for a quality education that meets students’ individual needs. Charter school students are able to learn in an environment that promotes their academic success and prepares them for their future as successful, responsible citizens of New Mexico. The facts show that charter schools are succeeding academically, consistently advancing education through models of innovation, and are effectively meeting the needs of the students and families of New Mexico.

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.