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! 

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?

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.  

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. 

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.

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.”

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