The Cost of Failing to Educate our Kids

Franklin Schargel* was interviewed on Eye on New Mexico on Sunday, February 20th, 2011. The show was broadcasted all over the state and in El Paso, Texas.  The interview touched upon legislation and Franklin's personal opinions and ideas, but focused on real data in light of New Mexico's new educational and political landscape. At the end of the segment, Franklin made this summarizing point:

"But the reality is education, even though it's taking over 50% of the state budget or close to 50%, is not expensive. Ignorance is very expensive. The U.S. Department of Justice says that 82% of all of our prisoners are school dropouts. Well, as a society, we can either pay for education upstream or the lack of education downstream. As a society, not just here in New Mexico, we are more willing to spend money downstream in incarceration. The average cost of incarceration in the country is $41,000 a year. Per inmate, per year. I don't know of any school system that is willing to spend or capable of spending that much money on education."

Schargel recently spoke at a graduation workshop held by the United Way of Cass-Clay in Fargo, ND. Over 100 community leaders listened as the author identified the top reasons students quit school: alcohol or drug use, poor teacher quality and curriculum planning, and low parental involvement. His advice was for policymakers to "recognize that we have a very severe problem," adding that teachers should make an effort to get to know their students.

Schargel is the author of many books on dropout prevention, including 152 Ways to Keep Students in School: Effective, Easy-to-Implement Tips for Teachers and co-author of titles such as Creating School Cultures that Embrace Learning:  What Successful Leaders Do.

*Franklin P. Schargel

Educator, Author, Motivational Speaker, Trainer, Consultant

Franklin Schargel, a native of Brooklyn, New York now residing in Albuquerque, NM, is a graduate of the University of the City of New York. Franklin holds two Masters Degrees: one in Secondary Education from City University and a degree from Pace University in School Administration and Supervision. His career spans thirty-three years of classroom teaching, school counseling and eight years of school supervision and administration.

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.

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!

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.

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.