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.

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.

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.  

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.