It appears that we are in a great position to win a win a “Race to the Top” federal grant (assuming the legislature agrees to language about the use of the teacher identifier that allows schools, districts and the state to evaluate programs and teachers using student performance data).
This could be an incredible boost in helping Colorado build a world class public education system. But much depends on how we spend the money. And it could be a boat-load of cash. The national pool is $5 billion and I’m guessing it will be divided by 10-15 states. Given Colorado’s population, I’m guessing Colorado might receive $300,000,000 for two years of work.
The challenge, as Vice President Biden so clearly pointed out, is how to spend it so that it moves the needle as opposed to sending it down that proverbial “rathole” drain.
“I genuinely need your help to make this work because, folks, look at it this way. We’ve been given all the ammunition. If we shoot and miss, if we squander the opportunity, tell me how long you think it’s going to take for another American president to go and ask for more dollars to correct the education system,” Biden said to the Delaware State Education Association.
So what do you all think? How would you spend $150 million a year in Colorado? Remember it can only be used to start or change something, no ongoing funding. I’d like input from all of you but here’s my first draft shopping cart-
| State data accountability and evaluation systems | $30M |
| New school development (includes district, innovation and charter schools using the same criteria for school quality) | $100M |
| School Turnarounds | $50M |
| Development of online curriculum and high school courses with interested districts | $15M |
| Piloting a variety of new teacher and principal incentive programs with strong evaluations | $20M |
| Support for new teacher and principal pipeline development | $10M |
| Series of research projects about program and school impact — qualitative and quantitative | $5M |
| Helping other states with similar interests | $5M |
| TOTAL | $240M |
I’m having a hard time spending another $60M…how would all of you spend $300M?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Pensions. Get off the defined benefit plan and onto defined contribution plans with a goal of restructuring teacher compensation to shift compensation more towards salary. Big problem, very juicy, and addresses core issues of both unfunded pension liabilities and a fundamental change to teacher compensation. So I assume it would not qualify.
I do not pretend to be able to come up with a macro spending proposal. Let me come at it from a school level. We just spent a boat load of money to have Bob Marzano work with our district to morph our myriad of standards into standards based rubics. Marzano has also reccomended that we move to a standards based grading system. Both of these changes will not happen unless the District spends money on consultants to help change our culture and more importantly the system that will resist these changes. As a matter of fact, I’d like to see monies put towards system change agents across the state.
Van,
How about spending the remaining $60 million on an “innovation fund” to support the development of new models for after-school? The innovation fund would help social entrepreneurs work with schools to extend the school day and the school year. The fund would focus on after-school and summer programs that teach writing, advanced computer skills, and engineering. Top of the list for funding would be programs that are fun, challenging, and project-based — and that develop creative thinking, teamwork, peer teaching, and peer leadership.
The seed fund can be leveraged by donations from Coloradoans made through the existing Colorado Childcare Contribution Tax Credit. This tax credit, unique to Colorado, is an inspired piece of public policy (with broad bi-partisan appeal) that the Obama team might see as a model for other states.
After-school programs (developed in partnership between social entrepreneurs and school leaders) can provide vital services for parents and children — and increase student well-being, academic achievement and workforce readiness. After-school and summer programs can also serve as an “incubator” for innovation in schools.
YES!!!! What Alex said!!!!!
Creation of a statewide system for post-secondary preparation. Last session, P-20 Council proposed, and the legislature approved, the Counselor Corps Program ($5 million this year – 76.5 new counselors), which has already started the process of promoting a culture of post-secondary preparation and success. Five years ago, the Daniels Fund published their famous map, showing the patchy distribution of proven Pre-Collegiate Programs like GEAR UP, AVID and the TRiO’s across the state. With the emergence of online ICAP potential (Individual Career and Academic Plans, starting in Middle School and continuing into the workforce), it would be possible to create an effective – and cost-effective – and consistent system of resources and P-20 partnerships to level this bumpy playing field.
Let’s please keep going on Alex’s pension change idea. It’s my opinion that the school districts also unreasonably benefit from these mechanisms, by keeping workers where they are when they otherwise might split. The usual tension between employer and employee is destroyed when there’s such a cost to a worker’s departure that the employer can become overly demanding, unreasonable or arbitrary. As mentioned in the pieces discussing DPSRS’ potential merger with PERA, many people at DPS are expected by some to exodus outta there if the merger goes through, since they’re only tolerating what’s referred to by the quoted source as a “pretty dysfunctional system” because they have no other choice.
We would see the school districts become better employers upon cessation of non-portable benefit plans, simply because they’d have to be. Among the many ironies of the school-district issue, DPS’ teachers have even fewer choices than its parents, and specifically, no choice at all once X number of years have passed.
Much has been made of the school districts’ inability to remove under-performing workers. However, I’d assume there are just as many workers, or more, who would prefer to be elsewhere or know they’re unappreciated and being dragged along solely because it’s hard to get rid of them. Most people are pretty uncomfortable working in that posture, and I’d assume their work effort might suffer too.
The school districts should participate in social Security in my humble opinion. If they would like to augment this with deferred comp or a defined contribution plan for certain workers they want to retain more than others, fine. But there should be a fully-portable, SS-equivalent “floor” of benefits first — so if SS itself is not the right vehicle itself (which I know is arguable) there is no penalty or loss of career liberty associated with public service.
Sadly, Gully, the Counselor Corps funding for a badly needed additional counselor at my daughter’s high school seems to have been lost for next year, and the wonderful counselor with it. It is so discouraging to see all the effort this counselor put into learning about the students, post-secondary opportunities, and college prep curriculum go to waste.
I would love to see funding to support motivated but under-resourced high school students tackle rigorous, college prep curriculum – all the programs Gully mentioned, and more.
Leadership Development Pipeline… Van, your shopping cart is great and really gets me thinking. I think I would up the amount for leadership development (tying in turnaround leadership with filling out a “good to great” bench…especially for secondary schools. Perhaps more $$ for R&D/innovation for secondary schools as well (call it a “whatever it takes” fund that targets secondary schools in need of turnaround). Make it comprehensive and wired for success. The money is only there for 2 years… if it gets spread too thinly, it will be difficult to show the impact.