If there’s one overriding lesson from last night’s school-related elections along Colorado’s Front Range, it’s that voters in some districts, for whatever reason, are not happy with the status quo, even, paradoxically, when the status quo is about change.
In the two most closely watched school board contests, Denver voters shifted power on the board so that the pace of reform will likely slow, and the direction will almost certainly change. In Douglas County, two incumbents were ousted and a slate of more doctrinaire, conservative Republicans took power.
Meanwhile, voters in Greeley and Mapleton rejected tax increases the two districts argued were essential. In this economy, such votes aren’t altogether shocking. But in Mapleton, where no organized opposition existed, the narrow defeats of a bond issue and mill levy override were still stunning – and crushing for a district in the midst of a long-term, ambitious overhaul effort.
The Denver vote may send shockwaves through “reformers” (an overused term) across the nation, who see the results as a repudiation of New York and Chicago-style reform. Closing chronically failing schools, opening new ones and granting more schools freedom from district and union regulations probably just became a lot more difficult.
It was fascinating to talk last night to people on the losing side. There were prognostications of doom: “Denver is dead as a reform city” and “Colorado’s Race to the Top bid just suffered a fatal blow,” were among the most commonly expressed concerns.
Overlying the gloom was anger, much of it directed at prominent Denver citizens who largely stayed on the sidelines for fear of ruffling the feathers of other powerful people. Several people I talked to last night named names, promising to call to account those they say stood idly by and allowed incumbent Jeanne Kaplan – who has tried to slow the pace of change – to run unopposed and to nurture a slate of union-backed candidates, two of whom prevailed.
I choose to remain uncharacteristically optimistic about the future of Denver Public Schools. First of all, Mary Seawell won the at-large seat. She will be one of the strongest school board members Denver has ever known. OK, I’m biased – she’s an old friend – but Mary is tough-minded and smart, and will be effective.
Yes, Vernon Jones and Ismael Garcia lost, after running on pledges to support Superintendent Tom Boasberg and even to push for an acceleration of his reforms.
But after having a “Where the Wild Things Are” evening of gnashing terrible teeth and roaring terrible roars, Denver’s vanquished “reformers” need to face the new day and give newly elected Nate Easley and Andrea Merida the full benefit of their doubt. (I promise I am not saying this because Merida’s father, a wonderful character with whom I have a good relationship, recently threatened, half-jokingly – I think – to, um, emasculate me if I wasn’t nice to his daughter).
Yes, Kaplan will probably be the next board president. Yes, Easley and Merida were backed by the Denver Classroom Teachers Association. Yes, they have expressed some concern about the proliferation of charter schools, about closing schools and about the pace of change in DPS.
But as one outgoing school board member told me last night, “Everything looks really different once you get on the inside.”
Let’s hope that proves true. One scenario that has some people worried goes like this. On November 30, in its last official action, the current school board votes to make major changes to the district’s three lowest-performing schools: Greenlee K-8, Philips Elementary and Lake Middle. These changes are part of the “turnaround” strategy promoted by Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and are an integral component of Race to the Top.
That same evening, the new board is sworn in, and as its first official action, on a 4-3 vote, reverses the “turnaround” decisions made just moments before.
If this scenario comes true, and it is distinctly possible, then Colorado’s Race to the Top application really might be in trouble. If the state’s one large urban district goes squirrelly on the kinds of changes Duncan and President Obama support, kiss hundreds of millions of dollars goodbye.
If the new majority tries to prevent school closures and starts rejecting charter applications willy-nilly, then I fear the worst. To me, the worst would be having Boasberg lose board support and leave, to be replaced by a recycled career superintendent. If that happens, DPS is in even deeper trouble than it is now. I’m trusting that this won’t happen.
Last night, everyone focused on the adults; their opposing camps, the big donors, vendettas, factions, what have you. Let’s hope that today everyone can remember Denver’s children.
Popularity: 49% [?]
[...] light of that, I hope that Alan Gottlieb is correct about his sunny-side-up evaluation of the electoral shift to a less reform-friendly Denver school board. All board members should read [...]
It is a little myopic to believe that Colorado’s success or failure in regard to Race hinges on the Board election in Denver. There are many other factors weighing down the Colorado application – a large obstacle being the fact that the Gates Foundation has already backed who it thinks should win and Colorado is not on that list (like it or not, who they favor matters). I only write this because I can already see the finger wagging from the “reformers” – which happens a little too frequently in this space – if Colorado loses the competition. I think it needs be stated that should the state “kiss hundreds of millions of dollars goodbye” it is not primarily due to the result of the Denver school board election.
As a DPS parent during the Bennet-Boasberg era, I have seen, at the classroom level, scant evidence of reform. New report cards, inscrutable but aligned to standards. Fewer paras, more kids per class. RTI in the classroom, but frankly to at and above grade level kids, this doesn’t mean much.
A bold prediction: The pace of “reform” may slow for a bit, with the new board, but then it will accelerate. Seawell will help the new majority push for real community engagement, and thus create a broader base of support for reforms that will actually impact what happens in classrooms. New charters will find themselves better integrated into their communities, with less disruption to existing traditionals that are finding a footing. DPS will look at lot less top down, and the violent distrust that most of the community views DPS central admin with will abate a bit. Progress might seem slower, but will be more deeply rooted.
There is new thinking in a lot of places around the district. A few folks that are great distance from classrooms will overly interpret the election as backlash against “reform” (and they are the same folks who can’t really point to reform that affects outcomes instead of bureaucracy). Union-bashing and teacher-basing will subside for a while— and the district will become, for a time, less adversarial. Kaplan, who will be a much better, much more inclusive, leader than Pena, will create more space for real debate, and further transparency in the district, which will lower the level of distrust. Boasberg will actually have to prove himself, rather than rely on spin and political sleight of hand.
EdNewsColorado readers and contributors are generally light years from the parents who have been fighting for real reform, in real classrooms, in traditional schools. Maybe the election results will convince a few of them to consider those who have real skin in the game, and give credence to their concerns, even if they disagree….
Yes, Alan, I think it’s safe to say that my father was joking. Thank you for your gracious post, as well as your reminder that we ought to focus on the kids.
“EdNewsColorado readers and contributors are generally light years from the parents who have been fighting for real reform, in real classrooms, in traditional schools.”
Wow. If you have detailed demographic information on who our readers are, I’d love to have it.
Alan–
When are you going to learn?
According to Quantcast, ednewscolorado.org readers, by a 72% margin, do not have kids 0-17 in the household….
So, perhaps, parsecs would have been more fitting….
Guerin, no offense and I don’t particularly want to get between you and what is left of Alan after Mr. Merida finishes with him, but Quantcast (and similar sites) are highly unreliable unless the site being measured has tracking software embedded. For sites with small traffic volumes the accuracy is even worse. Using Quantcast on a random site was described to me as “akin to a doing a survey without a confidence interval,” which I think is a pretty good description.
Oddly, most of the EdNews readers I know — like me — do have kids 0-17. If we are really outnumbered by 7-3, well, congrats Alan, your readership might be a whole lot bigger than you think.
Alex–
Yeah, I know Quantcast’s limitations, I’ve been using it since nearly its inception. Alan and I are meeting for lunch next week to talk about implementing it or a similar tool. I wouldn’t call it “highly unreliable” since almost everybody regards it as best of breed, but a lightly trafficked site will lack resolution. Someday, I’ll find the precision with pen to more clearly indicate how deeply my tongue is in cheek. And Alex, I don’t think you quite fall into the category of ” parents who have been fighting for real reform, in real classrooms, in traditional schools,” at least not yet.
There, of course, is a bigger issue here. I’m guessing that some stunning proportion of policy-makers, journalists, curmudgeons and activists in education read this site with some regularity, making it relevant/problematic/influential/just plain wrong/a beacon of light far out of proportion with its actual internet footprint.. If it is just you and me reading the comments here, we’re both wasting our time (and you’re probably causing permanent brain damage with all the time spent on Xcel charts). But judging by the volume of email I’ve received off-line about my commenting, people are paying attention. But those people are likely not reflective of mainstream parents making choices about schools.
Well Guerin, you’ve been expert in numerous posts in telling me all about what you perceive as my long list of inadequacies, so I guess I’m not surprised I don’t fit into your construction of a parent “fighting for real reform.” I have to say that you sure don’t make membership in whatever group you believe to be “real” very inviting. So good luck with it, and all that.
Alex–
Would you feel better if we made you an honorary “parent, fighting real reform, in real classrooms, in traditional schools?” Or maybe just a glass of warm milk would do.
There were roughly 100 parents at Edison Tuesday night, mostly giving DPS hell about why there was no high rigor middle school options in North Denver. There were a bunch of parents at Brown the night previous.
If you think you largely share their perspectives, particularly on the issue of charter schools vs. traditional schools, one of us is in for a big surprise. That’s my point. My only point. There’s a big disconnect between what transpires on this site and the dialogues those parents have. You can make allowances for that difference, or not. I don’t find your perspective inadequate— I wouldn’t have taken two hours of an afternoon to tour Edison with you, and share that school’s strengths and weaknesses if I did. To the contrary, I find your perspective challenging, interesting, mostly lucid, and well-informed. And it’s not where most parents in DPS, or in Denver, for that matter, are at. That’s not a value judgement, just an observation. If you want to come battle with us for project-based learning, more technology, more seat time, more rigor, come on down! Or you can acknowledge the value of diversity in views, and find room for coalition building when interests align.
Guerin:
First, a question purely for information. Were the parents at the Edison and Brown meetings a socio-economically diverse bunch? My experience in NW Denver has been that the parents pushing for “high rigor middle school options” — and high school options, and elementary options — have for the most part been the higher-income, mostly Anglo folks some derogatorily call the gentrifiers. Other families have tended to suffer in silence and send their kids to schools that have served them poorly. If that has begun to change, great. That would be a wonderful development.
NWPES, when I was involved, never succeeded in bringing in and keeping any low-income, Latino parents. They’d show up, feel out of place, and leave. It was a huge shortcoming of the organization, and ultimately limited its effectiveness. When I listen closely at Lake, I hear different messages from different people. I hear some families generally defending the status quo and telling DPS not to mess with their school. I hear another, distinctly more affluent crowd, calling for IB, writing IB blogs, etc.
The very real and very contentious issue in changing neighborhoods is that tension exists between the self interests of one group and the self interests of another. I’ve seen a lot of very vocal and aggressive middle-class (usually white) people speaking as if for the whole community up there. I have rarely heard similar claims coming from the mouths of low-income Latinos.
What does all this mean? I’m not sure, to be honest. But it points to how delicate these matters are, and how hard it is for people to deal with them sensitively. I used to share a sobering feature article from the Wall Street Journal with parents up in NW — about a group of well-intentioned, affluent Los Angeles parents who decided to “save” their neighborhood school so it would be an OK place for them to send their kids. As you might imagine, the message was not well received. I’ll dig it out and email it to you. It’s a cautionary tale.
I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, and I’m not saying you’re one of these parents. I don’t even think there are heroes and villains in this piece. It’s just damned hard stuff.
Painfully interlinneated, below…
Guerin:
First, a question purely for information. Were the parents at the Edison and Brown meetings a socio-economically diverse bunch? My experience in NW Denver has been that the parents pushing for “high rigor middle school options” — and high school options, and elementary options — have for the most part been the higher-income, mostly Anglo folks some derogatorily call the gentrifiers. Other families have tended to suffer in silence and send their kids to schools that have served them poorly. If that has begun to change, great. That would be a wonderful development.
G says: Didn’t go to the Brown meeting (kid’s soccer game). Edison meeting reflected the Edison community pretty well. Since my kids are the fifth generation of my family to live in North
Denver, I categorically reject the gentrifiers argument on even number days; I accept it on odd-number days. To me, the people who live in the neighborhood aren’t much different from those who lived in the neighborhood when I was born at St. Anthony’s in 1967, or for that matter, when my grandfather was born, at home (like my son), at 34th and Shoshone in 1901. There have always been upper-income (or at least upper-middle income folks) in the neighborhood although their representation in being DPS users have fluctuated.
———————————
NWPES, when I was involved, never succeeded in bringing in and keeping any low-income, Latino parents. They’d show up, feel out of place, and leave. It was a huge shortcoming of the organization, and ultimately limited its effectiveness. When I listen closely at Lake, I hear different messages from different people. I hear some families generally defending the status quo and telling DPS not to mess with their school. I hear another, distinctly more affluent crowd, calling for IB, writing IB blogs, etc.
G says: Yep, that’s pretty accurate. NWPES never became a membership organization, which I advocated for many years. But just because there are/were white folks in NWPES doesn’t mean those voice should be ignored or marginalized. Especially when there is an effort to attract those families to go to schools in the neighborhoods where they live and pay taxes.
—————————————————————-
The very real and very contentious issue in changing neighborhoods is that tension exists between the self interests of one group and the self interests of another. I’ve seen a lot of very vocal and aggressive middle-class (usually white) people speaking as if for the whole community up there. I have rarely heard similar claims coming from the mouths of low-income Latinos (how about middle-income Pam and Ricardo?).
G says: You ought to come look around at the folks who live in North Denver. When I canvass the neighborhood as a precinct captain, or go to the playground, or just talk to folks, I don’t see, hear and feel strong divides along ethnic lines. Sometimes along class lines, but not around matters of ethnicity. People speak for themselves (and generally are ignored by DPS…) The rate of change in this neighborhood is far over-stated by outsiders. Nobody, white or brown, recently here or here forever, wants crap schools. They want schools that serve all our kids, which we are kinda, sorta doing now at the elementary level. I would say, very clearly the Sandoval (parent initiated, despite the post hoc BS spin), Brown (a rare case of succesful DPS re-design, with a parent powered program) and Edison (parent-driven programming with a high-rigor track) are doing a pretty good job for all their students, without regard for FRL status. Skinner Middle seems pretty much on track, too, with a much more homogenous mix. Parents are on track with their demands at Lake (see my post on Lake).
—————————
What does all this mean? I’m not sure, to be honest. But it points to how delicate these matters are, and how hard it is for people to deal with them sensitively. I used to share a sobering feature article from the Wall Street Journal with parents up in NW — about a group of well-intentioned, affluent Los Angeles parents who decided to “save” their neighborhood school so it would be an OK place for them to send their kids. As you might imagine, the message was not well received. I’ll dig it out and email it to you. It’s a cautionary tale.
G says: Well, I don’t see mobs gathering with torches to go after the more affluent, noisy parents. What I see at Lake is broad solidarity between activists that happen to be Latinas – Nina and Debbie Ortega, and pasty white folks like Tony Curcio, Linda Lidov and the like. (Actually, Curcio is kind of swarthy from a distance)
I’m guessing you may be one of those that believe that IB isn’t for all kids, or maybe would pick a WDP over IB model for a school with Lake’s current demos. Frankly, I don’t know, and haven’t put the green eyeshade time in to have a strong opinion. But when parents with skin in the game, their kids in neighborhood schools, want to fight to preserve and IMPROVE the Lake IB program, I’ll defer to them. I haven’t heard a single parent back another course.
And I’ll tell you this– if DPS (Boasberg) tries to co-locate WDP at Lake, there will blood on the floor(metaphorically) and may be a lawsuit to test the “charter in public school building approach.” I hear, as of this writing that is what Boasberg is recommending. He is about to find out what a street fight, North Denver style is all about….
——————–
I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know, and I’m not saying you’re one of these parents. I don’t even think there are heroes and villains in this piece. It’s just damned hard stuff.
G says: I’ve been around here for a long time, been part of campaigns that have built successful cross ethnicity coalitions. Folks are always try to impose external definitions on North Denver; we generally kick their asses back across I-25…