I’m starting to hear some good ideas from various Denver mayoral candidates about how they might improve Denver’s public education system but I have yet to hear anyone talk about mayoral control of DPS.
By the way, we need all of the candidates to speak up about how they are going to improve public education even if they don’t have direct responsibility. Mayoral control is particularly challenging for Denver because of the Colorado constitution but it seems worth more of a public discussion given the increasing dysfunction of the Denver school board, which is likely to get worse, and the ever-increasing need for more quality public education in Denver.
Did you see Shanghai’s PISA scores? They get the relationships between quality public education, economic development and their nation’s future. If Denver were to take PISA (something I’ve advocated) I’m guessing that Denver scores would be comparable to Uruguay or Bulgaria, not exactly the spot you’d want to locate the next Google.
One possible step for the next Denver mayor to consider, short of controlling DPS, might be to charter schools in collaboration with the Charter School Institute, a local university, or doing it independently. Obviously this would take legislative action but it is worth considering given the dire state of education in Denver.
Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson pioneered this practice a few years ago and Rhode Island Mayoral Academies is now supporting mayors in Rhode Island committed to sponsoring and supporting high performing charter schools.
While DPS and the DPS charter schools just entered into a landmark agreement, I think we could accelerate the development of high quality schools if Denver got into the quality chartering business. It would also provide another check on DPS over the long term and break up its monopoly.
We need 30 or 40 new high quality schools, not just another 5-10 that DSST and West Denver Prep have promised to deliver over the next ten years. We also need more choices; DSST and WDP can’t be the only quality choices for low-income kids.
Think about the all the interesting public education possibilities with the city’s land, facilities and program resources working to support quality public schools.
Popularity: 10% [?]
Nice to see the real agenda rolling out. I had thought that this would come up in 2003. I think it would be a very bad idea. I think that DPS’s problem has been a symphony of bad ideas and designs over the last twenty years, have had the effect, by default or design, of causing the system to go into a tailspin and setting it up for takeover. But I am old, and I have been expecting this kind of agenda for a long time. I am surprised it took so long.
Wow…a school board dominated by people who ignore parent views isn’t enough; let’s just do away with the illusion of democracy in public education altogether!
http://failingschools.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/checks-and-balances/
So curious to know what you think happened in DC and NYC during the last mayoral elections?
I suspect that most teacher union supporters and hard core union members like Sabrina are against mayoral control not because it is less democratic as is being claimed (I think it is more democratic) but because it means that teacher unions have less power when it comes to controlling the school district. The DCTA/CEA/NEA machine could easily muster a few hundred thousand dollars and target a few board members to try to roll back all of the reforms. It is much easier than running a city wide campaign.
Van, help me out here. We know that on the whole charters are no more successful than non-charter public schools. Yet your advice for the next mayor is to ratchet up the number of charters so they can increase the quality of schools. Huh?
How are the Indianapolis schools performing under the mayoral approach?
How about if we identify the successful practices of charter and non-charter public schools and apply them to other schools? Or can we only do this with charters?
Ah yes. First vouchers, now mayoral control. Is it DFER or RFER?
A few responses-
1) Why is the city doing chartering a bad idea? some evidence?
2) Yes we need democracy in public education. I’m not convinced that school boards make sense for big cities when the districts have multi-billion budgets and so few citizens are involved in board elections (they are easily controlled by special interests like the the teachers unions, e.g. Seattle, San Diego, LA etc). I’d argue that mayoral control provides a more, not less democratically controlled school system. More people have been engaged in arguing about the vision/direction of Chicago, DC and NYC schools than were ever engaged under the old system. This is both good and bad for reformers, e.g. DC.
3) Mark-true in general about charters but not true for cities when there is high quality authorizing like now in DPS or in Chicago, New Orleans or NYC. Chartering provides a condition for a high performing school like DSST. The Indy charter schools are generally doing better than the district ones and the city has become a much better authorizer. Doing this does not stop the district from doing everything it can do to scale best practices across the district. It’s just that districts have had a really hard time doing this regardless of whether it’s a charter or district school, i.e. why isn’t Beach Court being replicated? Frank has done as a good a job as any of the good charters in Denver.
4) Andrea, you should stick to discussing the facts rather than making ridiculous accusations about DFER or name calling. All the DFER members that I’m aware of are card carrying Democrats including myself. Check out the CO board for DFER. Terrance Carroll, Mike Johnston, Barbara O’Brien, Elaine Gantz Berman to name a few. All are credentialed Democrats in leadership positions. Some like me are supportive of voucher programs like DC’s for low-income kids and some are not. The same is probably true for mayoral control though I have not discussed with them. All are committed to more fundamental reform of public education because the current system is not working for far too many kids. None of this is secret.
Van, here’s the Colorado Democratic Party platform for your reference: http://coloradodems.org/docs/2010PlatformWeb.pdf
Look specifically on page 14. I’ll paste in pertinent paragraphs for everyone else’s ease of reference.
“We oppose vouchers and all unfunded mandates. We call for improved educational opportunity for all through equal access to quality public education from early childhood through adulthood, including: workforce preparation and re-training; English Language Acquisition programs for adults; parenting classes; increased investment in educational materials, especially for small and rural districts; and focusing on closing socioeconomic, racial, linguistic and disability related achievement gaps.”
“We oppose vouchers and tuition tax credits because they take public tax dollars away from public education and give them to unregulated private and religious schools. They also diminish the State’s already insufficient financial support for public schools and erode the very foundation of our democracy.”
One of my favorites: “Schools of choice such as charter schools and other public options should not be used to undermine neighborhood public schools. Schools of choice should be accountable and should have the same regulations and standards as other public schools. We believe that charter schools should only be approved by the local elected school board. We oppose using any public funds to support students in private or parochial institutions including charter schools run by religious organizations. We support the separation of church and state in public education.”
“We oppose charter schools when they undermine the diversity of our neighborhood schools and encourage socio-economic division. [Denver]”
In short, Van, this is what being a Democrat means, according to the Colorado Democratic Party, which includes all the electeds you mention.
So are you suggesting that the only real “D’s” follow the entire platform?
I hope not…seems a bit creepy given this country’s values and the diversity of views in both of the main political parties. My guess is that most D’s like most of what’s in the platform but also have areas in which they strongly disagree.
This is the reason for the founding of DFER; the mainstream party has become too closely aligned with adult special interests (teacher unions in particular) and has lost its way on a civil rights agenda for the most disadvantaged kids.
DFER is very much like the Log Cabin Republicans. I know that the very brave Log Cabin members are often criticized unfairly as not being real Republicans because of their support for gay rights. It’s a ridiculous attack like yours is on members of DFER. We as the R’s should stick to the merits of the particular policies being debated. It’s kind of like some mindless person calling someone less of an American because they are critical of the government’s policy. Come on Andrea.
Van, when vouchers and charters allow for real, evidenced educational equity for low-income and minority kids, and not interesting part of venture capital investment portfolios, then we can have that conversation about civil rights.
Your trying to separate unions from civil rights is downright laughable. Let me put it into context for you. Do you remember what Martin Luther King, Jr. was doing when he was assassinated? I’ll remind you: he was in Memphis in support of the black sanitary public works employees, represented by AFSCME Local 1733, who had been on strike since March 12 for higher wages and better treatment.
As my friend Andy R. says, “you dance with who brung ya.”
Oh, and another thing, Van. What you call dysfunction is what my neighborhood calls transparency and open dialog.
What I find particularly fascinating is that you seem to want a lock-step mentality on the school board but are willing to entertain shades of difference when it comes to Democratic Party values on education.
What am I missing here?
I’m all for transparency as I think you know. Ask any of the recent leaders of DPS (since 1997) and I think they will likely say that I have been a very consistent critical friend of the district, all the time arguing for more transparency and an acceleration of reform. I suspect we broadly agree about transparency.
While I am generally in support of the district’s work these days, I remain fairly critical of the district’s (and state’s) communication with parents about the quality of schools and the district practice of recruiting, retaining and training great school leaders. The district is doing more right than it ever has in terms of focusing on improving achievement but there are still many more things that the district could be doing.
Andrea, how can anyone take you seriously when your single largest campaign contributors are the teachers unions?
10/22/09 – DCTA – $4000
10/22/09 – COPE – $3000
10/22/09 – AFL CO – $500
Mr. Johnson,
How can anyone take *you* seriously when you don’t even attempt to disprove a person’s point, but just try to discredit her based on who supports her?
(I’m busy, or else I’d spend some time unpacking the union-bashing, too.)
Johnson, do you have something against teachers? I don’t, which is why I was proud to accept their help and that of working families.
You don’t have anything against working families, do you?
Van, I’m not sure what the right number of schools, be it charter or traditional, needed is, but we need more successful options for our children.
While we’re talking about transparency, democracy, and having parents’ voices heard, more options and allowing children the flexibility to move to schools and programs that are proving to work is responding to the needs of the community and developing engaged and capable citizens.
Derec, I couldn’t agree with you more. I really don’t care how schools are governed. I just want schools, a system, program or anything else that educate more kids to much higher levels. It’s the best cure for a sick democracy, economy, environment and all else that ills society. This one isn’t working now for todays world.
So then let’s work together to hold this district’s feet to the fire to improve its neighborhood schools. It’s where 90% of the kids attend school anyway, and if we want to improve rates (graduation, remediation, etc.), let’s attack critical mass first. All this other stuff is just dabbling at the edges. If charters alone were so markedly game-changing, the data would support a wholesale turnover to charters. But there is no such proof.
So we have other alternative but to make good use of the millions of dollars already invested in the public education system we have.
Van, as a former teacher and principal, you already know what works. It’s a sense of goal-driven collaboration in a school building that is the game changer. This is exactly what works at good charters, and it’s what works in “miracle” schools like Brockton High in Boston and our own beloved Beach Court Elementary. It’s not rocket science. And it can happen quickly if we put our mind to it.
So enough with the wild schemes like mayoral control that we know offer no appreciable needle-moving. Let’s just roll up our sleeves and get to work. Let’s have open conversations and talk about hard evidence, and let’s turn this ocean liner around already.
Van, et al,
Lively and relevant discussion, esp your thoughts Van on not caring how the schools are governed as along as we are meeting the needs of children and a systemic and sustainable basis (and I would add including the possibility of getting it done with mayoral control). The reality is that the freedom in our system allows us to explore what works. You have documented over the years how it has worked in different environments, ie. in Pueblo, in your own state and under different organizational structures with varying political proclivities in Colorado and other states. One has to wonder if the calculus of how to be successful in schools isn’t inversely related all to frequently to partisan politics. The fact that you are looking at the landscape of public education for the range of possibilities, not just through red or blue colored glasses, is the kind of deep, and therefore justified, dialogs/intellectual inquires, and policy decisions we ought to be making.
Van, not sure if you heard Michelle Rhee this evening but she made this point and specifically stated her view that “you can’t see radical transformation in a school board structure.”
Her view is a school board works fine for systems that are performing but the structure is too cumbersome to deal with in failing systems that need massive change. After hearing her take, I think this is a worthy conversation since she does have the experience and data to support her position.