The Denver Post

When school reform harms

- By Doug Benevento

efenders of the status quo and those trying to empower students and parents in the K-12 system call themselves reformers. Even the doyenne of the status quo, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, claims to support education “reform.”

In Colorado, Denver-centric “reform” organizati­ons like Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) promote centralizi­ng decision-making power at the state level rather than in local districts. Their view of education reform is to promote one-size-fitsall solutions to the state legislatur­e or costly ballot initiative­s to benefit a few districts while treating counties like ours as expendable and our students as mini-ATMs.

In Colorado, reform used to mean empowering parents and communitie­s by creating choice — for example, the legislatio­n authored by then-state Sen. Bill Owens created charter schools and establishe­d open enrollment. Peter Groff also had a long history of defending charter schools when he was in the state Senate. Even initial legislatio­n mandating statewide student assessment­s was a positive developmen­t. Choice requires comparison between districts and schools, which assessment­s were initially designed to enable.

However, for the Denver-centric “reform” crowd, “fixing” K-12 has come to mean using the state legislatur­e as an uber statewide school board to press legislatio­n that sounds good in press releases. A great example of this is legislatio­n passed several years ago that, among other things, dramatical­ly increased the hours student spend on assessment­s and requiring that districts evaluate individual teacher performanc­e. Sounds good, except many of those new student assessment­s were deemed worthless for students, and the teacher evaluation­s were uncoupled from teacher compensati­on.

Apparently tromping on local control is fine, except when it would interfere with union wage scales. If the legislatio­n was going to mandate teacher assessment­s, they should have mandated their use in individual teacher compensati­on.

Even more tragically comical, a portion of a teacher’s evaluation was supposed to have been tied to the new student assessment­s. But when those assessment­s were deemed to be ineffectiv­e, the legislatur­e waived that requiremen­t. But districts, under threat of sanction, were still required to have a minimum student participat­ion rate for those assessment­s or face state sanction.

Over the past six years in Douglas County, we’ve done things differentl­y. While we have supported well-designed and meaningful statewide assessment­s, we’ve also pushed back on meaningles­s assessment­s. In the last session, the legislatur­e passed legislatio­n addressing that problem, after howls of protest from organizati­ons like DFER. We didn’t need the state to mandate individual teacher assessment­s, we just did it. Even more importantl­y, we made those assessment­s meaningful by tying them to teacher pay. As Groff noted in a recent report, by tying compensati­on to performanc­e, we’ve retained 95 percent of our highly effective teachers and 90 percent of our effective teachers, while our ineffectiv­e and partially effective teachers left in droves.

Reform should mean empowering and expanding choice and local control. The one-size-fitsall reform agenda won’t work. Doug Benevento is a member of the Douglas County School Board.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States