Gifted education, the "right" kind of education, and innovation in public schools

First, my bracket is shot. I joined most of the country as a Memphis non-believer and am now impressed. I was also impressed by Kansas stomping North Carolina. I had NC vs. Texas in my final. (I started this before the game, but Kansas just pulled out an overtime win.)

More to the point…Good people disagree about education. Education is not simple. Anyone who tells you they have “simple” methods that universally work is trying to sell you expensive textbooks or was fooled by someone who is. It’s a lot like parenting—there are certain important principles generally agreed on…but even which principles those are tend to be a little different depending on who you talk to. I know certain things that work with my children, but when I’m tending relatives or neighbors, they often don’t. Some of those may be because of different temperaments and abilities, and many are because of different parenting styles and practices. I definitely see things that other parents do that I disagree with and find frustrating. I’m fairly sure some of my opinions are correct. I’ve also learned some humility as my two children grow and I see how differently they behave and respond to things, even within the same family and with the same habits and rules. Outside of certain very commonly accepted bounds, it would be rude for me to angrily demand that my friends parent the way I do, even if it would make my life so much easier. Some principles are absolute, but different people have different personalities, different ways of communicating, and different priorities.

There are legitimate improvements that can be made in teaching practice. But how many of these improvements are agreed on by education “experts,” or by students and families? One person’s “tried and true” method is another’s “outdated rote memorization.” One teacher’s “discovery unit” for independent research is then derided as “fluff based on self-esteem with no fundamentals.” How much of a body of basic knowledge do we expect elementary and secondary students to “know?” (And does “know” just mean to remember the fact, date or formula, be able to find the best multiple-choice answer using the knowledge, or an actual ability to apply the knowledge?) vs. How much critical thinking, evaluation, and learning how to find your own answers do we practice at the cost of covering more information? In other words, breadth vs. depth in a given timeframe. I have had parents demand both more and less homework for their students and read articles decrying both extremes as one of the causes of the “education crisis.” Parents also express opposing opinions on how much grammar and drill I should include in class. In the comments below an article today on education funding (more on this in another post), different persons derided the UEA or the “establishment” for both resisting smaller school districts and for resisting supposedly more cost-effective school district consolidation. How important are class size, technology, and “values” in the classroom? Who decides?

Most educational decisions and mandates, both those made with an inclusive process and in good faith (A generally applicable example being classroom reduction money) and those mandated top-down from a relatively small group with little cooperation or buy-in (Investigations Math in Alpine District, vouchers), will be roundly criticized from some quarter. Here is an example from Provo District about an issue that can be very polarizing: gifted education. The two short articles describe the school board first considering, and then approving a separate magnet school for gifted students. Read the opinions in the articles and in the comments—there aren’t an overwhelming number of comments like in the previous article.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695264138,00.html

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695264718,00.html

Good people disagree on the general and specific principles. Are special programs for gifted students discriminatory favoritism or a form of “segregation” as one commenter opines? The counter-argument declares that those students have just as pressing of individual needs as special ed. kids and have the right to learn on their own level. The best and brightest should not be held back from great achievement. Beyond that, if you support programs for gifted kids, what is the correct way to administer that program? Can you meet both their academic and social needs in a separate class or school, or is a variation of the normal school program better? Does a special program stigmatize gifted students or under-prepare them to work with all types of people in the real world?

My opinions have evolved over time. I experienced some different forms of gifted education as a child, and I have worked with both gifted classes and special needs students as a teacher. Some of my educational beliefs from my own experience have not held up as universally applicable in the face of the incredible variety of students I teach. I won’t go into specifics right now as that’s not my focus. The point is that everyone who doesn’t believe the same as you about the “right” way to educate gifted individuals is not ignorant or mean. Their views are shaped by their own experiences and those of family or friends. In all probability, they want the best education possible for their own children and for Utah’s students in general. The same reality applies to most other educational programs and theories as well. A balance between inclusive vacillation and bull-headed determination to do it “my way” has to be found, and there will automatically be opposing viewpoints.

Therefore, there are no “easy” answers.

And unlike many rightwing commenters, both nationally and locally, I see the bull-headedness mostly from public education critics rather than the “education establishment.” Even with No Child Left Behind, standardized testing, and other conformist influences, teachers still practice a huge variety of teaching styles and methods. The individual personalities of the teacher and the students play a huge role in classroom activities, discipline, and atmosphere. Teachers generally appreciate the differences and love to bounce ideas off each other when they find time to do so. I have strengths and weaknesses as a professional and love to work with the other teachers in my department and school. Within some basic parameters, change and innovation are encouraged and admired. And, just like any profession, teachers themselves don’t always agree which also leads to an increased variety of methods.

I have improved by incorporating practices in my classroom from local and national sources. Do I end up hitting every possible individual sweetspot? I’m sure I don’t…BUT, I am also certain I have improved my methods and skills each year and reached a higher and higher percentage of learning styles and individuals in my class each year. Are there teachers stuck in ruts or that don’t care? Of course. But mandating your particular vision of what the curriculum or methods should be will not eliminate this problem from a public, charter, or private school.

It is the vocal proponents of particular programs or methodologies that insist the public schools are “doing it wrong” and that all students would learn if only the school would adopt their favored plan. They usually believe in a solid program with benefits, but in my perception, ignore all the students who don’t fit their vision. They accuse the public schools of being too uniform if their proposals are not implemented when a public school in fact allows more diversity of practice than most individual private schools. (Private schools are great by the way—the point is that they are often driven by a singular vision or theory that can’t always provide for all students.)

Public schools are often criticized both for being too monolithic and narrowly-focused on one hand, while on the other being attacked for using too many diverse methodologies that a specific commentator disagrees with. You can’t have it both ways. Utah public schools do struggle to meet each need of hundreds of thousands of diverse students, but individual teachers, as well as schools and districts, are always experimenting, observing, and improving.

This is not an “excuse” or an argument against improvement. It is a reality check about supposed ”silver bullets” that don’t exist and the diversity of public opinion on education, even within members of the same neighborhoods, political parties, or religions.

New visitors--why the voucher "savings" are untrue AND Nuts and Bolts of Voucher Funding part 5

Hi. For a more concise summary of what this website is about, look at the Oct. 30th entry:

http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2007/10/flyer-distributed-late-oct-and-early.html


There are many voucher supporters who philosophically wouldn't mind hurting the public schools in a voucher program to spur competition or punish the teacher unions. While disagreeing with their reasons, I can respect these opinions as honest differences.

But the voucher program is being sold as something it isn't. Many voters believe it will actually increase student funding and help the schools. Organizations and letter writers berate the opposition for ignoring the “simple math.” The truth of voucher costs would dissuade many voters if known.

I'm holding a 16-inch long door hanger from VoteFor1 that claims in bright yellow to reduce class sizes, increase teacher pay, and add 1 billion dollars to public schools without raising taxes. The back claims The State of Utah spends $7500 per student, so a voucher leaves $5500 in the system, "adding" $1 billion dollars to public schools. VoteFor1 literature was also given to me at a meeting with most of the Orem legislature members on Thursday.

$7500 false
What they don't tell you is that the $7500 figure includes federal money, local district bonds, and trust lands money dispersed independently of the state. That money is almost completely devoted to school construction and maintenance, or strictly defined federal programs. To claim it as "savings" is dishonest and misleading. It cannot be redistributed.

The TRUE Utah Cookie Voucher Ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8Kt-i4pmV0

The state uses a complicated formula to claim "savings”
The state funds districts through its headcount formula called MSP, which is an average of $3800 including all of the money for special ed., ESL, etc.
http://www.le.utah.gov/interim/2007/pdf/00000363.pdf

The WPU, which is all the money a district gets for a student who isn't in any of those categories, is only $2417. http://le.utah.gov/interim/2007/pdf/00000364.pdf

The state takes all of that funding, "mitigating" a bit during the first five years. That mitigation money provides the difference for five years--it does NOT leave all of the funding. Read the bill: http://le.utah.gov/%7E2007/bills/hbillenr/hb0148.pdf Lines 309-313

Lines 309-315 of the bill show the funding shell game at its finest. The cost of the voucher is allocated to the district, and then taken back out to the Uniform School Fund to sit until the next year. It counts as allocated public funding even though it doesn't go to a school and sits unused in a state account all year. See my Nov. 1 entry for the example of Timmy.

To sum up the voucher hustle -- For a first grade student next year who switches because of the voucher law HB 148, the state gives the districts an average of $1800 for five years in exchange for taking $3800 for twelve years. That money taken or withheld each year sits in the Uniform School Fund until the next year, NOT being redistributed or spent on classrooms, schools, or teachers, but still counted as education funds to fuel the deception of 1 BILLION DOLLAR SAVINGS!


Major Fiscal Untruth about Vouchers #5: Subsidizing the tuition for ALL private school students forever, but phasing in the implementation of that aspect of the bill over thirteen years to hide “what will become essentially a subsidy for students who would have attended private school in any case.” —Randy Raphael, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, 2-16-07

ALL private school students will be eligible once the law is fully implemented. AND they are estimated to be the ones who will principally use the vouchers. That means we will be giving a subsidy to all of the families who were already going to attend private schools—about 20,000 students in 2020. You can read this in the Impartial Legislative Fiscal Analysis of HB 148 provided as part of your official voter’s guide: http://elections.utah.gov/Impartial%20Analysis.2007.VIP.pdf


The Fiscal Analysis of HB 174, the amendment to the real bill, HB 148, is even more blunt. Read the bottom of page 1 where the analyst says that the bill will most likely be "essentially a subsidy for students who would have attended private school in any case."
http://www.schools.utah.gov/law/leg2007/FiscalNoteInput/HB174_VoucherAmendments.pdf

Then scroll down to pg. 3 of the fiscal analyis for HB 174, and check out the first two years of the program. In 2008, a bunch of kids use the new program. But in 2009, they estimate that only three--yes, you read correctly, three students will be able and desire to switch because of the voucher subsidy. But five lines below, we also see that 1224 new kindergarten students who would have attended private school in any case--at NO cost to the public--will also be eligible for a voucher. So in 2009, we "help" 3 students, and give a tax-funded handout to 1224 students.

This subsidy for the rich will cost taxpayers $71 million a year according to the legislature’s own analyst! NOT save a billion or “redistribute” $5500. They know this. They use the misleading figures anyway. Then they accuse everyone else of being misleading when they’re called on it.

Honesty counts for something. EVERY claim of savings for vouchers is false.

Tomorrow, I’ll post links to a few of the varied national organizations wanting to privatize education. It is not a myth—they’ve sent thousands of dollars to Utah through Parents for Choice in Education to further their agenda.

Part 5 preview -- The Legislative Fiscal Analyst comes clean

I haven't even begin to talk about how ALL private schoolers get vouchers as the program deceptively implements over 13 years. The Impartial Fiscal Analysis of HB 148 that appears in the official voting guide estimates they will cost $71 million a year once they all qualify. Various legislators have disputed that figure from their own office.
http://le.utah.gov/%7E2007/bills/hbillenr/hb0148.pdf

But most haven't seen the even more damning fiscal analysis of HB 174. Remember this amendment bill passes along with HB 148 if the referendum passes. The analyst is even more blunt here:

http://www.schools.utah.gov/law/leg2007/FiscalNoteInput/HB174_VoucherAmendments.pdf

The analyst actually says that even with the tuition help, this will become "essentially a subsidy for students who would have attended private school in any case." This is one more thing the legislators have seen and and disputed because of the number of applications for vouchers.