An Open Letter to the Colorado State Board of Education—Paul Richardson

October 27, 2010

Contents

1. Description of the new National Academies Press report, Rising Above the
Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5, including
commentary on the district’s part in the crisis and what the problems are.

2. Appendix
a. Exhibits re Colorado performance
b. State Standards Comparisons
c. NAEP-State Comparisons
d. Comparing NAEP math stds to Singapore math stds
e. Regression Analysis of D11 Reading scores re. free and reduced.
Typical of large Colorado districts.

3. On Money

4. References
The National Academies Press just published an update to their 2005 report The
Gathering Storm. You can download the report online at www.nap.edu. Norman
Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, Colorado native and Princeton
engineering graduate chaired the committee. In the earlier report they
recommended a list of actions but the top priority was to bring K-12 math and
science education to first position globally. The new report after 5 years
acknowledges that we have basically plodded along in a circle getting nowhere
while our competitor nations have been swiftly improving their children’s
educational experience. While we have shown very small improvements, they
have shown large ones meaning we are falling further behind where we need to be.

A sampling of factoids listed in the report: Only listing those directly related to
education.

 The World Economic Forum ranks the United States 48th in quality of
math and science education.
 In 2000 the number of foreign students studying physical science and
engineering in United States graduate schools surpassed the number of
United States students.
 In the 2009 rankings of the Information technology and Innovation
Foundation the U.S. was in sixth place in global innovation-based
competitiveness, but ranked fortieth in rate of change over the past
decade.
 Sixty-nine percent of United States public school students in 5th through
8th grade are taught mathematics by a teacher without a degree or
certificate in mathematics.
 Ninety-three percent of United States public school students in 5th
through 8th grade are taught physical science by a teacher without a
degree or certificate in physical science.
 The United States ranks 27th among developed nations in the proportion
of college students receiving undergraduate degrees in science or
engineering.
 The United States ranks 20th in high school completion rate among
industrialized nations and 16th in college completion rate.
  According to the ACT College Readiness report, 78% of high school
graduates did not meet the readiness benchmark levels for one or more
entry-level college courses in mathematics, science, reading, and
English.

They make the point that job creation has been and is heavily dependent on
technical prowess and innovation. We in America have not been filling the
pipeline with enough engineers and physical scientists to remain competitive.
Thus, their number one goal is for America to become the global leader in math
and science education.

What is the overall conclusion of the committee who prepared the report?

“[T]he committee . . . expressed its commitment to help America to be among

those nations whom it hopes will enjoy a truly global prosperity. In [that] regard,
the committee concluded that the United States appears to be on a course that will
lead to a declining, not increasing standard of living for our children and
grandchildren.”

We are in a struggle for our country’s future as a leader in the world. This requires
urgency and decisive leadership. When a battlefield commander is faced with
challenges he decides what to do, meets right away with his staff to convey his
plan and implements quickly. In education the reflexive response to challenge is to
set up committees, study things for a year or more and then do nothing that really
brings about positive change. The strategy which has worked incredibly well is to
use this delaying tactic, hoping that the original challenger(s) lose motivation and
give up their quest for change. This defensive, protect the status quo approach
virtually guarantees no improvement will occur. That style must be chucked and
replaced by a streamlined, get-things-done approach because we don’t have time to
waste. Even if we started today it will take about 20 years for the increased flow
of engineers and scientists we need to start flowing out of the system with PhDs.
We don’t have a minute to waste.

So congratulations folks, you have managed to maintain the status quo as measured
by your accomplishments while the country is on a toboggan ride to a declining
standard of living. I am very disgusted with all of you. When you could be doing
the well known things that would fix the problems you continue to spend time on
“polishing the rotten apple” and all sorts of administrivia so that you can delay any
positive action that actually would result in better performance. Avoiding change
that might require stepping on a few toes and helping people face the reality of
their performance is too high a price to pay in your book. Just let the country
decline; “I don’t care as long as I am happy today” is your short-sighted attitude.

Everything that needs to be done is well known and would cost less because you
would eliminate the high levels of waste in your current approach. However,
because this wisdom comes from outside of the education swamp it is ignored.
But, the education insiders don’t have a clue about what really works. The current
results prove beyond any doubt that the conventional educational wisdom has to be
wrong because it isn’t working. The ubiquitous stance of blaming parents,
demographics, etc. is not valid. You have the control of the education process and
if you energized your own performance all sorts of help would come from parents
and others in the community. As it is you work really hard to convince everyone
they need not be concerned because you are doing a wonderful job.

So let’s look at some reality: Also see Appendix

Colorado education performance is totally unacceptable—when you consider that

Colorado has test standards at or near the bottom of the heap of states and that
NAEP standards are set far below the best global competition your performance is
CRAP! As the new report points out this is a global competitive situation and that
is the only metric that counts. So it is time to pull out the mirrors with the
inscription “I am responsible” at the bottom and gaze long and hard individually at
the one responsible for this mess. I am reminded of Bill Bennett’s comment that
while America students compare poorly to their global peers in literacy, math and
science, they score highest in the world in self-esteem [and I would add
“niceness”].

Educators have learned that with the turnover in commissioners and board
members that if they lengthen the decision making process they win and the status
quo is preserved. This is because there is no “management” continuity to demand
the changes required to serve your mission well. That is why shorter decision
cycles are vital. Sadly, that takes change leadership skill which is missing in
education venues.
We know very well how to improve dramatically the abysmal performance but the
“we” does not include the pseudo expert education insiders. But there are lots of
outsiders who understand math and science (and grammar, literature and social
studies) and how to teach them effectively. They can’t believe how inept the
education establishment is.

The board has a huge responsibility that you are not at all addressing. That is, you
are the controlling entity and the only ones who can provide a quality control
function for what is happening in the State Dept of Education. You need to lead
not act as rubber stampers of the “we don’t have a clue, ed school-brainwashed in
wrong principles” educrats. Mark Twain commented, “It ain’t what you don’t
know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Educators would do well to ponder his meaning.

Your duty is to make sure the kids are served well, and that means a lot better
than they are now. This is not about coddling kids; it is about teaching them
what they need to compete. You could make a huge positive difference if you
started doing your jobs. Job one is to tell the Commissioner that he is performing
unacceptably because the state is performing unacceptably. The whole
organization needs a good swift KITA, Kick in the Attitude, or somewhere south
of there.

Why don’t educators take the initiative and fix it? Because they have been
brainwashed in their education school training in methods that E.D. Hirsch terms
“technically incorrect.” Heaven forbid that you face that truth. In my experience
of trying to talk sense to people on math, for example, there is no ability or interest
to face the reality that the math knowledge among teachers and admin (and
especially education doctorate faculty and researchers at education schools) is
abysmal. If you had listened to people who understand the subjects and what it
takes to provide a hierarchical foundation that can be built upon as grades progress,
you would be light years ahead of where you are now. But, that would require
looking at that mirror and facing the truth, something that educators are terrified to
do.

It is very distasteful to see the education fiefdom chase every incentive carrot held
out by the latest wrong-headed central planning monstrosity initiative. It is time to
realize that states need to do what is right for their kids. And that certainly isn’t
following the latest fad from Washington. It would be far cheaper and more
effective to implement a high quality curriculum without all of the distraction of
make-work fools’ errands. The kids would benefit greatly. The governors’ new
common core standards are a good example. They are basically a codifying of the
current approach trying to get all the little puffer bellies all in a row. They are
absolutely not going to fix the problems because as research by Hirsch and others
has proven, that approach can’t work, period. So doing the wrong thing better is
just the sort of oxymoron that is harming millions of kids every year. It is time to
remember that the mission is to educate children to their potential, not chase every
dollar with the hope of enriching the adults who work in education. The current
waste in education spending is ginormous. What do we have to show for
increasing spending per pupil at about twice the rate of inflation for decades? Not
better performance, that’s for sure.

Educators are not educated. This is a famous quote from Rita Kramer in her
book Ed School Follies. The complete quote is “The people who become
“educators” and who run our school systems usually have degrees in education,
psychology, social sciences, public administration; they are not people who have
studied, know, and love literature, history, science, or philosophy. Our
“educators” are not educated. They do not love learning. Naturally enough,
they think of the past as dead because it has never been alive to them. And
they will not bring it alive for their pupils. Kramer also relates the Gary Lyon
episode below.

Gary Lyon’s article, Why Teachers Can’t Teach. Texas Monthly magazine Sept.
1979 - While you may say this is too old to have credibility I must remind you that
educators have managed to ignore his truth as well. Thus, it is still as accurate
today as when it was written.

He attacked the system that made graduation from an accredited teacher-training

program tantamount to certification and heaped scorn on the education
bureaucracy, backed by the National Education Association, to whom “to insist
upon literacy is considered coercive and potentially harmful” and a proof of
“cultural bias.” Real knowledge and skills, he maintained, had been replaced by
“matters such as sex education, driver training, drug counseling, and the proper
attitude toward siblings” by “educationists”…afflicted with a cultural relativism so
profound it has become an intellectual disease.

“Basic traditional academic disciplines, in which fundamental intellectual skills are

supposed to be taught” had, he found, been replaced in teacher education by “a
promiscuous choice of courses” that he called the intellectual equivalent of puffed
wheat: one kernel of knowledge inflated by means of hot air, divided into pieces
and puffed again.” The graduates of the schools of education, “where everyone
is transformed into an A student,” he charged, “are defrauded into believing
they have an education,” and he identified the cause of grade inflation and
trivial courses (in which “fools dissect, categorize and elaborate upon the
perfectly obvious” and in which it is “virtually impossible to fail”) as the
system that made the operating budgets of all state colleges dependent on the
number of students enrolled.

In programs “where there is no subject matter, only method,” Lyon saw

enormous amounts of money, energy, and time wasted, and suggested that
future teachers could get more useful experience in less time if they were
“apprenticed after securing honest college degrees to proven and experienced
master teachers in actual classrooms with real kids.”

Further on education schools, Arthur Levine, then President of Columbia Teachers

College researched every degree granting education school in the country for his
three part report on Educating School Leaders, Teachers and Researchers. These
are available at edschools.org. He commented that they conferred masters on
those who display anything but mastery and doctorates in name only. In
talking to and observing lots of ed doctorate holders I have to say he is right.
These folks, after observing a large sample, couldn’t lead their way out of a paper
sack. They are good talkers and tap dancers but not at leading productive change.
They are, though, expert at cashing their huge, undeserved paychecks for
preserving the status quo. When your performance is as abysmal as Colorado’s,
pursuing “initiatives” that don’t result in much better performance is not earning
your pay. Flailing about polishing the rotten apple (trying to improve the current
system whose foundation is flawed) is a fool’s errand. Fix the foundation in both
math and reading which are both catastrophically flawed. That is, trash the whole
language tainted reading curriculum and the constructivist/discovery math
curriculum. I do know that the Whole Language name is not used anymore
because it was basically outlawed by legislation but as Louisa Moats points out in
the reference, Whole Language High Jinks at the end, it still is there under different
names. Replace the “can’t work” curricula with direct instruction that will really
work and has been proven to be the only way to reduce dramatically the
achievement gap. The direct instruction approach is a faster process than the
“wandering in the wilderness” constructivist approaches. Thus, you wouldn’t have
to spend added time crowding out other subjects to try to “teach” students to read.

Liping Ma in her book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, points out
that student math performance follows their teacher’s math knowledge and
that in her study comparing Chinese teachers with 2 to 3 years of normal school
training after 9th grade had much better subject knowledge than American teachers
all with bachelors and a significant number with masters and more in the final
semester of a masters degree program. The American teachers were chosen based
on their principal’s assessment that they were the best math teachers in their
schools. The American education schools emphasize quantity of courses
because they get paid more tuition money that way. The Chinese training
focuses on quality and low cost. Interestingly our pre-ed school, normal school
days did the same thing and Viola, the teachers knew their basic elementary school
subjects far better than today’s “defrauded into thinking they have an education
folks” per Gary Lyon’s description. The Chinese have a much better approach
because they are working on the real issues not “going through the motions” as are
our education school diploma mills. That is, they have kept their focus on the real
mission of educating kids to their potential, not how they can milk more money
from the public trough to feather their own nests.

Liping Ma used 4 basically simple problems which the Chinese teachers handled
well and the American teachers did not. As an aside I proposed to a large district’s
Central Admin that a highly effective thing to do would be to teach elementary
teachers math instead of more worthless pedagogy professional development. No
response on that yet. They well understand that delay is a no answer to a kid
whose future is drowning but they don’t care enough to come to the rescue.

It is in the elementary grades where the most leverage exists. Kids getting to
algebra without solid skills in elementary math are doomed to struggle and many
will fail to ever learn algebra. Yet, the district (and most others in the land)
chooses constructivist/discovery math curricula like EveryDay Math because it
doesn’t require the teachers to teach. They can facilitate (baby sit) instead. It
doesn’t provide the foundation needed for algebra and higher level math, period.

It is obvious that the educators are self-satisfied with their performance to a fault
and that is why nothing ever really improves. Also, the leadership is abysmal with
all sorts of wasted committees, consultants who don’t understand math either, all
as a delaying tactic to avoid any real change that might require harder work or
leadership. Their ed school leadership training did not provide them with any real
leadership skills and therefore it should be no surprise that they are ineffective
leaders.

I want to comment on state requirements. These are set at shamefully low levels.
Yet, most districts focus exclusively on them as their path to success. It should be
remembered that there is no requirement against adopting district standards higher
than those of the state. That is what must be done to break out of the pack of poor
performers. Yes, that includes D20 and all of the rest of the so-called “excellent”
performers. They are only “excellent” because they are the best of the poor in
Colorado. When compared to Singapore for math, for example, they totally fail to
make the grade. And does scoring in the nineties on reading CSAPs which are
among the easiest in the county make you a winner? Hardly.

There is much work to be done for the kids and our country’s economic survival.
Actually if less but productive work replaced the huge amount of wasted
effort currently going on there could be massive improvement. Results are
what matters not the level of staffing or activity. You have very high and
expensive activity but your productivity (results per dollar spent) is negligible. If
you can’t step up to the plate then do us all a favor and resign and go somewhere
where non-performance, delusion, defensiveness, insularity and in-bred thinking
are OK. They should not be OK in Colorado or anywhere in the land.

A couple of last comments/recommendations; first, read Larry Bossidy’s book

Execution: the discipline of getting things done. In it he talks about the need for
robust dialog (you know, arguments) to get to the truth and thus be able to solve
real problems. The education fiefdom prides itself on decorum and “niceness.”
This leads to no one ever having to perform or having their performance
questioned. It is a system of rampant political correctness, GroupThink and
total failure to perform your core mission of educating kids well.

Second, education pseudo doctorate holders would do well to emulate Jack

Welch’s attitude at GE where he was spectacularly successful. He had a PhD in
Chemical Engineering (about a trillion times more rigorous to get than an ed
doctorate). When he took over the CEO job at GE, people started calling him Dr.
Welch. He told them he was Jack; his PhD had nothing to do with his current
position. And in reality because ed doctorates are as Levine says, doctorates in
name only, all of the pseudo doctors in education should drop the title and start
working and learning instead of their current preening. Levine also said that the ed
doctorates were of no value (worthless is my translation) in any public school
administration job. And the performance of the ed doctorates confirms Levine’s
assertion.

I hope you take this as a wake-up call. Colorado is a laughing stock nationally for
its ridiculously low achievement test cut scores. McClatchy Newspapers used
Colorado as the “dumb” example in their article about the referenced The
Proficiency Illusion. Massachusetts was the Smart example. In reality neither state
is competitive with the global competition. Colorado is failing miserably. But you
could do so much better if you would face the reality of your true performance and
act to prioritize kids for a change instead of prioritizing the adults’ tender egos and
money grubbing.

Paul Richardson, for the kids.

Appendix—Exhibits re Colorado Performance

Colorado CSAP Math 2009

50 Gr 3
40 Gr 4
Gr 5
30
Gr 6
20 Gr 7
10 Gr 8
Gr 9
0 Gr 11
% Unsat % P Prof % Prof % Adv
Colorado CSAP Math 2010

50 Gr 3
40 Gr 4
Gr 5
30
Gr 6
20 Gr 7
10 Gr 8
Gr 9
0 Gr 10
% Unsat % P Prof % Prof % Adv
Observations:

1. No significant change year to year (different cohorts but same pattern)

2. The levels of below proficient increase from grade 3 to grade 10
3. The levels of proficient or better decline from grade 3 to grade 10
4. The 10th grade prof or better level of 30% is the final measure of failure
Conclusion: The foundational knowledge is not being learned in elementary
school which results in the students not being prepared for successive grades.
 State Standards Comparisons

Average Ranking of States according to difficulty of reading cut scores across all
grades - Plotted number is the number of states that have lower or equal cut scores.

Average Ranking of States according to difficulty of math cut scores across all
grades - Plotted number is the number of states that have lower or equal cut scores.

Colorado has lower cut scores than all other states in the study as an average across
grade 3-10. Source: The Proficiency Illusion, Thomas B. Fordham Institute and
NWEA
Showing the huge difference between NAEP math and Singapore math.
Remember Colorado standards are set much lower than NAEP standards

NAEP math vs Singapore Math; John Hoven testimony

As an example, my own school district – Montgomery County, Maryland – is one

of the most affluent, highly educated counties in America, yet our gifted students
scored at the level of Singapore’s average student.

NAEP classifies its problems as “easy,” “medium,” or “hard.” I benchmarked the

“hard” 8th grade problems, examining NAEP’s highest level of expectation for 8th
grade math. Most of these “hard” 8th grade problems are at the level of
Singapore’s grade 5 – or lower.

I want you to see for yourself some of these “hard” 8th grade problems. Consider:
In one problem, for example, the student is shown a “Lunch Menu” with items like
Onion Soup for $.80 and Ice Cream for $1.10. The question asks: “What is the
total cost of Soup of the Day, Beefburger with Fries, and Cola?”

This is considered a “hard” eighth grade problem. But Singapore has harder
problems than this in grade 3. Here are two examples:

1 ) 5 oranges cost $2.25. What is the cost of 12 oranges? ____________

2 ) I want to buy a calculator for $29.70 and a watch for $32.00. I have $28.50.
How much more money do I need?
(1) $26.20
(2) $30.80
(3) $33.20
(4) $32.70

Both of these are two-step math problems. They illustrate Singapore’s

expectation that all children should acquire mastery of the math skills needed
for algebra and beyond. NAEP’s expectation is that children need to be able
to order take-out from McDonald’s.

Algebra
In 8th grade, mathematically advanced American students take Algebra 1. NAEP
ignores all of these children. Not a single question is at an Algebra I level. Here is
NAEP’s most difficult algebra question:
3 ) The length of a rectangle is 3 more than its width. If L represents
the length, what is an expression for the width?
A) 3 ÷ L
B) L ÷ 3
C) L x 3
D) L + 3
E) L - 3
Frankly, this kind of problem is for a child who started learning algebra yesterday.
By comparison, here is a Singapore problem for grade 6:

4 ) Ahmad scored x marks for his English in an examination. He scored

90, 80, 80 for 3 of his other 4 subjects, and did half as well in English
as he did in Maths. If he had an overall average of 80 marks, how many
marks did he score for Maths?
Answer: ____________

Why does NAEP expect so little, and Singapore expect so much? Because
Singapore students have been solving progressively more complex problems since
third grade. [systematically building the foundation]

The two Singapore algebra problems below further illustrate the process of
building math skills step by step. The first problem is the distributive law.
Singapore students master this in 6th grade, so they can use it automatically in 8th
grade Algebra.

5 ) 6p(3 + 5p) is the same as ______________.

(1) 18p + 30p2
(2) 18p + 3
(3) 11p2 + 30p
(4) 11p + 3p2

The second problem begins the process of “chunking” – learning to see algebraic
expressions as a single “chunk.” That skill makes it easy to see that you just divide
$20 by p2 kg to get $20/p2.

6 ) If p2 kg of rambutans cost $20, what is the cost of 1 kg of rambutans?

(1) $20 - p
(2) $20 + p
(3) $20/p
(4) $20/p2
In comparison, NAEP doesn’t test algebra; it tests “algebraic concepts.” That’s a
weasel word that allows for problems like this: “Plot the point (5,2) on the grid
provided.

But if our students struggle with this aim-low NAEP, how can we pile on even
more?

Singapore doesn’t do more. They do less – less, that is, of the time-wasters that
clutter the American “mile wide, inch deep” math curriculum. A world-class
curriculum like Singapore’s focuses on math skills that prepare children for algebra
and beyond. It builds mastery of those skills step by step, and incorporates these
skills into more and more complex problems. A quote from the Singapore
Ministry of Education is instructive, from their Nurturing Every Child, booklet
(2006), “Teach Less, Learn More—“Syllabuses will be trimmed without
diluting students’ preparedness for higher education. This will free up time
for our students to focus on core knowledge and skills”

In contrast, NAEP has a major focus on fluff. My favorite example is the scale
drawing of a room, where the student is given the measurements of a bed, a desk,
and a chest and asked to arrange them so they don’t block the doors and windows.
This is what NAEP calls “problem-solving.”

A couple of quotes from Tom Friedman’s The World is Flat

The sense of entitlement, the sense that because we once dominated global
commerce and geopolitics—and Olympic basketball—we always will, the
sense that delayed gratification is a punishment worse than a spanking, the
sense that our kids have to be swaddled in cotton wool so that nothing
bad or disappointing or stressful ever happens to them at school is quite
simply, a growing cancer on American society. And if we don’t start to
reverse it, our kids are going to be in for a huge and socially disruptive
shock from the flat world.

“I know a high-paying job requires one be able to produce something of high

value. The economy is producing the jobs both at the high end and low end,
but increasingly the high-end jobs are out of reach of many. Low education
means low-paying jobs, plain and simple, and this is where more and
more Americans are finding themselves. Many Americans can’t believe
they aren’t qualified for high-paying jobs. I call this the ‘American Idol
problem.’ If you’ve ever seen the reaction of contestants when Simon
Cowell tells them they have no talent, they look at him in total disbelief. I’m
just hoping someday I’m not given such a rude awakening.”
Regression Analysis of D11 2008 Reading CSAP Scores –Paul Richardson 0209

Research Question—Is there a significant relationship between student demographics (as represented
by eligibility for free and reduced lunch program or not) and achievement on the CSAP tests.

Database used—created by extracting data from Excel spreadsheet downloaded from the Colorado Dept
of Education website http://www.cde.state.co.us/, accessed 12/10/2008. The extraction process
involved extracting the data for Colorado Springs School District 11 for Reading scores for grades 3
through 10. The data given delineates scores for each of three groups in each grade; those eligible for
free lunch, those eligible for reduced cost lunch, and those not eligible for free or reduced lunch. I
combined the free and the reduced into one category computing the volume weighted average score for
those scoring proficient or better on the reading CSAP. Other untested variables include; percent
scoring unsatisfactory, percent scoring partially proficient, percent scoring proficient and percent
scoring advanced. In preparing the data for the SPSS statistical software package I used 1 for free and
reduced lunch and 2 for no free and reduced lunch. The total number of students in the sample was
16373 giving the resulting analysis good validity.

Regression

Variables Entered/Removedb

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method

1 lunch, gradea . Enter

a. All requested variables entered.

b. Dependent Variable: PerProBetter

The dependent variable is Percent Proficient or Better

The independent variables are the grade and lunch status; 1 or 2

Model Summary

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .974a .948 .940 3.24954

a. Predictors: (Constant), lunch, grade

The overall correlation for the total model is 0.974 with an R Square of 0.948 showing a
very powerful predictive relationship between the dependent and independent variables
 ANOVAb

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2496.866 2 1248.433 118.228 .000a

Residual 137.274 13 10.560

Total 2634.140 15

a. Predictors: (Constant), lunch, grade

b. Dependent Variable: PerProBetter

The result is significant at the .001 level.

Coefficientsa

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 40.727 3.451 11.801 .000

grade -1.403 .355 -.251 -3.958 .002

lunch 24.142 1.625 .941 14.859 .000

a. Dependent Variable: PerProBetter

The result is a negative Beta of -0.251 for the grade variable significant at the 0.01 level
(scores go down as grade number goes up) and a positive Beta of 0.941 for the lunch
variable significant at the 0.001 level (those who qualify for free and reduced lunch score
significantly lower than those who do not).
Graph

1 = students who qualify for free or reduced lunch

2 = students who do not qualify for free or reduced lunch

Conclusion:

The district is letting the demographic variable, free or reduced lunch determine what kids
learn. The district’s value added is nil. The model says that 97.4% of the results are
predicted by the demographic variable (94.1%) and the trend of reduction in scores as
grade increases. The achievement gap will not decrease until the district starts to add value.
On Money

I know there is much fear of what could happen to the flow of money for education
if the amendments on the November ballot are passed. While I agree that the
“hurt” would be severe if the measures are passed, I would also like to argue for a
more realistic view of the money spent on education.

First, you (and you aren’t alone among education entities) assume that everything
you are doing now is justified and valuable and worth continuing. Let me assure
you that this is a wrong assumption. I have been following our education mess and
its foibles for a long time now and there is much waste in what you do there,
especially in overhead areas.

Second, much of what you do is harming kids and the performance of the districts
in their primary missions. You need to realize that providing “make-work” jobs
for educators is not your primary mission. Educating children to their full
potential is your mission and should take priority in every decision. However,
your current operations come a lot closer to the providing jobs for educators than it
does to educating children well. There is a long habit in education of taking care
of friends by providing jobs which aren’t needed but can be easily created because
the board is asleep at the switch. Of course once created, it is assumed that the
position is valuable and needs to continue even after the original person it was
created for leaves.

I will argue that cutting the budget for counterproductive spending would help the
kids not hurt them. That is, less “pseudo experts” pursuing technically wrong
education ideas couldn’t be a bad thing. You have gone far beyond the KISS
rule that engineers are taught for good reason. Keep It Simple Stupid is a good
reminder that the best solutions are minimalist in nature. Education entities have
layer upon layer of overhead that only clogs the communication lines. It does do
one thing though that higher level admin find valuable. It helps to convince people
they are worth more salary if they are “supervising” more people. Also, it helps
provide a buffer between the staff and the public and the top “leaders.”

Now, if you had a Commissioner who knew the reality of the poor curriculum (and
standard) choices you have made and who had real leadership skills you could
make great progress quickly with about half or less people in central admin by just
fixing the curricula and expecting people to implement it in a quality way. Of
course, your Commissioner doesn’t understand the content-free curriculum harm
(or doesn’t care) and certainly doesn’t have the leadership skill or “fire in the
belly” to finally fix the real problems and serve the kids.

If Colorado had a board that wasn’t made up of admin lap dogs much positive
work could be done. Sadly, at least a majority of the board are not interested
enough to figure out what is going on and why the results are so poor. That would
require too much work and prioritizing effort on important stuff while eschewing
the “popular but wrong” wastes of time put forward by those making huge
campaign donations from self-interest power groups rampant in education.

The opportunity for far better performance relatively quickly is at hand. Do you
have the intestinal fortitude to seize the moment and move the state ahead at warp
speed? Anything less is unacceptable.
References
Alexandra Beatty et al

 Assessing the Role of K-12 Academic Standards on States: Workshop Summary, 2008,
www.nap.edu/catalog/12207.html

Larry Bossidy et al

 Execution: The discipline of getting things done

John Cronin et al

 The Proficiency Illusion, 2007, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute & NWEA

E.D. Hirsch Jr.

 The Knowledge Deficit

 The Making of Americans
 Video of presentation to Manhattan Institute—available on booktv.org by searching on
E.D. Hirsch

Rita Kramer

 Ed School Follies

Arthur Levine

 Educating School Leaders, 2005 www.edschools.org

 Educating School Teachers

Liping Ma

 Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics

Louisa Moats

 Whole Language High Jinks, How to Tell When Scientifically-Based Reading Instruction
Isn’t. Thomas B. Fordham Institute 2007

Paul Richardson

 Advice for Educators When Improved Performance is Vital, Scribd.com