Members of the Denver school board appear to be moving quickly to name a new superintendent and seem unified in a strong commitment to continue the momentum started under outgoing Superintendent Jerry Wartgow.
That commitment is important, because actions taken by the board earlier this year need to be implemented quickly but with care.
DPS took a major step this spring when the board voted to close three schools, approve revitalization plans for 13 others and begin redesign of still more schools. Waiting for a new superintendent to get on his or her feet should not slow the district in moving now to ensure that the school closure and restructuring decisions actually result in enhancement of student performance and growth in community confidence.
Revitalization of individual schools can be tricky. In some cases, faculty and parent leaders choose to bring in new, challenging programs as a way of attracting new students into a troubled school. (Examples are schools that have chosen to use such programs as the Core Knowledge or International Baccalaureate curriculums.) Such programs are demanding, and students attracted by them are probably going to be achieving at higher levels than current students.
When that happens, test scores often improve quickly. Predictable? Of course. The student body changed. Before celebrating, individual student assessments must be compared from year to year to see if true change and improvement did in fact take place for all students, not just new ones.
The administration and staff in each reorganized school need to agree on the indicators that will be monitored to help evaluate the success of changes. Improved student performance, better attendance, fewer discipline problems and other criteria need to be identified. Baseline data on each student must be collected. Knowing where each student starts in August is critical for monitoring throughout the year so new strategies can be used if progress stalls, and so success can be accurately measured and appropriately celebrated.
Another key issue facing the Denver district is the future of its high schools. Both a state study group and an internal DPS commission recently issued reports arguing for major changes in struggling high schools.
The next steps in high school reform should not be postponed. District leadership should meet now with leaders of the study groups, principals and teachers to lay a base for future action.
The district took a major step last month with ratification of a new teacher contract. Negotiations had started on a confrontational note, so reaching agreement without disruptions was welcome.
But now the district and the teachers union need to agree on the role of teachers in curriculum and instructional decision-making. The board and Wartgow have been pushing a “managed instruction” concept. It is a system adopted by many urban districts to bring some consistency to classroom instruction.
To solve implementation problems, the administration and the union agreed to establish instructional councils at various levels to reduce conflict. This was a productive first step.
Now, there needs to be an independent evaluation made of the work done to date so that improvements can be made and the kind of irritation that set the stage for a confrontational bargaining session can be avoided.
As the district moves forward, everyone should reflect on the insights and experience gained from the five-year effort to create a revolutionary new pay plan.
For the last 40 years, most teachers in America have been paid on the basis of their educational credentials plus their years of experience. But Denver teachers agreed to try a new approach despite serious objections from some quarters. Why? Because DPS teachers were involved in testing the idea, discussing the research and shaping the proposed program.
The new plan, for individual teachers that choose to enter it, is called ProComp, and will link pay levels with measured classroom performance by teachers. It creates the potential for teachers to move more quickly to higher salary levels than under the old system. (The program won’t go into effect unless district voters approve extra funding in an election next November.)
There is every reason to believe that the same pattern of collaboration and trust that created ProComp could help lead to agreements on high school reform efforts and the roles of teachers and administration in curriculum decisions.
In the end, the elected board and the superintendent it hires have final accountability for the performance of the district, but tapping the expertise of teachers raises the quality of new programs. (It also might set the stage for a less-contentious bargaining sessions down the road.)
Improved student performance and a more personalized and healthier school environment seem to be goals for all groups within the district. There is no reason to wait for the arrival of a new leader to work toward such ends.
Education consultant Calvin M. Frazier is a former Colorado commissioner of education.
