Last night Fayetteville Superintendent Vicky Thomas made a proposal to school board members which moves the district forward from the failed millage election. The proposal is modest compared to the pre-vote plan which called for large scale demolition and reconstruction. If the school board approves the plan, the district will issue approximately $45.3 million in bonds which will be used to make targeted improvements to the current campus.  The new plan still allows the district to take advantage of the Qualified School Construction Bonds allocated to the district by the state Arkansas Department of Education. To service the debt inside the current budget, the district will have to cut spending in other areas. Chief Financial Officer Lisa Morstad hinted that administrative spending would be the first to be cut, and that spending on instruction is safe. We have yet to hear how this new plan affects the decision to add the 9th grade to the high school campus, but I imagine the district will have to stick with the current grade structure at least in the short term.

I would like to applaud Vicky Thomas’ swift action moving forward from the failed millage election. This new plan seems to be both timely and prudent. I look forward to hearing more detail about the plan.

Here are the local news articles:

Democrat Gazette

Morning News

The Simpsons had a great episode Sunday night. Brian tells me that after a few rough seasons, The Simpsons are “back,” and after this episode I’m inclined to believe him.  You should watch the whole episode if you have the time, but if not here are a couple of my favorite scenes:

1. “21st Century” education – watch from about the 7:40 mark until 9:50
2. Skinner can’t just fire a teacher – watch from 18:20 until 20:30

The hip new teacher, Tufts degree in hand, who uses his iPhone to text the kids that their homework consists of twittering and friends them on Facebook got me thinking about 21st century education again.

What are some of the leading voices in education saying about 21st Century Skills? Last month NationalJournal.com had an interesting piece where they asked this very question. I find the responses of Diane Ravitch and Andy Rotherham particularly interesting. These two left leaning ed policy gurus, Ravitch worked in both the H.W. Bush and Clinton education departments and Rotherham was a domestic policy wonk for Clinton, downplay the importance of the bluster, hype, and corporate marketing that is the 21st century skills movement.

Both of these experts reach the same conclusion concerning the newness of 21st Century Skills.  Rotherham writes:

I’ve been among the skeptics of a lot of what masquerades as 21st Century Skills. The whole construct of “new” skills seems to me to reek of contemporary flattery and miss the point that none of these skills are actually new. What’s new today is the need for universality: In other words, in the past elites in society (our society and others throughout history) had these skills while the masses generally did not. Today, by contrast, our commitment to a more equitable society as well as the demands of our economy mean a deliberate effort must be made to ensure that all students learn how to think, analyze, problem-solve and so forth.

Rotherham goes on to point out that “Thinking that these skills are ‘new’ rather than thinking that they are simply ‘more necessary’ leads to different remedies.” That’s some crucial advice for districts that currently have the adoption of 21st century skills on their agendas. You can find the full text of Rotherham’s comments here.

Diane Ravitch’s take on the topic is especially scathing, especially when she notes that the movement has the potential to be a cash-cow for peddlers of products marketed to enhance 21st Century learning:

The notion of “21st century skills” is a fiction. There are no such skills. Every single skill listed as a “21st century skill” has been in demand long before the 21st century, in some cases for many centuries.  Most of what is now proposed–whether critical thinking skills or working in groups–has been an integral part of the progressive education movement since the early years of the twentieth century. Anyone knowledgeable about the history of American education would recognize most of these skills as another manifestation of progressivism (see Lawrence Cremin’s The Transformation of the Schools or my own Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform). In reality, the so-called 21st century skills are no more than an echo of the ideas that have dominated our colleges of education since the early twentieth century.  I have elsewhere (http://blog.commoncore.org/?p=88) suggested that the schools should emphasize such 19th century skills as love of learning, the ability to think for oneself (individualism) and to work alone (initiative), the ability to stand alone against the crowd (courage), and so on.  The board of P21, the organization that promotes this alleged movement, is top-heavy with representatives of the major technology companies, suggesting at least to me that the movement will end up noted as a lobbyist for selling more hardware and software to the schools. But even the idea of information literacy is not new. Schools have already spent billions on equipment from these same companies (and others that have since disappeared).  Our children are not deficient in skills or in computer literacy; they know better than their parents how to use computers to access information. Unfortunately what they lack is the knowledge with which to evaluate the information they so easily access.  They are deficient in knowledge; they are deficient in understanding of history, civics, science, geography, foreign languages, the arts, and literature. Anyone who has seen Jay Leno’s street interviews (his Jaywalking interviews) has observed the profound ignorance that Leno encounters when he meets young people and asks them questions about the most basic ideas and facts of history, civics, and geography. Those he interviews–who seem to be mainly in their early 20s–laugh about their ignorance; they think it is funny that they know so little of the world. They do not lack thinking skills or computer literacy. They lack knowledge.   The 21st century skills movement, like so much else that we are now doing in education, will plunge us even deeper into our present morass of happy ignorance.

I have been surprised that more liberals have not spoken out against the 21st century skills movement. One of the main goals of the movement is, as articulated by Tony Wagner, to make our kids more attractive drones so they will be employable by corporations. Liberals should be at least a little uncomfortable with the corporate backing the movement has gotten.

Tonight at 9 p.m. CST on PBS, viewers can catch the national debut of The Buffalo Flows.  The Buffalo Flows is a film about the Buffalo River written and produced by local UA professor Larry Foley, with photography by Trey Marley, editing by Dale Carpenter, and narration by Ray McKinnon.  It also features music by the UA’s James Greeson.  The film recently won 2 emmy awards.  Here is a clip that features some of the original music and some beautiful pictures of the Buffalo River.

State Senator Sue Madison is at it again.  After news broke yesterday that Fayetteville’s Target store was applying for a license to sell retail beer, Madison was quick to signal that she would oppose it.  The Fayetteville Flyer posted the following statement by Madison:

“I want to make it clear that I am not opposed to someone having a beer or a glass of wine or even a cocktail,” Madison said. “My concern with this is that it’s another outlet for minors to buy alcohol. It just makes it harder on law enforcement to police it and ultimately, it’s our children who could be harmed by this.”

Madison’s latest reasoning is only slightly less ridiculous than her recent opposition to Macadoodles‘ application to open up a liquor store in Springdale. Back in May she argued that because the Macadoodles in Missouri had “lured people across the state line to purchase alcohol,” they should be denied a license “until they have repaid Arkansas all the tax dollars we’ve lost.”

Even if serious people could somehow get behind such reasoning (and let’s face it, they can’t), it would be more appropriate to hold Benton County responsible.  Macadoodles can’t be blamed for selling people a legal product.  But Benton County should consider how being dry is forcing tax dollars across the state line.  If Madison really wants those dollars to stay in Arkansas she should go after Benton County and convince them to allow retail liquor sales.  And she shouldn’t stop there.  Until the laws are changed, Macadoodles will continue to enjoy our tax dollars on Sundays.

Fortunately the Springdale Macadoodles was approved by the Alcoholic Beverage Commission and construction is underway.  This is good news for residents of Springdale who have long been held hostage by the Springdale Liquor Association.  Up until now they have held a monopoly of Springdale’s liquor outlets.

While not as crazy as the Macadoodles scenario, Madison’s opposition to Target on the grounds that more minors will have access to alcohol is still wrong.  Large chains like Target and Sam’s Club (whose license Madison also opposed) are in a much better position to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors than smaller liquor stores.  These large chains have more professionalized procedures for training their employees, there is always a manager on duty, and there are always security cameras recording the check-out lines.  In the long run, allowing larger, more professionalized stores to sell alcohol could actually reduce the amount of alcohol that gets into the hands of minors.

Still, given Madison’s constant opposition to all things related to alcohol, and her erratic reasoning, one has to wonder if something else is driving her decisions.  Maybe she just hates fun.  Reading that quote at the top of the post again, I get the sense that she’s really not too fond of those cocktails she grudgingly says she is not opposed to.  Maybe she isn’t so worried about minors, but actually wants to tell us grownups what we ought to be drinking.

Gee, thanks mom.

1. Barack Obama — possibly inspired by the 7:30 to 5 pm schedule at KIPP schools — wants to lengthen school days. Some telling quotes from the article:

“Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas,” the president said earlier this year. “Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom.” . . .

Summer is a crucial time for kids, especially poorer kids, because poverty is linked to problems that interfere with learning, such as hunger and less involvement by their parents.

That makes poor children almost totally dependent on their learning experience at school, said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, home of the National Center for Summer Learning.

The subtext here is that smart kids like yours and mine don’t necessarily need more time in school, but we’ve got to think about all of those kids who are better off at school than at home.

2. In Arkansas news, the “fool poor people into forking over their money to handsomely-paid bureaucrats” program — i.e., the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery — started today. Note: you have a much higher chance of being struck by lightning than of winning anything significant in the lottery.  The Fayetteville Flyer has a tantalizing breakdown of what you can buy in order to help Ernie Passailaigue get a bigger house.

3. The New York Times magazine asked several folks, including Charles Murray, Diane Ravitch, and others, to opine on the purpose of education. Ravitch’s question — why do we educate at all? — is thought-provoking.

4. Dan Willingham cogently explains why if you want to understand what you read, you have to know something about the subject.

5. The results of the Fayetteville millage election appear to be more lopsided than originally reported. The certified results show the millage failed 64% to 37%, or 6,382 to 3,672. There is no indication why around 400 votes seem to have switched sides.

6. From the New York Times, a former test grader essentially makes a case that multiple choice tests are better than those that allow open-ended writing.

In a move that can only be described as 20th century-esque, the Fayetteville School Board has voted not to approve the open-enrollment public charter school proposed by the Prism Education Center.  While this vote was merely symbolic, it does give the citizens of Fayetteville a chance to gauge the district’s stated commitment to listen to the voice of the people.  Back in 2001, The Arkansas Poll found that 56% of Arkansans approved or strongly approved of charter school creation in Arkansas.  Only 26% disapproved or strongly disapproved.  That’s a fairly clear indicator of the voice of the people, especially when one considers that the poll was done eight years ago.  Public support for charter schools has only grown since then, and now President Obama has made charter school creation a cornerstone of his education agenda.

Ironically, the district also announced that they plan on having another go at gathering public input regarding the new high school.  Plans are being made to mail questionnaires to the people who voted in the millage election to try and determine what the community wants.

Confused?

It is unclear at this point exactly why the board opted to vote against the charter school, but the Morning News is reporting that board member Susan Heil felt that the charter school would duplicate efforts of what the district already offers.

It is not yet known to what extent the board intends to follow this line of reasoning, but one can only imagine that more schools are going to have to be closed for being duplicative.  There are currently nine elementary schools  in the district, and each one duplicates what the other ones have to offer.  Likewise, the three middle schools are additionally similarly redundant as well, too.

We’ll post more details here when we get them.

The Fayetteville School Board will discuss the election results of the failed  millage increase during the board’s meeting this Thursday at 5 p.m. in the Adams Leadership Center at 1000 W. Stone Street.  Also on the agenda is a scheduled vote on a proposal from the Prism Education Center to open a new public charter school in Fayetteville.  A show of support from the board could signal how much the board has learned in the aftermath of the millage defeat.  Financially, the proposed charter school would save the district money.  Yet the Northwest Arkansas Times is reporting that Associate Superintendents Ginny Wiseman and John Colbert are looking this gift-horse in the mouth and have recommended that the board vote against authorizing the charter school.

In the immediate sense, the public charter school would save the district money because charter schools in Arkansas operate solely on state funding.  This is in turn leaves more revenue from local property taxes available for other projects, like, say, constructing a new high school.

You may hear opponents of charter schools argue that because the district won’t receive the state allotted per pupil funding, the net result of local students being lost to charter schools represents a net financial loss to the district.  Not so.  While it is true that the district will not receive the money attached to the students who opt to attend the charter school, they also won’t have to pay  for teachers and facilities to educate those students.  It comes down to a difference between levels and ratios.  While the level of dollars received and spent could be less due to the presence of  an additional charter school in the area, the fact that the district won’t have to commit any local revenue to the charter school means that the ratio of dollars to students in the district will actually increase.

In the broader sense, Arkansas’ stance on charter schools could have million-dollar implications.  President Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have called for states like Arkansas to lift their arbitrary caps on the number of charter schools that are authorized.  Currently Arkansas caps the number at 24.  And the President and Secretary Duncan are doing more than just nudging states to fall in line.  They have indicated that states with charter school caps will be at a “competitive disadvantage” for $4.35 billion that is to be handed out under the “Race to the Top” program.

Ultimately, the vote by the Fayetteville School Board on Thursday is little more than a statement.  The Arkansas State Board of Education actually has the power to approve new charter school applications, and it is up to the state to lift the cap.  But Thursday’s vote will give citizens of Fayetteville a chance to see if the board has learned any valuable lessons in the aftermath of defeat.  An overwheling majority of voters indicated that they have reservations when it comes to the district’s ability to manage money.  Are they listening?

(Guest post by Jay P. Greene)

The Fayetteville school board and district leaders fully supported a plan that was soundly rejected by the voters this week.  How did school officials so badly mis-read what voters wanted?  It’s especially puzzling how school officials could have seriously misjudged their constituents given the years of deliberations, countless hours of public meetings and charrettes, and even a commissioned opinion poll.

Unfortunately, these countless rituals of public input are exactly what misled school officials to support an unpopular plan.  They were misled because these rituals of public input are better indicators of the views of the self-selected, small minority of people with the most intense (and often the most extreme) preferences than they are indicators of what the electorate would want.  School officials mistook the opinions of this self-selected few as the voice of the people.

School officials also hired consultants to lead these public conversations, but in doing so they were steering discussions in a pre-determined direction.  Bringing in education consultant Tony Wagner and requiring all school employees to read his book steered the plan toward a high school divided into small learning communities.  That idea didn’t come from the voters.  It came from certain school officials, was made the topic of discussion in schools and community events, and then was echoed back to school officials.

Similarly, the design “charrettes” led by consultants from New Orleans were not truly open brain-storming sessions about a new high school.  If they were, how did several small break-out groups independently arrive at the same Trail of Tears design concept?

There is nothing inherently wrong with holding public discussions on important decisions or with bringing in expert consultants to inform and direct those conversations.  The problem is in falsely believing that what results from those discussions is in fact the opinion of the community.  They are more like echo-chambers, repeating back the preferences that school officials had going into them.

But school officials saw the community discussions as a sign of general public support for their vision.  They even went so far as to describe the plan that was developed from these events as “The People’s Plan.”  And then when asked why voters should support the millage, the advocates and editorial writers told us that it was The People’s Plan and had come from us so we should support what the community had developed.

This People’s Plan campaign strategy almost felt like bullying.  If you weren’t among the tiny, minority of atypical people who could spend evening after evening in community discussions, you had lost your chance to have a say.  It was time for you to get in line and support what the involved people had already determined.

Perhaps for this reason opponents of the millage stayed generally quiet during the campaign.  Yes, there was a handful of active letter writers and a Facebook group with fewer than ten members, but there was no organized opposition, no “vote no” yard signs, and a string of elite (even if tepid)  community endorsements.  But in the privacy of the voting booth, people clearly felt free to open-up and clearly say no.  Once the result had been announced, opponents discovered that they weren’t so isolated, and Facebook pages began to light-up with people explaining their reasons for opposing the millage despite their commitment to education and their understanding of shortcomings of the existing facility.

The solution is not to hold even more public input rituals to scale back the cost of the project but leave all other decisions in place.  Presumably, the $116 million price tag followed from all of the design and policy decisions that had preceded it.  If all of the design and policy goals could have been met for a lower cost, why wasn’t the initial millage for a lesser amount?

Instead, the solution is to stop the echo-chamber decision-making of meetings, charrettes, and consultants, and start with real leadership.  School officials should step-up and tell us what they think would be educationally desirable at a reasonable cost.  Of course, it is difficult for them to gauge what the community would consider a reasonable cost without public input, but the election result has given them better feedback than any town-hall discussion or charrette ever will.

Superintendent Vicki Thomas is particularly well-positioned to offer her vision of our educational future.  She bears no responsibility for the development of the failed millage plan and can start with a fresh slate.  We hired her to lead our schools and leadership is what we need.  She has enough information from voters and past public meetings to assess the community’s priorities.  Now she can give us a new plan and convince us that it is what she thinks is best, not what she thinks we told her to say.

Jay P. Greene is endowed professor of education reform at the University of Arkansas and a parent of three children in Fayetteville public schools.

Reports are coming out that the nays have it in the Fayetteville millage election.  After reporting early numbers via twitter that made passage look like a slamdunk (1,175 for and 630 against), Alan Wilbourn is now tweeting that the unofficial vote total is 4,085 for and 5,954 against. Over ten thousand Fayetteville residents cast ballots on the millage issue. That is quite a turnout for a special election. The table below provides a breakdown of the voting numbers.

Here is The Morning News article about the election.

The proposal to build a new high school failed to get voter approval.  So, what happens now?  Check back later today tomorrow (Sept. 17th) for some good riffing on this very topic.

Wow, look at those diamonds sparkle.

I thought it might be interesting, and I’m sure quite refreshing for some of our readers, for us to talk about some reasons to vote “yes” on Tuesday. We have already established the following in previous posts:

1. The high school is not falling apart.
2. There is no evidence buildings improve student outcomes.
3. The current facility has deficiencies, but they don’t necessitate complete demolition and reconstruction.
4. There is a case to be made for economic development, but any positive effects will be much diminished by the necessary tax increase.

So why would you vote “yes” on Tuesday? To put it simply, because we like new, shiny, big things.  My choice of language here is a little provocative, but I don’t mean it to be derogatory.  All of us make investment/consumption decisions on a daily basis which are based, almost entirely, on our preference for nice things. We like our houses to be comfortable and to look nice, reflecting both our wealth and commitment to upkeep.  We like having the latest and greatest gadgets like the iPhone (I love mine) or a big flat panel TV.  We attend football games in Razorback Stadium with 75 to 80 thousand others, and we all look at the ginormous jumbotron for the replay. We like adorning ourselves and our children in fashionable – good looking clothing. None of these things are a matter of necessity, but we chose to invest in them because they are important to us, and because we have the ability to do so.

In contrast, the current Fayetteville High School campus is ugly. The walls are not falling down, but they are not attractive either. Most of the common spaces are not large enough to be useful, and when they are used…well, crowded may not fully capture the scene. The campus is a mishmash of architectural styles resulting from several renovations. It, in many ways, does not fit our community’s image, or at least the image we would like to portray.

Let’s be honest, we don’t have to spend $115.825 million to fix the current campus’ deficiencies. The proposed high school goes far beyond adequacy and approaches the realm of extravagance. If the voters approve the millage, we will have the nicest and most expensive school in the state.  It will be a monument both to our wealth and the value we place on education.  It will be a source of pride. And there is something to be said for going big and engaging in activities which celebrate the best attributes of our society. But do not be mistaken, a new building will not lead (directly) to better educational outcomes and it will not be the economic development silver bullet.  No matter how much technology we stuff inside the walls, the building will still not be able to teach our kids. The quality of our teachers and principals will still be the biggest deciding factor in our childrens’ education. We must guard against stretching our resources (financially and politically) to the point that we no longer adequately invest in the things that really matter.