Want to know more about where nine people vying for a seat on the Denver school board stand on education issues?
DPS headquarters at 900 Grant St.
A+ Denver, an advocacy group focused on improving student performance in Denver, on Thursday released survey results showing where the nine finalists stand on a range of education issues including teacher evaluation and recruitment strategies, whether teacher salaries should be made public, the role of charter schools and school choice and how best to address school finance.
A seat on the seven-member board opened up when Nate Easley announced his resignation last month to take over as head of the Denver Scholarship Foundation. Easley represented District 4 in Northeast Denver.
- Snapshot of candidate responses to A+ Denver survey
- Read complete survey
- EdNews story on board interviews
- EdNews story on lack of Latino finalists
Much attention is being paid to the vacancy since the board was typically split 4-3, with Easley joining the board majority in its support of district reforms, including the School Performance Framework, which is used to evaluate schools, and an openness to charter schools, colocation of schools on the same campus and school choice.
“The position being filled will be the swing vote on the DPS school board, which is why there are so many people jockeying for the seat,” A+ Denver CEO Van Schoales said. “The direction of the district – whether it continues to make progress or slides backward – could depend on this appointment.”
In most areas, seven of the nine candidates appeared to be aligned, according to A+ Denver. The most disagreement centered around the turnaround plans for Northeast Denver schools, whether teacher performance ratings should be public, how to determine teacher pay (based on performance or years in the classroom) and charter school funding.
Candidate Fred Franko was the only candidate who chose not to answer many of the questions. Retired DPS teacher Mary Sam also stood out from the other candidates with positions generally in opposition of the direction the district is headed.
But candidates came together on a few key issues. For instance, all responding candidates indicated they favor accountability measures requiring schools to demonstrate student growth; all but one said they support turnaround strategies, including the creation of new schools; and six said they supported a funding formula that would allow money to follow students.
The complete survey, along with each candidate’s bio, priorities and complete survey responses, can be found at www.aplusdenver.org. Or, see the results below. The key: 5 strongly agree; 4 agree; 3 neutral; 2 disagree; 1 strongly disagree.
I rarely respond to EdNews pieces but i cannot remain silent on this piece.
Van Schoales says, “the direction of the district – whether it continues to make progress or slides backwards – could depend on this appointment ” I find this to be particularly offensive and frankly erroneous. For Van not to acknowledge the third option for which I have been advocating these last many years – a different, more successful, faster paced, reform is very disingenuous to say the least. He and his organization often criticize the district for its lack of academic progress, yet when faced with an opportunity to offer solutions that might work better, they fall back into reform propaganda speak. Why do you and I disagree so strongly, Van? Because this district ought to be ashamed of the results it has produced over the last years. And more shameful than that? You know that to be the case and yet you continue to prop up these pathetic results because somehow actually advocating for reform that isn’t part of a failing national reform agenda is too scary or too politically incorrect for you. Less than 2% gains per year with all the outside funding coming to this district is unacceptable, and you know that. Maybe a new district 4 candidate could help craft some actual policy that would help our students, their families , and their communities. Advocate for real reform for a change. What we have here is certainly not that. In fact it is STATUS QUO REFORM.
Jeannie Kaplan
DPS Board, District 3
Jeannie,
Once again I do agree with you that the pace of improvement is far too slow. I also think the district can and should do a variety of things better, not the least of which is to radically redesign the district’s teaching and learning support/accountability for schools. Too many of the district managed schools have made little progress…high schools are one of the best/worst examples of little substantive change.
As we have discussed many times, one of the fundamental problems in DPS is the district’s inability to evaluate what is working and what is not, stop doing the stuff that isn’t working and do more of the stuff that is working. A+ has been very public about our concerns and will continue to do so.
In regards to your interest promoting a plan or efforts that will accelerate reform faster than the current practices, do share, I’m all ears. I’d love to know what you think will accelerate improvement. A critique without a proposed solution is not very helpful or responsible given your position on the board.