Greeley's Superintendent Ranelle Lang Interviews for Lincoln Schools Job

Ranelle Lang, Superintendent of Greeley-Evans School District 6 apparently had an interview this last Thursday for a new job in her native Nebraska. A couple of local papers have published some of her comments. I've posted a piece below and also provided the link to the entire article.

I've also heard back from the State on the comingling of Special Education funds. D6 is consolidating its Special Education programs. Special Education funds are often "restricted" funds and must be spent only to meet the specific needs given. Indeed both State and Federal funds must be spent on the intended purposes but they only cover 2/3 of the total expense. Local funds cover the remaining 1/3. Comingling funds then with general funds, to the extent of my knowledge, would likely then be difficult to trace and probably acceptable up to some degree such as funding the facilities. If anyone has anything additional on the topic, please feel free to call or post.

Here is the article on Ranelle Lang from Nebraska's Journal Star. Here is a second link to an earlier piece, looks like a public relations piece, on Lang interviewing in Nebraska.

"On recruiting a diverse staff

Lang said the Greeley district, which is more than 50 percent Hispanic, has worked hard to recruit a diverse staff. She's hired two principals whose native language is not English.

And, she said, the district has started a leadership group for non-Anglo teachers and those who speak two languages.

On creating minority partnerships

Lang said she meets regularly with members of the Hispanic community in Greeley, and the district has created alternative programs to work with a wide variety of students. The district also has opened a welcome center where families can go to get all their children enrolled in school.

"It's really important that every single student is welcome and accepted and they feel like school is a place for them."'

The Guillotine is Rolled Out For Greeley Schools District 6

Greeley's District 6 Administration and Board are in the process of organizing spring cleaning. Schools are being scheduled to be shut. Cameron will see its head roll. Jefferson is being merged. Just what that means I am not certain. It appears to mean that all the alternative students and "problems" will be stuffed into one school. Cuts are coming, to the best of my knowledge, to every area except the top run of administrators and to the middle-class white schools like Christa McAuliffe Elementary.

The kids who need the most attention, require specialized help, are lower performers in general, some from homes with fewer resources--rounded up and stuffed into one facility. What could go wrong? The newest teachers in, with the freshest skill set, may be the first out.

In the meantime it isn't clear how extensive operational cuts will be. The Operations Manager has been busy making recommendations and it appears the board is following his lead regardless of the impact on the quality of learning. Still no public appearance by Ms. Lang and her $200 thousand plus a year income.

Teachers have, or were, wearing black shirts to represent the day the Board enforced a contract upon them.

The local teachers union appears to be either overwhelmed or under performing. The mainstream media isn't covering it from a teacher's angle. The concept that the Union has been broken by the Board certainly is real from my own perspective. The public isn't likely to come to the side of the teachers when they have just dumped the plea for more public funds down the drain. And Greeley citizens as a whole do not seem willing to put pressure on the administration to make cuts across the board rather than to focus on some demographics that are not popular.

In general, it is pretty clear that the youth of Greeley are not a priority for the taxpayers. And, in my opinion, it is pretty clear that the Board, Ms. Lang, and Mr. Eads are using the opportunity to clean house. Heads on the chopping block will be the newly hired, political enemies, and any job where a highly skilled person is drawing a realistic salary and can be replaced by a common "Joe".

Of course the State is demanding cuts and probably demanding that a plan be developed and submitted to the State. Mr. Ritter, a pseudo-Democrat, is focused on the Republican agenda for the State budget even though he has decided not to be elected. We can only hope that someone will be reviewing this plan that has the guts to stand up for what is best for the education of the students.

You don't have to be a genius to figure out that if the State removes a million dollars or more from the local budget that it would serve to take out jobs which reduce incoming taxes even further which grows the problem instead of helping resolution. In the meantime while expenditures are being reduced the number of students requiring an education doesn't change. They are all still there at the doors waiting for their opportunity to enter the adult world workforce with a half-baked education and compete with other communities for real wage paying jobs.

All in all it is depressing. The future of Greeley has just been flushed down the toilet and the public doesn't seem too distressed or too informed. I think it is time to call in the State. It is time for parents to go sit outside the Governor's door. It is time to take the students along too and show them the political process and how it works when the government doesn't pay attention to the needs of the future and/or is willing to force certain segments of the population, without as much political power, to bare the brunt of poor ideology, planning, and the cuts that are the natural consequence thereof. The Greeley District 6 Administration and Board is obviously not up to the task, overwhelmed, and willing to make cuts not in the best interest of education but in the best interests of what an Operations Manager recommends. The top level administrator isn't willing to face the public or the bulk of the district's employees. The cuts have already been politicized and are likely to continue in that direction.

Just where is Ms. Lang the District Superintendent? Doesn't the public deserve to meet her face to face and have her explain her reasoning and position. After all Ms. Lang, so it seems, will be retaining her job and her contract. Shouldn't Ms. Lang have to look the teachers, staff, and operations people in the face and explain to them why they have been selected to have their careers pulled out from under them? Ms. Lang should earn those big bucks and take on the big responsibilities--regardless of how hard they may be.

The one advantage, in all this mess, possible is that the people, to the best of my knowledge, who have been hired in the past for low wages based on ideology without the appropriate skills for the job, advanced on the basis of politics rather than educational best interests, could be forced to leave. The "good-old-boy network" could be dissembled in mass firings and rehirings only, unfortunately, the "good-old-boys" are doing the firing and rehiring.

Hence the call for the State to step in.

So the picture I paint here isn't pretty. The subject isn't getting the media and public coverage it deserves. The local fish-wrap is just an extended arm of the public relations sector of the District. Of course to be fair there isn't a good solution to be had and times are tough. But the cuts and changes are being driven less by the best interests of education than by political interests and naive extremist chopping block-watch-the-heads-roll maneuvering. That, or it is being driven by sheer panic and a lack of consensus on what to do. These administrators are over their heads and don't have the skills to deal with the situation in a fair and objective way. Special hires need to be made who have the background skills and objectivity for educational purposes.

Hence the call for the State to step in, again.

Which all leads me back to the supposition, how many times can I say it, it is time for the State to come in and take over the management of Greeley Colorado's infamous District 6. For the sake of the students, the classes in Greeley without political power, the future of Greeley itself, and also for the sake of the taxpayers. Somebody needs to do the real job, the whole job, and do it with the least politics and the maximum professionalism.

And where is Ms. Lang?

New Contract Offerred to Greeley District 6 Teachers

The following are scans of a contract document placed within a Greeley Colorado District 6 Schools envelope and placed in the mailbox of a long time Greeley Colorado District 6 teacher who is also a member of the Greeley Education Association Union. To enlarge these documents for viewing click on the document icon and it will expand into the window. I have referred to these documents in the next posting.

Negotiations: Greeley Colorado District 6 Teachers Get Thrown Under the Bus

Greeley Colorado District 6 school teachers got a parochial school lesson last evening from the District School Board when the Board basically decided on a package deal for the teachers. Teachers are howling and the Union is threatening action. It remains to be seen what can or can't be done. While it would be reasonable during an economic downturn to curtail cost of living increases it is a hard pill to swallow when federal stimulus funds are coming into the district and a recovery is well underway except in job creation. Top that off with the fact that the Consumer Price Index shows that what $1.00 bought in 2007 now costs $1.04 or a $50,000 salary in 2007 is worth 2,080.27 less than it was in 2007.

Of course the District is facing the same problem. It is going to have to spend $1.04 for every $1.00 spent previously and with property values sinking, the Tabor Act limiting tax increases not yet through the court system, and 3A swinging in the wind, I'd be sweating bullets too if I were on that School Board. Except that I suspect the State automatically adjusts the payments to the local schools for increases and, as I said previously, the state and local schools are eligible for stimulus funding. I've posted a couple of paragraphs on the federal money below taken from the Colorado Department of Education website. There are a few opportunities too, if I am reading the language on this page correctly, that District 6 should be applying for that could help with building attractive pay packages for high quality teachers and administrators in the future. Hope someone is on that and making it happen.

Overview

Congress designed the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to prevent reductions in critical education and other services.

The Recovery Act allocates the following:

1. A one-time appropriation of $53.6 billion for the overall State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
2. $39.7 billion in Education State Grants for states to use first in restoring state support of primary, secondary, and higher education through 2011 to the greater of 2008 or 2009 levels, and $8.8 billion in Government Services Grants to support any public safety or other government services, including education
3. At least $4.35 billion to fund Race to the Top State Grants, which includes $350 million in Standards and Assessments Grants
4. Up to $650 million in competitive grants to LEAs or nonprofit organizations under the Investing in Innovation Fund

Funding

Colorado is expected to receive $760,242,539 in Recovery Act funding for its State Fiscal Stabilization Fund state allocation, which includes $621.9 million for its Education State Grant and $138.3 million for its Government Services Grant.

I'll write more on the negotiation topic when I get more information. I haven't posted too much on the topic as it is because to be honest it is difficult to tell facts from fiction and media hype. I've been in the middle of mediation before and it is not a whole lot of fun to have the media perpetuating panic points. For example, a mild one, I heard last week that the Board were secretly putting new contracts in front of some select teachers and telling them they should sign them and that the new contracts would allow the teachers to be fired at will once signed.

I sent that worried teacher back to dig for more details because it just sounded more than a little implausible that those details were correct. Every one is worried about the state of education in Greeley District 6. That much is obviously the truth.

Part II: Greeley School District Latino Levy Blues

My "tour guides" tell me it is hopeless. Greeley Colorado has acted conservatively since the first domesticated cow dropped onto the farmer's fields decades ago. Greeley's local systems will remain bound financially and ideologically by voters dedicated to shredding government involvement in just about anything. The current debate over the Greeley District 6 Mill Levy Override is just another notch on the conservative belt.

My response to this mindset is that I don't want to deal with labels. What creates a reasonable and sensible outcome for the citizens of Greeley still makes sense whatever lick-it-and-stick-it label one wishes to categorize it under.

If private industry could handle effective education without the profit interest driving every decision I'd be fine with that. If private industry could create an effective transportation system, that could service everyone at an affordable price, I'd be fine with that too. If the essence of community needs like energy, health care, and other minimalistic survival needs could be handled in the same way I'd agree with that too.

But private industry doesn't work well in the delivery of public goods (utilities, education, transportation, and so on) most simply because demand outstrips supply. Every person requires some regardless of ability to pay. Did it work better in 1940? Yes it did--much better.

There were less people to service. Less diversity of needs. Less developed complexity of needs recognized. The spiderweb of need just keeps spinning bigger as the population expands and society finds new ways to examine the threads. Supply, earlier in the century, could meet reasonable demand without a company having to become a megalithic gigantic-titantic bureaucratic system.

The investment in assets was reasonable in earlier decades and the costs to start up within the means of several companies. Competition could and did flourish. If you could put together the investment capital and had the management expertise on your team a person(s) could build a company to compete and turn a profit without government subsidies. Now the costs to enter the market are so high that competition is very limited and left to the "big guns" and their ever soaring needs to return a higher ROI to their investors.

And when the "big guns" can't do they are enticed through big government subsidies. The ultimate marriage producing the ultimate opportunity for corruption and inflated costs.

My point is that those days are gone. A centrally organized system, like the government, has to be used to create public systems like education because they have gone beyond the reach of the common working man and woman. And the only entity we have that can serve all the people (well most the people), most the time, without making decisions based on profit but on the good the economy receives from the value invested, is the government. (I can hear the boo and hisses from here.)

Not the prudent option for everything but the prudent option in this case. The way I look at it is that I can check big government by being a pragmatic and well educated voter. I can't check big corporate interests without being a big investor or a very powerful politician. Essentially, as a working class stiff, I am shut out when education, transportation, and other public goods are in private hands. I need these goods, my children need these goods, and these are the ladder to success in America. I, with others, can create much more effective regulation and oversight than any politicized federal agency by rallying like-minded people suffering like-minded consequences to vote out elected public officials overseeing any public system. The true beauty of democratic principles in action--equality. In private hands our youths' educational options are doomed to the powers of capitalism and the market forces. Not a pretty sight in my opinion.

My point here is that conservative politics do not preclude building a good education system. Managing the expense of the system is just prudent reasoning not politics. A dollar invested by taxpayers should show a dollar's worth of value at the very least. A dollar + over the long run if we are good at it. Managing the expense of the education system to cut off its blood supply so that less value is returned because it is a government based program is dubious reasoning and political ideology at its worst. It is snipping off your community nose in spite of its face.

So now it is 2009 and we all want to decide how Greeley District 6 will spend its money and whether it really needs more money to create the return investment expected (value to the community) by increasing taxes. Well how many local citizens really know how to manage and run a system this complex and this big? I don't. And I have management background and training. But I do know that I expect elected officials to hire the most qualified people available to do the job and I expect voters to keep a watch over whether that job is being done well or not.

The outcome is the pudding proof. And our pudding is on fire only it is not called a flambe.

In other words, so far the outcome is seriously lacking. The returns on the community investment, the value we are getting, are dubious at best.

Looking at the Greeley Mill Levy Override brings this issue square about in the face of Greeley citizens and taxpayers. If the objective is to create the most education value for the dollars invested then Greeley citizens and taxpayers certainly have every obligation to uncover why D6 performance continues to be sub par and that the plan being put forth by the Administration will remedy these issues just as fast as possible.

According to the Greeley Tribune this week Greeley District 6 School Board President Bruce Broderius infers that Greeley's low performance is due to specific low performers he'd like to be able to cut out of the test score statistics. I hope he intends to clarify this statement.

My response is that Greeley District Six has an obligation to all students and not just choice cuts the District would like to make. Additionally I've decided to take a look at some of the potential causes of the sub par performance of District 6 from my own perspective. I published a list in my previous post in this series. I'll take on the first four items here. Mostly because the first four are the easiest to answer.

• Is the performance problem related to the notion that Greeley is a unique district?
• Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the students?
• Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the parents?
• Is the performance problem related to the collective IQ of the community?

Really this is just one question. "Is it us?"

I'll just cut to the chase here and address the racism inherent in this discussion and one which many, including authority figures and media figures, are want to use to distract from the real problem at hand. Other districts in Colorado also have high minority populations and immigrant populations without the same performance issues. Additionally Greeley already receives more funding than other local districts, like Poudre, that show a 14% Latino population in their school district. Greeley has a 44% identified Latino population.

Greeley Federal Funds in 05/06 Per Student $845.

Poudre Federal Funds in 05/06 Per Student $562.

Greeley Local Funds in 05/06 Per Student $2,826.

Poudre Local Funds in 05/06 Per Student $5,274.

Greeley State Funds in 05/06 Per Student $4,376.

Poudre State Funds in 05/06 Per Student $3,257.

Okay, close your eyes. Let's take a closer look at what's happening in relationship to these funding dollars. Here come the numbers.

This section will look at a comparison between the Greeley District Six costs and that of the Poudre District. I use ratios to examine the numerical relationship below because Poudre had about thirty five thousand students in 05/06 while Geeley had a bit over twenty-four thousand. We have to compare apples to apples as much as possible and not oranges to apples.

Administratively District 6 with 24,809 students is running .0006 administrators per student while Poudre Valley with 35,630 students is running .0005 administrators per student. However District Administrative support in Poudre is higher at .0046 per student than Greeley's Administrative support which is at .0038. What entails District Administrator support can very widely between districts. One district might hire Vice Principal's for instance whose job duties are very isolated while others may hire for the same position and also assign teaching duties.

Essentially the above ratios are one indicator that Poudre School District is performing more efficiently, in general, than Greeley District Six. What it does suggest is that Poudre is doing more per dollar and returning more value per taxpayer dollar spent based on testing results.

In this regard it is understandable that the District Six Board and Administrators would want to defend its performance achievement by claiming the district has additional burdens of low performing students. In response I'd ask if the additional resources, both Federal and State, which have been received (see above) are meant to provide for this difference, in part or in whole--if the special need indeed exists. With these numbers it would be possible to construct a similar ratio for special instructional services and would give an idea how these monies are being used. If the additional revenue sources have been provided and special services are not being provided I'd imagine that would be a big issue. If there are additional monies and they've been allotted accordingly then there should be no reason to use the "underperforming" populations as a scape goat for general poor performance.

At present I do not have these statistics on LEP and/or IEP learners. If anyone wants to provide them I'd be grateful.

Personally I have no issue with seeing the variety of performance issues related with LEP students or second-language students as a subsection of performance. Unfortunately though these figures are not being reported by either Greeley District Six or Poudre to the National Statistics site or the NCES site is withholding this information. However Greeley District Six, according to the NCES site for 2005/2006, as I stated above, had about forty-four percent of students identified as being of Latino origin to Poudre's 14%.

It is a thin line between inferring that all Latino students are low performers and saying that students with second-language development issues are performance issues. That 44% percent figure means very little without accurate figures on which students are nonnative citizens or first generation immigrants. Racism is not something this District wants to actively promote anymore than it does tacitly already through exclusion of programs directed specifically at migrant and low performance students.

I don't see how anyone can live in Greeley and not be painfully aware of the racial stigma and divides which exist in this city. Programs that have racial implications, probably in the average Greeley citizen's mindset, have been banned, disingenuously dismissed, renamed, and a host of other politically opportunistic political tactics used to avoid creating the very programs that would hopefully address some of the nonperformance issues.

But you will be happy to know the school board is aiming to produce more charter schools which ultimately tend to serve the top performers.

The School Board isn't the only entity at fault here. The citizens of Greeley create this environment and, I'll argue a bit wildly, through their elected officials have institutionalized the scape goat mentality in order to give free reign to arguments keeping government and taxation minimalistic.

Guess what Greeley--It doesn't work in education. Education is an investment. The more you invest the more harvest this community will reap.

As investment examples, in 2005/06 Poudre paid out in salaries per student 24,185.00 Greeley paid out in salaries 17,547.5 per student. Greeley by comparison is running much lower in salary dollars spent per student.

Greeley looks on paper like it is the prudent investor but in reality the job just is not getting done. So which administration/community is the wiser investor?

It indeed may very well be that "we" are the problem. At least in part. But not in the way expedient local mindsets may think. While we probably don't suffer from lower intelligence quotients in general we do suffer from political ideologies applied with two wide a brush stroke. The problem may be the fact that the collective culture of Greeley is being harvested by our youth. And the harvest has turned out to be only "middlin' pickins".

I'll continue this conversation in Part III of this series. if you've got a beef with a statistic--let me know. It wasn't my favorite course.

Redesigning Greeley Colorado--A Political Cow Town

Greeley Colorado is an interesting town to figure out. Especially when you are coming at it from a different point of view than most folks raised here. Currently I have been tracking articles about the District 6 mill levy, the Greeley City Council election, District 6 Teacher Union negotiations, and, one of my favorite snail-snot companies--JBS Swift. Just thinking about writing on these topics is beginning to make me cringe. A lot of good people involved and a lot of bad planning and outdated ideas used.

Combine this with the fact I've never quite got the hang of the East/West versus North/South orientation of the town and end up driving endlessly across the prairie even when I am just popping out for coffee--I get to spend a lot of time just looking at the beautiful mythic trees, architectural styles, and a lot of frothing-at-the-treasure-chest developments running amok to the south and west (I think) of Greeley. Then there are the empty store fronts. Ramshackle buildings leaning too far over the sidewalk. The unkempt and ungreen sections of town. All speckled in between beautiful manicured older developments, the nice college campuses, places where people rarely venture into their front yards to associate with their neighbors but spend hours politely maintaining their end of the bargain.

And never the twain shall meet. Is this libertarianism? Is it protectionism? Is it racism? Or is it just plain lack of a City Council having much idea how to pull it all together--before the treasure chest is emptied trying to encourage big business and special interests to spread Greeley around like melted butter on a counter top.

After a week of being under-enlightened and disillusioned over the lack of zoning and planning and with special interest editorials pouring out of the fingers of the staff at the Tribune I finally turned to my local "tour guides" and other acquaintances for answers. There are so many things to like about Greeley (especially the people) it doesn't make a lot of sense to me why they don't take more interest in their own town. Is it really easier to just move out and let the sprawl mafia take over?

We've spent more than a few hours over coffee educating Jane.

"Greeley is just a cow town that never really wanted to be a city but finds itself now a city..." I was told.

The light snapped on. Now I have been told a lot of other things as well but this item, above, just made all the pieces of the puzzle come flying together.

It makes sense why there has been little prudent economic development planning. My opinion of course. It makes sense why Greeley's overall strategic economic and development position is being more directed by regional economic planners and UNC's concept of business planning than it is by the City "Elders" shall we say. Greeley doesn't want to grow up to be something it doesn't want to be--a big city. Although it still isn't clear why the prairie palace developers are allowed to walk away with spreading out their wings and pooping all over Northern Colorado. I thought that is what zoning was all about and what the ranchers and farmers were all about--making sure that stuff didn't happen. But I digress.

The people in the castle on the hill (Greeley City Council and its Mayor) do not have enough incentive to be fully invested in the long term interests of the town. If you've ever been a public persona, well, let's just say it is a pretty thankless job unless you are paid a lot of money to focus your interest or at least given enough political clout to get a good seat in the top restaurant without waiting.

I once implied to a group of Greelians that someone ought to paid for putting 100% interest into the Greeley Good Ship Lollipop. This was upon finding out that the Mayor only receives a stipend as well as counsel members. Half the room, Republican fiscal conservatives, choked on their coffee while the other half politely explained to me that the Mayor really didn't do anything. Ed Clark might object but then again I heard he got elected on the basis of his pleasing personality and big night stick. Back to Jane's advisers, the main ladies in the room pointed out that mostly the council is white, retired, and special interest laden. (I already figured that part out but didn't think it would make me a very pleasurable coffee companion to bring it up). It was noted several are law enforcement types and public works service types without any serious background in economics and economic development. Makes sense if you take a look at the results of what they have been applying to Greeley over the years. Piecemeal cow town with a corral around any and every culture to keep them from "mixing" in with the herd. On a subconscious level no doubt.

After all I'm sure everyone would be thrilled to have a highly educated Somali with citizenship run for City Council. Right? Right? The point is to get the job done, right? Same with the local School Board. Right? It's who can do the best job not who can maintain the existing social status quo. We ended coffee chat at this point. Two many "rights" from someone labeled "left".

So I went home and took a look at the Greeley City Charter. Obviously not something to read over candlelight and a football game. Oh, that makes sense--the mayor gets the title of being executive officer but all the official powers and prerogatives of being executive officer have been gutted and handed over to the City Manager, Chief Administrative Official of the City. You have to read, sorry, a bit further to see the gutting of the fish. The actual authoritative decision making is given in detail over to the City Manager later on down the charter pages. An unelected official by the way. One that the electorate can't vote out of power if they should be unhappy. Not good on the direct representation or concept of democracy scale Greeley.

The proposed Charter provides that the Mayor shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the City, the City Council shall be the policy-making authority, and a City Manager to be appointed by the City Council for an indefinite term, the Chief Administrative Official of the City.

Who designed this burg, again? Oh yeah, it is a cow town. It doesn't want planning, design, regulation, zoning, and government. Just financial conservatism and corrals around all the "types" of people that are "different".

Well I hate to be the one that pops the balloon because I kind like the folksy cow town idea. I grew up around one of those. However it is hard not to point to the fact that while tending the cows the horse has now left the barn and ain't comin' back. Greeley is a small city. And it is a small city without any real obvious direction on how to create an effective government that will spend enough money to plan for the best future of the town at the least cost to the individual taxpayer. In other words fiscal constraint doesn't work without prudent investment and good long term social integration policies. It isn't just about today. It is about the infrastructure your children inherit tomorrow.

Yes, I'm sorry Virginia, there isn't any Santa Claus. Somebody is going to have to connect the cement sidewalks, water pipes, and city services to all those roaming red-nose developers in the middle of nowhere. That is you and me, babe. The guys back at the local Greeley government ranch are just gonna let the developers ride into town as tax free as possible and plop down where ever they point to the ground with the cry of "Jobs!" Tsssk. Tsssk. Then there is the whole issue of educating the public. All the public not just the kids in the charter schools on the right side of town. You want a real gang problem Greeley? Just refuse to invest and redevelop the "other" side of town. Disrespect breeds disrespect in any culture. Let education continue to fail the masses in District 6 and the lack of all day Kindergarten and textbooks for the kiddies won't be all that comes tumbling down.

Time to think of Greeley's value investment. Time to think of Greeley as an investment. Time to think of Greeley as a cow town that can kick ass if someone cares enough about it.

Diversity of business (Mom and Pops), economic development, revitalization of the downtown strip, redevelopment, education and gang management, and federal grant management hopefully is going to pop up on some one's view finder. Put the cow town politics to bed and start demanding someone manage the entire ranch and build good fences.

But then as the Greeley Tribune Cheerleader says today in its editorial, they are just happy so many citizens are interested in government. *Without really being paid to do the job (my addition). Yes, they are interested, I'll toast to that... but the real question is will the person they elect have to be the right color, the right sex, the right age group, local only, and do they have to represent a special interest or authority figure to get elected.

We, living in Greeley, already know the answer to this question... don't we?

Time for a change. Right turn Clyde.



Supreme Court Upholds Mill Levy Freeze

Greeley Colorado School District 6 Mill Levy Tax Requires Trust

Greeley Colorado School District 6 is getting closer to cutting a deal with taxpayers to increase funding for education this fall to help the under performing district get our community back up to par. There are a few more fine tuning points, on my agenda, before voters should sign on to supporting this initiative in hard times.

In regards to open disclosure to the readers of Greeleyville I have met with administration and District 6 teachers since my last postings (some are listed at the bottom of this post) and have heard good, promising, plans for improving past performance problems. Not all my concerns have been alleviated as I explain in the following critique. Although, specifically, I have been reassured that better math performance is on its way. I have also been reassured that the local school board has a foundational governance plan. Additionally, it is simply logical, to conclude that it is going to take a bit of time to pull District 6 out of the rut that previous poor administration and restrictive citizen-driven anti-education legislation has arguably placed it into. I personally, still, strongly prefer, that local tax increases be used to fund performance pay for top level teachers but without reforming basic school performance and statewide legislative issues first--that really is not a reasonable expectation. I'd like to keep that on a back burner though. It is doable and it can work to polish a school district's performance quickly.

Onto the Jane critique.

Apparently the district has issued new statements that contain certain specific goals for the new funding revenue to be spent on. They have also, if the Tribune has it right, generated specific threats for what will happen if the Mill Levy doesn't pass. Most the threats fall on the shoulders of middle class students but then again most the benefits are aimed at middle class students.

Hence one of my continued beefs is with the administration of District 6's lack of dealing with the core educational problems it faces. Low performing students need to be targeted for additional support and it is still unclear exactly what this District is willing to commit to for this sector of its educational community.

It is clear that there will be an emphasis on maintaining programs that service the high-end performing kids. Magnate programs and advanced placement courses will be continued if the Mill Levy passes. These programs "might not" be continued if it doesn't pass. Certainly high-end programs are important as high tech industry relying on science and math skills will be watching. Of course middle-class parents, often prone to thinking their own Johnny and Susie are brilliant super-stars in the making regardless of the facts, will also be interested in seeing these maintained.

These high-achiever programs however should not be promoted at the expense of the those students under performing in the district. According to the Greeley Tribune article the only bone being thrown to the current under performers is a bone called "adequate" academic instruction.

Hello? Would you care to define what "adequate" means.

Does it mean "just enough"? Does it mean the same under achieving low test mark performance that has been plaguing this district in the first place is acceptable again next year? Does it mean that this District is willing to do whatever it takes to bring these low performers up to adequate? Does it mean that the Greeley Tribune has misstated the press release?

One would hope it is more based on the latter than the former. The evidence doesn't point in that direction though. The statement says that non-English students will learn English. Of course they will. The question is whether or not they will become literate in the use of English. Without being literate in their first language it makes it very unlikely they will become literate in their second-language. Without appropriate and directed bilingual instruction the goal the District is setting is just a bone being thrown out to the lower performers. One that lacks any "meat" and "integrity" in change.

There is also a vague statement that math instruction will be maintained if the Mill Levy passes. Yipes! Does that mean it could get worse? Will they pull the new math series being introduced if it doesn't pass? Will they pull out the much needed math training for existing teachers? Does it mean fewer math majors hired (who tend to draw higher salaries--because they are also in demand in the private sectors)?

Just maintaining the status quo isn't okay. Threatening citizens that these staples will go away if they don't pass the tax measure isn't okay either unless that truly is what the administration means--just to maintain current levels of education. If other local districts are performing there is little reason that District 6 can't perform at least as well. Clarity please on this latest round of objectives. And where did the transportation issues and new technology spending ideas go? Don't confuse the voters more--help them to understand the need to support education.

Of course a lot of what is being seen is political posturing. Personally I am more for transparency then posturing. But I understand posturing. It is not a very powerful political position to stake out in this northern Colorado town that people, likely to be of color or of impoverished backgrounds, are going to get the taxpayer's dollars. Poverty doesn't make for low performers it just means there is not a lot of private funds to buy the tutors to help the student round out the education they are not getting from their local schools. But targeting the lower performing students is a position that is realistic and one that needs to be understood by the citizens calling for improvement in local schools. Remember a "C" student is the average.

So let's be clear, few would envy this administration the political task of making this argument to Greeley's taxpayers. However it should be expected the administration will also pursue what is best for the education of all the students. Whatever it takes to get those test scores up needs to be done or all taxpayers, job-seekers, and citizens will continue to suffer from the poor image of Greeley schools. It takes backbone in the face of local politics to be transparent. It also takes taxpayers willing to see beyond the end of their own backyard.

It takes a community to make good education happen.

So far most of what the District is promising, in this new press piece*, is "fluff" to get voters on board and voters are promising defeat without hearing any realities of what that defeat will do to the community well-being come tomorrow. The sides are entrenching which basically means little will be accomplished. Fine, I get the need behind entrenchment, but how about we step out of the business as usual box and get down into what really counts to make this happen--measuring the administration's performance. Yes, measurement for administrators, just like we want to measure teaching performance.

What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Let's put some numbers to it.

Here is what I'd like to see come from the District 6 administrators or their public image arm. Give the citizens of Greeley exacting and measurable performance standards. It will help voters have confidence that this administration is serious about helping all students--not just those that fall in the politically elite classes. Citizens of Greeley need to have it proven to them that their image of Greeley schools can change because change is happening. If the community waits until this administration gets to the ultimate finish line to reestablish trust in performance another entire generation could go wanting educationally.

Give us a reason to start trusting now.

If the District is saying that poor performing students will be given adequate instruction then is it fair to say that the citizens of Greeley will see a 5% gain in math scores every year for the next three years? Is it fair to say that low performing students in literacy will see a 3% gain every year for the next three years if voters pass the tax increase? Throw us a bone with some meat on it please.

If the District is saying that graduation rates will increase--give us a figure. A percentage or any figure. Something tangible to expect. Something, anything, so once this town gets serious about supporting local education voters have something tangible to measure the true worth of their financial commitments. Meet this goal and the next round will be a bit easier. Give the administrators a little public incentive to help the students who need it the most not just the politically expedient needy ones.

Get a backbone Greeley District 6. It is time to face the public and educate the voters with reality if you want to get your Mill Levy passed.

Greeley District 6 Mill Levy
Review of Greeley School Performance
Greeley Should Not Abandon the Arts

*I looked for a news release on this new set of "promises" cited by the Greeley Tribune at the District 6 School Board site under press releases but did not come up with any confirming information. It is my assumption that Tribune has obtained this information from a qualified source.

Greeley Colorado District 6 Mill Levy: Jane's Thumb Critique

The District Board has decided, formally, to put the Greeley Colorado District 6 school improvement mill levy onto voter's ballots this coming fall. While it is a pleasure to see the board president, Bruce Broderius, begin to come to terms with district image and reputation it is not yet clear $16 million dollars more going into the general fund is going to provide effective solutions. It is a beginning. But there are more questions to be asked and answered before the Board hits the Greeley streets to hawk this tax to the voters.

Jane's Thumb Critique on the "ups" and "downs" of the District's proposal follows. The Board has shown some improvement on answering surface questions and beginning to address some big picture issues but there is still more to go in the way of discussing accountable management practices, realistic student performance issues, and talking about that management elephant in the waiting room.

*The language above each critique below is taken from the Greeley District 6 Board's proclamation.

...TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND OF THE DISTRICT AND EXPENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, INCLUDING:

Jane Thumbs Up: The money must be expended for educational purposes.

Jane Thumbs Down: Once this money goes into the general fund the final accountability that the $16 million raised is spent in exactly the way it was sold to voters gets a bit murky. It is a common discretion of General Fund uses. Let's say, for example, that there is already $16 million being expended from the General Fund that goes to all the categories of expenses listed below. When asked for proof of where this money has been expended it is a bit too easy to hand over the old list of expenditures and say that $16 million was spent on these items. Technically true, if misleading, unless the designation is new expenditures. Rather an easy distinction to request but one often forgotten once the ballot passes. Citizen committees assigned to oversight are a comforting idea but generally toothless if they are politically appointed citizens or gutless because the citizens do not have the management background to look for general funding manipulation. (See the blog Colorado Spending Transparency for more background). Of course, political oversight, may also leave open the discretion to spend this money on real places of need. These are the place that most voters never understand the need of, or approve, because voters tend to focus on emotional issues.

• PURCHASE TEXTBOOKS, COMPUTERS AND OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL
RESOURCES REQUIRED BY STUDENTS AND TEACHERS FOR HIGHLY
EFFECTIVE, HIGH-QUALITY ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION;

Jane Thumbs Up: Each student should have their own textbook. It is a sense of identity and it is a sense of pride in knowing the community cares enough about their education to support it.

Teachers should be trained and the rapid advance of technology into the classroom requires continual training--especially for the aging teachers who haven't been brought up in the technology world. Sorry for the age crack but it is true. Not a personal slight just a matter of circumstance.

Highly effective, high-quality academic instruction is a great buzz term for selling this deal to the public. Looking at the foundation and kicking the tires is even better. These terms imply a fiscal relationship in the purchasing process. The Board is indicating that management is going to make the most cost effective choice possible that produces high-effective, quality results. Therefore the assumption is that the Board has created a governance rubric that will allow them to follow up that management has done what has been indicated, and, the objectives have been met. Just what were those objectives anyhow? Specifically. I'd like to hear more about that rubric. Let's keep this in mind when those test scores get released the next three years.

Jane Thumbs Down: Textbooks are on their way out. Kindle and other technology programs that will replace the need for a textbook are on there way in. These are not deployed in Greeley Colorado yet so the Board's request still makes sense. But the Board should also keep in mind that it will need to come back in half a handful of years and ask voters for the money to change those textbooks into individual technology devices/readers.

Current training for teachers, from what I have seen of it this summer, is weak and often of a lesser value quality than it should be. Plus teachers often skip out on these trainings, talk, or snooze through them. The trainings, some of them, are not taken very seriously likely because they do not add quality and useful content to the teacher's repertoire. This can stem from a variety of causes including teacher burn-out and apathy towards management. On the other hand there is management's apathy toward paying for valuable content and lack of investment in making a high quality training plan that can be an issue also.

For example of low value content, the selected trainers are on a circuit and have a comfortable job security. So spending the first two hours of class making sure everyone in the room is introduced in a friendly congenial way may be a nice intro but in the meantime, with teachers in the room paid and presenter all paid, just how much does it cost the district to have their teacher's introduced to each other? (I have heard one instance of this particular abuse has been curtailed so let it serve as a past example).

Also, placing first-year teachers into course room training with fifteen-year experienced teachers may not produce the greatest benefit per dollar to the taxpayer. The entire concept of effective teacher training programs in District 6 may need to be closely reexamined for benefit return. The experienced teachers can tell you what they need and what is useful but that shouldn't be the only component certainly. Teacher's may not like having to go into intensive training during their summer breaks. Most are in mental health retreat mode so they can come back next fall. A good plan is going to consider all these factors first and then add in what the State guidelines require for additional funding. Innovate. Try something that works. It needs improvement.

I'd like to know what type of technology investment Greeley's Board is considering and who their consultants are, etc. Let's not repeat the entire Coca-Cola debacle again and sell the district's kids and teachers out to corporate interests. The overall management of District 6 doesn't instill confidence that these decisions are being made for the betterment of the educational performance of students It is much more likely that there is a strong foundation for political brownie points with the community and general ease of making the job of education easier for those working. (Which isn't a bad idea--again just not the one being sold to get the money). What are those outcome objectives for educational value again? Convince me that this management is credible. Please! Then I can go back to writing my specialized personal rants.

• SUPPORT COLLEGE, ACADEMIC, CAREER AND VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS
TO PREP ARE STUDENTS IN THE BEST POSSIBLE WAY FOR THE FUTURE;

Jane Thumbs Up: A priority to install, develop, and maintain if effective high end, high wage paying jobs are going to come into Greeley. People with effective education and/or experience want to know that their own bright little stars have an avenue for educational success in the area without having to drive to Denver to get said access. Feeder programs, considering the amount of established higher education vehicles we have in the community, just make sense to bond together a community relationship of healthier life-long learning processes and investment in our own community assets.

Charter Schools and advance placement programs will get the loudest most active community members off the political backs of the District Board and management. They will feel their kids are serviced.

Jane Thumbs Down: This isn't very helpful to the lower performers in the school district and those at risk of failure all ready. And this does seem to be the area where District 6 still needs to improve according to Schoolview.org.

I haven't seen anything in this dedicated proclamation that directly addresses the need for overall improvements in math or reaching out to those segments of the community whose entire best interests are likely not being served by the school system. Just buying computers and giving teachers additional inservice training does not create effective high quality math instruction and performance. It doesn't do much specifically for incorporating application of science and the arts either.

It does add informational access to Internet content. That, in and of itself, should not count as improvements in learning. Paying high quality well trained math and science teachers who know how to use computers might be a step in the right direction and then they can help train and service other teachers for integrated support in language, science, art, and technology. Okay, well anything approaching this type of plan, would be acceptable. I haven't seen anything like it.

Pumping money into the high-end performers does not serve the entire community. I don't think I can repeat this enough. It will please the middle-class parents stuck withmost of the bill that is true. But it will not fix what is broken in District 6. And once the higher end of education in this community is better served who is going to stand up and be an advocate for the rest of the system.

This attitude and strategic approach takes the heat off the Board for performing but may gut the quality of the system on the low-end performers so deeply that the District is left with some very broken barrio-type schools on their hand. Once abandoned these poor relatives to the magnet schools have the ability to fester more gang activity and youthful discontent and racial divisiveness within the community unless brilliantly, and I do mean brilliantly, managed. Hence gains made to bring new families and jobs into the city will be eroded. Do you, the Board, really want to go here just so your neighbors will be nice to you in the grocery store lanes again? Or do you have a plan for the lower end of the students we haven't seen yet that is effective?

• ENHANCE THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF STUDENTS, STAFF AND SCHOOL
PROPERTY;

Jane Thumbs Up: I can't argue with this. Just don't make it a prison camp, k?

Jane Thumbs Down: I can say that by improving on the cultural relationships within the school district, bringing in higher quality teachers with better pay, and educating the public about the real issue with gang activity, school-bullying, racism, etc., it would lower the future need to expend on these resources. Effective progressive minded management can lower these costs. Putting locks on doors an alarms in classroom are bandages used once the problem becomes out of control. Treat the disease with our dollars so we need less bandages please. Training the parents on how to bridge the cultural divide is also a good idea--but I don't envy the Board that additional bucket load. Better strategic community-based planning can work--even if Fox News keeps making everyone scared out of their minds that their kid is about to be kidnapped, sliced and diced, or hit by a drunken bus driver--regardless of the real statistical chances.

• ACQUIRE, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN BUSES TO IMPROVE STUDENT
TRANSPORTATION;

Jane Thumbs Up: A regular cost required by every district as their population expands. Is District 6's population growing? What are the projections? We want our kids safe. Does this mean you will be paying bus drivers with the money?

Jane Thumbs Down: What proportion of these funds are going where? Why can't more kids walk--it is healthy. Oh that's right, the bullying and Fox News paradigm. Ride bikes? A bike safety initiative or more bike pathways--City Council might buy into this pie. Okay, well then what happened to the depreciation schedule? Why can't these buses be replaced? Just what operational expenses will be covered.

______________________________________

And there you have it. Keep asking the good questions and you'll have better accountability from the public servants. Throwing shoes at them during town hall meetings isn't nearly as productive.

Just my opinion folks. Keep those emails rolling in--they make the hamster work harder for lunch.

Greeley Colorado Should Not Abandon Arts in Public Schools

Greeley District 6 Schools are lagging far behind the rest of the state and fingers are being pointed at the physical assets of the school as a culprit. Indeed it may be. But it is not the only weasel lurking in the woodpile and probably not the most significant one either. I've already addressed the administration's marsupial tendencies in other posts.

Mill-Levy for Greeley's District 6
District 6 Negotiations: Just A Slice Out of the Middle
Greeley District 6 Performance Check
Greeley District 6 School Report Card is Out of Date

Now I'll head into the topic of a well rounded education, specifically, the slow, methodical, elimination of public arts programs in local schools cloaked in the name of "we don't have the funds". Out goes Baby with the bathwater.

Here are some of the ideas on why curriculum and well trained/paid teachers to teach it should come back onto the table as a funding priority. Yes, even when we all know, the Grinch has stolen Christmas and it isn't even September yet.

Emotional intelligence is a significant aspect of the overall intelligence of the individual. Emotional intelligence is the overall ability to interpret, make reasoning choices, and apply the lessons learned in math, reading, writing, and science class. In other words the tools being obtained by our children during daily classroom teachings are not powerful enough in, and by, themselves to provide the skills needed to become a well-rounded productive citizen. The ability to understand how, when, and where to apply each tool, how to combine the tools effectively, has to also be learned.

You don't get this by teaching the kids how to pass the state exam so your teacher can be better paid and the administration gets off the accountability hook. It comes, most significantly, through a well maintained and developed Arts program.

Sixty years ago these skills were mostly taught at home. Families spent significant time together working side by side in family businesses, pulling together to get dinner on the table each night, and ensuring that their children had increasingly difficult opportunities to avail themselves of to teach responsible decision making and accountability. It is why you got scolded when you were six for not getting up to feed the cows at 5 AM but got cold water thrown on you at twelve for the same. Grandma, Grandpa, siblings, and cousins, were also often within earshot to help direct. My Grandmother walked around with a bucket of ice water in her hands I think for quite a while.

In modern times we are less the nuclear family and more the community family. Each household faces a much more complex world and an increasing battle on keeping up with new complexities, such as technology and accessible travel and communications, being added every day. Of course, being an agricultural based community, the ties to the nuclear and extended family remain strong. It only takes a drive across the big prairie to understand that farming families depend on each other and close neighbors to get their work done and make it through another year. Yet, even in the farming community, the adults, themselves, have a lot on their plate to incorporate into their emotional intelligence and toolbox before they can begin to teach these skills to their children. It is the same in the more urban areas. The technology revolution and population growth has left stretch marks on all brains and all aspects of our lives.

So the burden on the educators and the larger community is to either take up the slack in education and teach more about emotional intelligence or to take up the consequences and accountability for ignoring the youth's needs. Certainly, as initially indicated in the mill levy details, technology resources, transportation, and books will help the situation but without a well rounded inclusive curricula and teachers who can teach it effectively--including music and the Arts, the improvements made by taxing the local population may be less than the expected return those taxpayers will be anticipating.

There will be hell to pay in the future whether or not taxpayers approve the tax.

Yet the emphasis should not only be on the Greeley School Board's decision. These members are supposed to represent the best interests of the community and perhaps the message coming in from the surrounding community is a little less than clear or all inclusive. When people have been left out in the cold for too long they tend not to venture out for fear of frostbite. Building a comfortable venue and inviting all parties to the table should be a priority.

I spoke to a woman the other day in Margie's Java Joint downtown. She was enjoying the tasty coffee but lamenting missing her favored Starbuck's pricing. As a parent of three she was stressing over how to get each child into the optimal private school at some point. She laughed when I asked if she had considered putting these children into local District 6 public schools. The drive to a decent private school didn't matter to her. The cost impact of private education on her middle-class salary didn't matter to her. The lack of her children growing up in their own social community didn't matter either.

What mattered is her perception that her children would receive a better education in a private school (regardless of quality oversight) than the one they could receive in public schools. In her explanation, saying how she still supported public education but clearly it was for other people's children, she focused on the hope that more charter school options would pop up under the stimulus funds. In return I explained to her how charter schools tend to create larger class and social divisions in a community unless they are properly managed. Hence some children get improvements in education but others go neglected.

"Whoosh" the vitriol that came back burned past my ears and left my own coffee swirling in its cup.

It was at this point she launched into an unanticipated tirade about how we, the public, should be educating "her" children first and not thinking about "those" kids from other cultural backgrounds. She expounded on how "those" kids take up scarce resources that "our" children should have. She particularly emphasized how much benefit her children gained from the arts and music classes integrated into the curriculum in private schools and how the influx of "others" had robbed the local schools of meaningful education. For ten minutes the woman justified the portion of the family's income going to private school to save on after school "enrichment" class expenses. Then she justified the inattentiveness to education of other mothers as the consequences for a decline in public education. The fact that, in her family, the mother was home half the day and had monetary resources for child care, health care, Starbucks, and after school education didn't appear to enter the judgmental equation on other parental abilities. Nor did it effect the direction of where the consequences of declining public education deservedly should fall.

I won't go into my reply here. Just suffice it to say the conversation finished shortly thereafter.

Is this an isolated incident in Greeley? Maybe. Maybe not. I know I have seen it, heard it, watched it voted on, in other communities. Private schools, and charter schools, come with increases in property values around the school. They become a "snob-factor" socially for identifying those with means (who arguably care enough to get their child into the 'right' school). Which drives which, the entry of private schooling drives higher property values or higher property values drive private schooling, remains to be seen or researched in my case. But one thing that goes hidden underground underneath various forms of passive racism and social elitism is that all children need access to a quality education for America to sustain its power and advantage in the world economy.

I'd add on to that the negative long term effects of a tacit transfer of well rounded curriculum to private and charter schools, where kids still get daily access to the Arts and are tutored in the arts of emotional intelligence. This budding and building trend in creating new societal distinctions further isolates the general public access to an effective education. In turn, the availability by income, often is used for an argument to advance other needs above and beyond the basic castration of a well rounded education. The kids coming out of this public education system are our future workforce. Who is going to argue that above and beyond the teacher's being paid well and above and beyond the need for buses, books, and technology--the very essential structure that it takes to apply educational learning to real life situations has been gutted.

In fact, it would appear, the Greeley community has signed onto this political and strategic gutting in the name of "saving money" and encouraging the free market system of survival of the fit and wealthy.

Certainly the middle-class Greeleyite in the coffee house will not be arguing at the Board to look at the forest instead of the trees. Certainly the administration isn't going to go there. How politically unchaste it would be to bring up that there is a bigger problem in Greeley than just fiscal per pupil spending. A strategic design problem? No way.

So how do we get Greeley citizens to look at the forest if the authorities are political self-interested cowards? Well that self-interest is something everyone has so it would be a likely place to start the conversation. Specifically, the self-interest that it is socially impolite to talk about the real problems in public. The conversation needs to be started is the same one that the community should be having with itself behind closed doors and is already having with their neighbors. This is the one that leaders need to bring out of the closet and into the open.

Here let me put it in baser terms. Forget the Arts for the moment. Let's roll up the sleeves and take on the basics. If the argument is why should the productive individual support educating those with lesser means, including the indigent, the immigrants (legal and illegal), the solution to private self-interest is rather simple. By educating those with lesser means the community, state, and nation will produce more productive adults and results in the community leading to less support needs in the future. That is an effective control on the future cost of societal needs to all taxpayers. Invest now to save later. Education influences health, income production, and healthy interactive citizens in a community.

In my view, leaving those with less behind is rather like shooting the community in the foot today to hobble it tomorrow. It is an investment that should not be overlooked. Pay today so you pay less tomorrow and the community quality of life rises for everyone.

In the Supreme Court's decision, Brown v. Board of Education, Separate is Not Equal may have been based on race in 1954 but is it any less valid an argument for the social consequences when it is based on economic classes? Greeley historically has been very insular in its decision making process. Special interests have held power for a very long time and they are going to argue, and raise money, to keep it this way. The real question is whether Greeley Coloradoans can rise above the past to embrace the future they need to protect their families, their state, and their nation from continued decline.

Business in America will need highly trained and skilled workers to compete. The third world economies will have the competitive edge in textiles and other less skilled labor. It already does. Those jobs aren't coming back--we have to make new ones using American advantages of capital, land, and technology. That requires an educated workforce. Greeley must remain competitive or it will end up rotting from the inside out.

From Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor, on American Labor Force in the 21st Century

The skills gap. Our economy is making an unprecedented transition into high-skilled, information-based industries. This has created a disconnect between the jobs that are being created and the current skills of many workers.

Our demographic destiny. In just a few decades, we will have a growing class of retirees and a shrinking workforce. In addition, there will be an increasingly diverse group of Americans entering the workforce, bringing with them the need for truly new ways of organizing and managing work.

The future of the American workplace. Anyone can tell you that this is not our parents� economy. The average 34-year-old has already worked for nine different companies in his or her brief career. Around 10 million people work away from their corporate office at least 3 days a month. As people sort out the new priorities of financial needs and family life, they all face the same new concerns: A career move that leaves behind health care coverage; abandoning pension benefits before they are vested; renegotiating with each new employer the balance between work and home.

District 6, whatever the driving forces are, is not serving the best interests of the community in creating an effective and quality learning environment for Greeley's children let alone the adults who require ongoing education. That needs to be fixed. Could that mean new taxes? Sure. Could it mean new administrators or school board members? Sure. Could it mean new leadership for the City Council? Of course. But it also means that the community has to begin to act as a living breathing dynamic community--rather than as a bedroom community relying on the more progressive communities around Greeley to service Greeley's true needs.

I don't think the woman in the coffee shop is what all of Greeley is about. It would be nice though to see the rest of Greeley turn out and take an active interest in building an education system for the entire community and demanding accountability from the one they already have. The rest of Greeley isn't talking much in public. You don't have to have a child in school to understand the long term impact on quality of life in Greeley Colorado if improvements are not cultivated now.

Debating the District 6 Board on the use of the mill levy proposal would be a good beginning to raising the level and quality of debate on these issues.
________________________________________________

Now where was I? Oh yeah, discussing the importance of Art in the curriculum. Well maybe I'll have to leave my special interest discussion go for another day.

Below is the interview that started the hamster turning the Jane brain wheel and some clarity on statistics about education and poverty. I have no explanation why the wheel went off course and landed on my "It Takes a Community" track. Maybe someone slipped a carrot into Hammy-Love's pellets.


Derek E. Gordon, Executive Director, Jazz at Lincoln Center and former senior vice president for the Kennedy Center, discusses the place of the arts in a comprehensive education.

ARTSEDGE: Why Arts Education Matters

Q: How can one defend the role of arts in education when so much emphasis is placed on standardized test scores?

A: It's always interesting to look at the schools that have the highest test scores on standardized tests. Generally you will find that the arts are a part of their curriculum. Now, is that just a coincidence? Or is it part of the environment that makes the students more successful in their efforts to learn and compete on standardized tests?...

And he continues:
Q: The Kennedy Center's Arts Education Vision Statement asserts, "The arts are a critical and essential part of the education of every young person in America." Why is this true?

A: The arts are an essential part of American culture as a whole. It is very important that every young person comes into direct contact with the arts—not only as a passive observer, but also as an active participant.

The arts are also a great equalizer in terms of economic and social discrepancies. They have a way of leveling the playing field, allowing individuals to progress in life more effectively. There is also a lot of research that addresses the impact that the arts have on cognitive learning skills. For example, learning to play the piano can aid in developing mathematical skills. Visual arts and dance can affect the spatial perception of students—particularly young students.

Q: What value does arts-based learning provide to students?

A: The arts encourage learning as a process of discovery. We want every student to be a researcher who is asking probing questions—not only demonstrating their knowledge, but also testing and defending the assumptions that they are making. This is something that artists do all the time.

Also, when you look at early education practices, you see that they are filled with arts activities, because they offer the most basic and immediate ways to connect to a young mind. The arts challenge students of all ages, and engage them in a way that is often more kinesthetic, and perhaps more emotionally satisfying, than the "traditional" approach to teaching a text.

Elliot W. Eiser is a professor of education and art at Stanford University and the author of The Arts and the Creation of Mind.

The arts also teach that neither words nor numbers define the limits of our cognition; we know more than we can tell. There are many experiences and a multitude of occasions in which we need art forms to say what literal language cannot say. When we marry and when we bury, we appeal to the arts to express what numbers and literal language cannot. Reflect on 9/11 and recall the shrines that were created by those who lost their loved ones- and those who didn’t. The arts can provide forms of communication that convey to others what is ineffable.

Some enlightening statistics from Childstats.gov

Children in low-income families fare less well than children in more affluent families on many of the indicators in this report.³¹ Compared with children living in families that are not in poverty, children living in poverty are more likely to have difficulty in school, to become teen parents, and, as adults, to earn less and be unemployed more frequently.^32,33 This indicator is based on the official poverty measure for the United States as defined in Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directive 14.³⁴

• In 2007, 18 percent of all children ages 0–17 lived in poverty, an increase from 17 percent in 2006. Compared with White, non-Hispanic children, the poverty rate was higher for Black children and for Hispanic children. In 2007, 10 percent of White, non-Hispanic children, 35 percent of Black children, and 29 percent of Hispanic children lived in poverty.^2,31
• As was the case for all children, the percentage of related children with family incomes below the poverty threshold was higher in 2007 (18 percent) than in 2006 (17 percent). The poverty rate for related children has fluctuated since the early 1980s, reaching a peak of 22 percent in 1993 and a low of 16 percent in 2000.
• The poverty rate for children living in female-householder families (no spouse present) also fluctuated between 1980 and 1994; it then declined between 1994 and 2000 by more than the decline in the poverty rate for all children in families. In 1994, 53 percent of children living in female-householder families were living in poverty; by 2007, this proportion was 43 percent.
• Children in married-couple families were less likely to live in poverty than children living in female-householder families. In 2007, 9 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared with 43 percent in female-householder families.
• Related children ages 0–5 were more likely to be living in families with incomes below the poverty line than those ages 6–17. In 2007, 21 percent of related children ages 0–5 lived in poverty, compared with 16 percent of older related children.