U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 05, 2010 08:23 PM UTC
22 Comments
The Governor may be correct that the unwillingness of 40 districts to participate may have had a role in the decision. But I would argue that the real factor in Colorado’s poor showing is that we just cut $260 million to our K-12 system. The President must show that Race to the Top is a successful use of funds, so why would they give money to a state that is de-funding education?
You could argue the money should go to states in the most need of funding, but the reality is the federal program will be judged on the state’s overall performance. Colorado’s K-12 cuts won’t go into effect until July, so we are just starting our downward spiral in education. Federal funds will not stop that from happening, and hence, we are not an attractable test subject for Race to the Top.
including a suggested work-around
The Guv says:
This is the crux of the situation. RTTP would have forced the states over a barrel in these rough economic times by requiring them to shift their curricula to a test-driven focus, and there is no proof that this type of focus creates a more learned child. All this does is create a test robot, and we have the right to determine what a well-educated child looks like in Colorado.
Many of us in the education realm see RTTP as a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, which uses standardized test scores to measure even what’s not measurable, like rapport between student and teacher or deep reading comprehension. It created a high-stakes testing environment that makes no room for the other parts of curriculum that are so crucial: arts, history/social studies, foreign languages, advanced mathematics. You know these politics you all like to discuss here on this site? There are middle schoolers in DPS today that, when turning your age, will not be able to engage in such smart discourse about the state of our democracy because we haven’t taught them anything about it.
That’s not the America I want, and I would wager, neither do you.
I talk more about high-stakes testing here: http://andreamerida.com/2010/0…
When the Denver Board of Education was asked to sign on to Colorado’s RTTP application, I voted “no.” I still stand by my vote.
…a 5-2 vote.
…but 5-2 in which direction? I know I could probably look it up, but since you’re here talking about it already, I thought I just ask ya.
One colleague and I voted against it. The rest of the Board voted for it.
Whatever happened to the idea that if you teach the material, and the student learns the material, then the test takes care of itself?
And please, spare me the “poor test-taker” bullshit.
If kids learn what they are taught, by good and caring teachers who actually know the material themselves, the kids will test just fine.
…but what material do we want to teach? The Feds want to mandate that we teach only shallow amounts of material that gets regurgitated on state standardized tests. To illustrate what I mean, the Feds are maneuvering use to educate kids to a “functional literate” level and not to a deeper level of comprehension.
The idea is to teach a rigorous, well-rounded curriculum, to allow teachers to use their expertise so they can accommodate for the fact that kids are different, and then seeing the results on a standardized exam. Kids should be passing the exams because we’ve NOT taught to the test. They should pass because they’re deeply educated.
Right?
Forget about the “shallow amounts” you talk about, whatever they are.
Teach reading, comprehension, literature; math and finance; history; science and technology; geography and civics, and lose the bullshit terminology like “social studies.”
Above all, our school boards, administrators and teachers need to quit whining.
If you teach top-quality material, the kids can pass any test. I dare you to watch ’em do it.
But schools need to teach the material first.
Schools can’t just up and decide to teach whatever they want. In Denver, curriculum is centralized, and it’s worse when we’re trying to get the Feds to cough up more funding. They restrict curriculum even more.
This is the point of what I’m saying.
The feds have minimum requirements, but you are free to teach much more. My kids all went to public school and they got a very deep education that included the basics required to do well on CSAP.
The trick is to have effective inspiring teachers who know their subject matter and how to teach it. And a system that expects the best out of the kids and teachers them how to learn and succeed as well as the subject at hand.
Yes that’s a lot. But it’s what we need to step up and accomplish.
Sure, you’re free to teach whatever, but Title I and NCLB funds are tied to teaching basic literacy and math. If that’s where you’re getting your money above what it costs to run your school, guess what you’re going to teach? Only certain parts of curriculum are “reimbursable.” Everyone who isn’t a math or reading teacher is considered secondary, and depending on how much funding is left in your school determines how much of that you teach.
No Child Left Behind totally threw a monkey wrench in the works, because everything was based on how you perform on tests. If your funding is tied up on those exams, guess what you’re going to teach.
Again there is the assumption here that teachers can teach whatever and however they want. In DPS, they can’t.
do Boulder & Fairview High School, both public schools operating under the same system, manage to teach much more than the basics? I’ve had 3 daughters go through Fairview and while it has it’s share of problems, crappy teachers, etc., they manage to provide a really good education.
And if all you can manage is some very basic teaching, then the fundamentals of math, reading, and writing is probably what you should focus on. Because those do come first.
With that said, I’d prefer to see you step up and teach more – it can be done with the money you receive. Many public schools in this state are doing so.
David, you’re seriously comparing two of the wealthiest high schools in the state, with parents well above the norm when it comes to their own education and let’s call it a compulsive obsession with the success of their kids — with DPS schools? Are you fucking serious?
Are you saying poor kids are stupider? (I assume not.)
In which case the ability to educate the kids exists. The problem is we need to step up and do as well with poor kids as we do with rich kids. As has been proven in numerous focus/magnet/charter schools, poor kids can be taught as successfully as rich kids.
So yes, I call bullshit when Andrea whines that they have trouble meeting the minimal requirements of NCLB and wants to be released from those minimal requirements.
And released why? There is something more important to teach than basic math and reading literacy? Like what pray tell?
ps – R/G I don’t mean to pick on you. I’m just tired of excuses instead of results in our schools.
Sorry, another misconception I need to point out. Charters do NOT show to have any greater test scores than traditional public schools. In fact, in 2006, the New York Times even published an article about this, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08…
Here’s what else is important to learn at school: READING COMPREHENSION, for starters. What you call literacy is only functional literacy. This doesn’t mean that you can understand metaphor or any other literary device, or even that you can understand the U.S. Constitution. It does mean, however, that you can read the instruction manual at Burger King.
Is that clear enough?
If we want kids to be educated and graduate, we have to start at the front of the funnel. Kids, especially poor ones, have to have ECE and mandatory kindergarten, where the socioeconomic disparities can be equalized. If all first graders are coming in at the same aptitude levels, then we’ll see a difference.
Plus, studies show that with only 5 consecutive years of high-quality instruction, achievement gaps are ELIMINATED.
But if you’re going to put a federal stranglehold on schools, they can’t compensate for the needs of the kids they have right now.
And I think this one is gigantic (and I agree that the research backs it up):
Which brings up the question – what are you doing to insure high-quality instruction? I think that is the key place we can improve things under all the constraints we have – work to insure every teacher is capable of and delivering quality instruction.
What are you guys doing to bring that about?
Want some cheese with that?