Start Later to Ensure Educational Progress

My high school begins at 7:10 a.m.

Yes, that is incredibly early.

When I was in high school, we started at 8:00 and let out about 3:15. When I first started teaching, the school started at 7:50. My second teaching job was at a school which began at 7:35. I thought that was as early as it could - or should - get. Then I moved to Colorado and discovered the school day began at 7:20. I was shocked, but I got used to it. Then several years ago, the recession led to serious budget crunches, and in a move to cut funds, but keep cuts out of the classroom, the district manipulated bus schedules to save cash ... and shifted the start time to 7:10. And, that, in my opinion, is just crazy. And nothing good comes from it. We let out at 2:50 everyday.

Nothing in education research supports earlier start times - especially for high school students. And, yet we persist. I would prefer and have even promoted an 8 - 4 schedule. In fact, I'd like to see an 8 or 9 to 4:30 or 5:00. And while people protest about the impact on sports and activities, I'd argue that we could and should move many practices to before school. Let the football team practice from 7:00 - 9:00, and then start school. That way, after kids are done at 4:30 or 5:00, they are literally "done." It would promote a return to home life and I truly believe ease a lot of pressure on kids.

In response to my rants about this at school, one of my seniors in Intro to College Comp, wrote a research paper on school start times, and then responded to my suggestions by creating a Facebook page devoted to later start times. So far, in a school over 3500 students, roughly 40 have actually joined the discussion. This is despite the overwhelming support among most students for later start times. It's tough to change the system.

I am so tired of school schedules being "driven" by bus schedules, sports, and child care concerns. Later start times make sense on every level. And there is little support for the alarms of high school kids going off at 5:00 in the morning.

Rosen on Lobato

Conservative radio host Mike Rosen takes aim at the Lobato case in the Denver Post and offers some valid perspective and unique insight into the case of Colorado school funding. Rosen is responding to and criticizing the ruling by Judge Rappaport that the state's current funding is unconstitutional as a result of its inability to provide "a thorough and uniform system of public education." The issue of funding and the ability of the courts to legally force increases in state funding has drawn the protest of many in and out of state government. The problem for schools in Colorado is that all tax increases must be presented to the voters, who have resoundingly rejected the most recent attempt to increase education funding.

Rosen focuses on the conflict between the voters' constitutional right to vote for any and all tax increases, and the order from the court to increase funding. Ultimately, some argue that education would have to consume the entire budget to meet Judge Rappaport's expectations. Or the budget would need to be expanded. Clearly, a conundrum. Rosen also points out that the state constitution requires a public education system "within budgetary means." Thus, the argument might be that public education needs to be restricted to meet the available funds. That should raise some eyebrows.

Despite Rosen's unnecessary and ideological shots at school unions and school administrations, and some ambiguous claims about the link between education funding and student achievement, he poses some legitimate questions about how schools must be funded and operated.

Separate but Equal In Colorado?

According to District Judge Sheila Rappaport, the formula for school funding in Colorado is inadequate and, subsequently, fails the state constitution's mandate to provide a "thorough and uniform system of free public schools." The story behind her ruling has been brewing for years after a group of parents from the San Luis Valley filed suit against the state for negligence in guaranteeing sufficient funding to all school districts in Colorado. Eventually, the suit grew with the help of education advocates to include all school districts in the state. Last week, Governor Hickenlooper said the state will appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

Certainly, this is a complex and convoluted issue, as the discrepancies between schools statewide and nationwide is not disputed. Even within districts, schools are often inconsistent in not only the delivery of education but also the results. Without doubt, more affluent suburban districts always outperform poorer, urban, and rural areas. However, there is no clear or easy answer to solving the inconsistent results. While Colorado must provide a "uniform system," there is no guarantee of specific classes or textbooks or set levels of funding or education levels of students, etc.

On a post-note: it seems interesting that Taylor Lobato, whose parents were the originators of the suit, is now a successful student at the University of Denver - one of the top two elite academic schools in Colorado. Clearly, the discrepancies in her high school education did not inhibit her ability to gain admission to a top college, nor did it inadequately prepare her to be successful at a top school.

So, where does that leave us?

NCAA Academic Standards

In a move that is either a late but much needed - or more likely a symbolic but meaningless - act of reform in the higher education field, the NCAA voted to raise the base academic standards that it requires for its athletes. The board implemented a tougher baseline standards for schools to remain eligible for post-season play. Though the plans are still broad and won't be fully enacted for three years, word is the new standards would have barred Ohio State from post-season play in recent years - and the move would also limit their scholarships.

This action is way overdue - and probably won't be that effective. But it may be progress. As I've argued before, it is absurd that the NCAA and associated schools can sign TV contracts for billions of dollars and then claim tax-exempt status because of "their educational mission." The idea that the University of Texas has an "educational mission" for its football and basketball players would be laughable - if it weren't so pathetic and corrupt.

Considering 95% of the NCAA athletes playing basketball and football will never play professionally, the educational mission must take precedence. For sports outside of the big two, the rate is 100%. Thus, it may be high time for higher education to start paying its dues in terms of the revenue it generates if it is not going to accomplish the basic task of providing an education.

Education Funding Silliness

Former Education Commissioner of Colorado William Maloney published an op-ed in the Denver Post in which he called for a review and change in the way public education is funded. As evidence he argued that parochial schools educate their students for 2/3 the cost of public schools and Asian schools cost about 80% of what American schools do. The following is my response, a shortened version of which was also published in the Post:

While William Maloney correctly asserts that Colorado needs to re-think the way it funds education, his reasoning behind the need for change is fundamentally flawed, and his naïve comparisons to private and foreign systems will produce no practical solutions. Certainly, there has been incredible growth in funding and staff in the past thirty years. Yet that mostly reveals expanded mandates and an increased efficiency in reaching under-served populations that were long neglected.

Mahoney notes that parochial systems operate on 2/3 of public school funding. However, he fails to mention that they do not provide any special education or English to non-native speakers. In fact, they use the public system to meet those needs, and the public schools are mandated to provide the services. Private schools don’t struggle with the same discipline and security needs as public schools, and they don’t require the cost-heavy administration that comes with meeting requirements under NCLB legislation. Additionally, parochial schools aren’t mandated to accept all students regardless of ability. Thus, you won’t find any Catholic schools educating many, or any, autistic children or mentally/physically disabled students. Parochial schools also aren’t required to assign caseworkers and establish specialized education programs for students of special needs. Thus, while Catholic schools are successful with the students they admit, there is much they don’t do.

Additionally, Maloney’s praise for the lower costs in Asia ignores the fact that foreign systems don’t compare to America’s in many areas. They do not have large immigrant populations, and thus do not have to provide any native language instruction. They do not provide special education on the level of the United States, and they are not under mandates to provide fair and equal access to all students. They do not optimistically seek to educate all students for college, and thus a considerable majority of their students are graduating and entering trades or vocational schools by the age of sixteen. Maloney also seems to target PERA pensions as a conflict for funding. Yet, he ignores the high taxes and retirement systems that are prevalent through the foreign systems he praises. Clearly, those systems provide more benefits, national health care among them, not less.

Most education researchers are acutely aware of the flaws of comparing the U.S. to foreign systems, and I would have expected Maloney’s tenure as education commissioner to provide him with a wider and more credible understanding of the problems. Perhaps having such misinformed people in charge is indicative of America’s problems. Yet, Maloney is correct in a need to review funding. Colorado should follow the lead of education reforming states like New Hampshire and Louisiana by allowing students to graduate at sixteen and enter vocational training or associate degree programs. In a state that has large numbers of students successfully completing college-level classes – AP and IB programs – state schools should expand dual credit courses to allow advanced students to begin college early and complete bachelor degrees in less than four years.

Clearly, the system has a considerable degree of cost inefficiency, and the reason is the public’s unrealistic and fragmented understanding of the goals of public education. We need to re-think our obsessive focus on “seat time” and a K-16 system that seeks bachelor degrees for all students regardless of interest or ability. Mandates for individual and specialized education and expensive accountability testing are not going to change. But Colorado can change its preconceived notions of what education means, and that can lead to a more cost-efficient, productive, and high quality system.