Notes from the Grijalva/Duncan meeting at Ochoa

by David Safier

I went to the "Listening and Learning" meeting with Grijalva and Arne Duncan this morning at Ochoa Elementary. Something like 20 local educational heavy hitters — superintendents, other district staff, college ed profs, etc. — sat at a round table with Grijalva and Duncan. Mainly, the local people talked while Duncan listened or asked short, pointed questions. It might have been nice to hear more from Duncan, but it probably would have been a canned speech, so it was better that he listened to the locals.

By far the most mentioned subject was ELL. No one at the table had any love for Horne's 4-hours-of-intensive-language-with-no-course-content-and-you're-out approach. A few people used the terms "archaic" and "segregated." One speaker suggested the Office of Civil Rights should look into the situation. He also said that today's Arizona standard for language proficiency — it's been changed 4 times in 5 years — isn't at the same level it used to be, meaning that ELL students are left to their own devices before they have the needed English language skills. As he was talking, TUSD Supe Fagen was nodding her head in slow, rhythmic assent. Duncan asked a follow up question, seeming to be surprised that the 4 hour intensive ELL courses were devoid of subject matter content.

Speaking of Fagen, she made a strong case for moving top teachers to underperforming schools (Every time I hear her, I'm impressed). She said that a salary bump isn't enough to lure the best, most creative teachers to the low performing schools. Those schools tend to have the strictest rules about how to teach content — both what's taught and how it's supposed to be taught — while the top teachers want the freedom to do things their own ways. She also said fewer of the best and the brightest are going into administration these days because they balk at the high stakes testing, Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) regimen. Teaching for and to the test seems to be taking its toll on the profession.

One of Duncan's few comments was that we have to break out of the pattern where the most important students are those right at the borderline between passing and failing the high stakes tests, because it results in ignoring both the top students who pass easily and the bottom students who probably won't pass. He said he believes in the growth model, where it's about how much students progress, not whether they can jump over a bar set at a designated minimum competency level. He also said, ask your top 2% of administrators what it would take in the way of incentives for them to go to the bottom 2% of schools in terms of academic achievement. That would help us know how to lure talent to the schools that need it the most.

A university ed prof complained that they teach education students to be creative in the classroom, to use what children bring in from home as a way to engage them in learning. Then when they become teachers, they're given a script to teach from. He asked for a combination of flexibility and accountability.

At a press availability at the end, I asked Duncan about the millions of fed dollars that will come to Arizona for charter schools. In our under-regulated atmosphere, will the charters be held accountable? His answer was, the feds will be watching carefully, looking for transparency and results, and anyone who doesn't get results won't get more funding. The first charter school infusion will be about $14 million. The total amount is supposed to be about $54 million. Only time will tell if there will be any genuine accountability before the follow up money is given out.

For a more complete and coherent accounting of the meeting, go to tomorrow's Star. Rhonda Bodfield was there taking copious notes.