Who Is In Charge

Ed groups bat .785 on endorsements

The five education groups that endorsed or contributed to legislative candidates in the general election picked the winners at an overall rate of 78.5 percent.

Five organizations – the Colorado Education Association, American Federation of Teachers-Colorado, the Colorado Association of School Executives, Stand for Children and Democrats for Education Reform – backed legislative candidates. (The school executives only endorsed; political committees affiliated with the other groups gave financial contributions. Stand didn’t give money to every candidate it endorsed.)

Here’s the scorecard by organization:

  • CEA – Contributed to 41 candidates; 31 of those won. 75.6 percent.
  • AFT – Contributed to 42 candidates; 31 of those won. 73.8 percent.
  • CASE – Endorsed 32 candidates; 27 of those won. 84.3 percent.
  • Stand – Endorsed or contributed to 18 candidates; 15 of those won. 83.3 percent.
  • DFER – Contributed to only two Democratic Senate candidates; both won. 100 percent.
See bottom of story for charts showing endorsements and results by candidate.

It’s risky, of course, to draw conclusions about the impact of one group’s endorsement or contributions in a single district. Legislative races, particularly hotly contested ones, draw endorsements, contributions and volunteers from a wide variety of interest groups, not just ones interested in education.

And, endorsements and contributions also can be made for reasons other than trying to influence the vote. The five groups combined made 135 endorsements or contributions to 68 candidates in 63 Senate and House races. Of those candidates, about 30 were incumbents and some challengers who were expected to win easily. Three incumbents who ran unopposed even earned endorsements.

Of the contributions and endorsements by the five groups, 90 percent went to Democrats. CASE endorsed eight incumbent Republicans, all of whom were considered to be safe and all of whom in fact won.

Stand for Children endorsed five members of the GOP, two incumbents and three challengers. Two challengers were victorious and one lost; both incumbents won. Stand also endorsed Rep. Kathleen Curry of Gunnison, a Democrat turned independent who ultimately lost to Democrat Roger Wilson after a lengthy review of Curry’s write-in votes.

The five groups were involved in a majority of the legislative races on the ballot – 47 of 65 House contests and 16 of 19 Senate races. (Because senators serve four-year terms, an additional 16 Senate seats weren’t up for election this year this year.)

John Morse
Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs

There was only one race where all five groups backed the same candidate – Democratic Senate Majority Leader John Morse in Colorado Springs’ Senate District 11. He won a narrow victory over Republican former Air Force officer Owen Hill after a high-spending race.

In Senate District 20, which stretches from Golden on the west to Edgewater on the east, all the education groups but CASE supported Democratic former state Rep. Cheri Jahn, who beat Republican small businessman John Odom.

Stand for Children and the two unions also supported victorious Democratic lawyer Pete Lee in House District 18, the Colorado Springs seat formerly held by Democrat Mike Merrifield, chair of the House Education Committee.

Here’s a look at some other key races where education groups endorsed or contributed:

In House District 3, which includes south Denver and part of Arapahoe County, incumbent Democrat Daniel Kagan, who voted against Senate Bill 10-191, defeated Republican Christine Mastin. CEA and CASE supported Kagan, while Stand backed Mastin.

Democratic retired teacher Laura Huerta lost to Republican incumbent Kevin Priola, a member of the House Education Committee, in Adams County’s House District 30. Both unions contributed to Huerta, while CASE and Stand for Children endorsed Priola, who voted for Senate Bill 10-191.

Keith Swerdfeger
Keith Swerdfeger

Retired Pueblo Education Association President Carole Partin lost the House District 47 seat in Pueblo County to Republican construction executive Keith Swerdfeger. The seat had been held by a Democrat. The two unions backed Partin, while Stand supported Swerdfeger. The two candidates together raised about $200,000, with more than $126,000 of that raised by Swerdfeger, who lost a bid for the seat two years ago.

Stand’s $4,000 contribution to Swerdfeger was one of the largest he received. In addition to money from the CEA political group the Public Education Committee, Partin also received contributions from CEA affiliates in Denver, Pueblo and Jefferson County.

Partin and Huerta were the only two Democratic newcomer candidates with extensive teaching backgrounds.

In another race that pitted education groups against each other, outgoing state Rep. Ellen Roberts, a Durango lawyer, defeated appointed Democratic incumbent Bruce Whitehead of Hesperus, a water engineer Senate District 6. The GOP has a modest registration edge, and Roberts has been in office longer than Whitehead. Both AFT and CEA contributed to Whitehead and CASE endorsed him, while Stand for Children endorsed Roberts. Whitehead voted against SB 10-191; Roberts for it.

In House District 56, centered on Summit County, Democratic Rep. Christine Scanlan was re-elected. The prime Democratic House sponsor of SB 10-191, she was backed by the AFT, Case and Stand. (Sen. Mike Johnston, D-Denver and the primary author of SB 10-191, won an easy victory over a nominal opponent in his Denver district. He was endorsed by CASE and Stand.)

Rep. Debbie Benefield, D-Arvada

In Jefferson County’s House District 29, incumbent Democrat Debbie Benefield lost narrowly to Republican Robert Ramirez in a race that was called only last week after provisional ballots had been counted. Benefield, a longtime parent and district activist, was a member of the House Education Committee and was backed by CEA, AFT and CASE.

In addition to Benefield and Whitehead, incumbents who voted against SB 10-191 and who lost included Democratic Reps. Dennis Apuan of Colorado Springs, Sara Gagliardi of Arvada and Dianne Primavera of Broomfield.

Two supporters of SB 10-191 lost their races, Curry and Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton. (Rice’s lead role in a bill that raised auto registration fees was seen as a factor in his defeat.)

Of Democratic incumbents backed by both teachers’ unions, 16 won and four lost.

Eleven non-incumbent Democrats were supported by both CEA and AFT; seven won and four lost.

Seven incumbents who were backed only by CEA won re-election, and one lost. Both of the Democratic newcomers supported only by CEA lost.

Four other education groups that are active in legislative lobbying and in some ballot measure campaigns do not endorse candidates. They are the Colorado Association of School Boards, the Colorado PTA, the Colorado League of Charter Schools and Great Education Colorado.

Final 2010 campaign contribution and spending reports are due to the secretary of state by Dec. 2.

Support and results by House, Senate district

[iframe https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Al0MhJ4hP8MrdDhjX2JqRktlZ0dTN1FSZjJURXdOSlE&hl=en&single=true&gid=0&output=html 100% 400]

Information about endorsements and contributions was compiled from campaign spending reports filed with the secretary of state and from information provided by some of the groups. Search financial reports on the state website.

[iframe https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Al0MhJ4hP8MrdHBkdkdSdGxNckpwdzdjSmZfaVJjLVE&hl=en&single=true&gid=0&output=html 100% 400]

Asked and answered

Are special education reforms moving too slowly? Chicago monitor responds to criticism.

PHOTO: Getty Images

Just four months into her role as the powerful independent monitor overseeing efforts to reform special education in Chicago Public Schools, Laura Boedeker already faces angry, public criticism.

The state created the monitor’s office earlier this year after a public inquiry found that Chicago was systematically delaying and denying educational services — guaranteed by federal law — to special-needs students. But on Monday, advocates for special education charged that Boedeker and her superiors at the Illinois State Board of Education have failed on many counts to improve services and to communicate with parents.

At the same time, the advocates released findings of a survey of 800 parents and teachers that backed their charges. The next day, Chicago parents finally received an email from Boedeker and her boss, state board General Counsel Stephanie Jones, that linked to updated special education protocols and parent trainings, and suggested that the state was working on a plan for families who want to file grievances.

In an interview with Chalkbeat on Tuesday afternoon, Boedeker responded to the criticism, described the work she’s done, and outlined what’s ahead.

What exactly is your job?

Being that one person in ISBE who is dedicated to overseeing, correcting, and addressing concerns about special education in Chicago Public Schools.

Do parents know you exist?

I hope so. They seem to. The word is getting out there, I can tell that.

We’re getting more attendance at our parent workshop sessions, and there’s a new topic every month. I’m seeing more parent emails. Not so much in the sense of  “I’m complaining about services,” but “I wanted to let you know this is something going on at my school.”

Why did it take several months to introduce yourself to parents and tell them what you’re doing as monitor?

We really wanted to.

But where it got really complicated is we really wanted all the information to be in the letter, including the student-specific corrective action, rather than sending out two letters. We also saw delays in trying to come to an agreement on language along with the advocate groups as well. It was hard to reach an agreement about not just appropriate language, but the level of the language of the letter.

A survey released this week indicated that special education reform in Chicago has been slow and under-resourced. How do you respond to that?

We are talking about very pervasive, systemic issues that were already problematic before the advocates submitted their letter last November [an action that helped put in motion events that led to the state monitor overseeing Chicago schools]. This is going to take a long time. There’s been a lot of broken trust between parents and schools, parents and central office, parents and administrators.

There’s a lot of restoration and repair we need to address even before we can go in and dig really deep into those corrections.

And as far as resources go, we have been wanting to take this first month or two to get a better idea of where I need more assistance. That’s something you’re not going to know until you start the job, when school is in session. We have regional offices that we work with and that I will be partnering with as specific to CPS. As far as my surrounding staff goes, that’s something that I’m discussing with [the office of the general counsel].

How many schools have you visited?

A small handful — less than 10 so far. That’s something we’re just starting to schedule because we’ve been getting a lot of feedback over the first two months of school, so we now have some action items, some investigatory points. I’ve had a lot of district representatives go into schools and do investigations. My plan is to go in and see if I’m seeing the same things they are reporting.

From the schools you’ve been to, what have you seen?

What’s been fascinating is that there’s so many stakeholders in special education. At the center of everything is the student, of course, and then you have the laws that surround special education — federal and state laws. And then you have a group of all these adults that have different understanding of special education. Even if they have the same understanding, they have different interpretations and beliefs about how things should be done.

So it’s really about getting inside of that story. For example: At a school I went to last week, I [received a] lot of staff outreach. And if I’m just going on the staff outreach, then I think the principal is assigning special education teachers to gen ed classrooms when a teacher doesn’t show up. But when we got in there, it was a little different than what was portrayed via the staff.

What was happening?

In this particular instance, four teachers called off that day, so they had four absences they were trying to deal with. It came down to [the principal asking special education teachers] can you please go to this classroom, unless or until we get a substitute who is arriving within the next 10 minutes, so these students aren’t alone without an adult.

What are some other concerns you’ve heard from schools you’ve visited?

Paraprofessionals being assigned to roles that aren’t IEP-based [referring to individualized education programs, which schools must create for each special-education student]. For example, covering lunchroom duty. That’s not a proper use of a paraprofessional.

A lot of scheduling concerns go back to schools being trained to properly schedule their teachers, so if a teacher does call off there can be a better contingency plan for covering those students and classes.

Messaging to IEP teams. Making sure the right people are in an IEP meeting for the duration of the meeting. We’ve been really hammering home the message that the only person that can excuse a member from an IEP meeting is a parent. But sometimes we have reports that the principal directed teachers to go somewhere else. So we have to really train principals on the law, and proper use of the teachers.

In the advocates’ survey, three out of four teachers reported knowing one or more students were not receiving services due to staffing shortages. What can you do about that?

Let’s take the example of a principal taking a special education teacher and sending them to a gen ed class because they need an adult in the room.

As I was telling the principal, that’s when your scheduling needs to be really tight so you have the flexibility to come up with a contingency plan. You know teachers are going to be out. It’s kind of hard to have a contingency plan for four teachers that are out, but one or two, there are ways to get creative. You can split up a gen ed class and integrate them into a few other age-appropriate classes for instruction, or bring them into a large group and do a social emotional learning circle that addresses a current academic issue.

Your first or second solution should not be going to the special ed teacher.

A lot of the inquiry boils down to this: students who have needs being delayed or denied services. Do you see that’s still the case at CPS from what you can tell so far?

Issues of delays and denials of services — such as paraprofessional assistance, separate day school, transportation — those have dissipated some. From the data we’ve pulled and from the feedback from schools and parents, those are not nearly as big an issue as they were before, primarily because those blocks that were put on the electronic system were lifted.

Before, the only way transportation could be added to an IEP was if a district rep was there to approve it, and that’s no longer the case. Most of the power has gone back into the hands of the IEP teams, which is exactly what the public inquiry recommended.

What should the student-specific corrective action process look like, and how does it compare with what’s going on now?

We’ve been discussing this process with an office within the U.S. Department of Education. One thing they have been very clear on is that IEP teams need to be front and center of that decision. They’re the ones on the front lines with these students, so the Education Department is insistent that the IEP teams are involved when we’re talking about sending notices out to families, alerting them that you may have a child affected by the public inquiry.

That leads us to identifying who that class of students is, and then after we have those families and students identified, that’s when the IEP team comes in to say, “Yes, we do know there was a delay or break in services — what was the harm to that student?”

We hope to provide them with a set of instructions, like, “Here are the talking points, and if you find the student was harmed, here’s a menu of remedies that would be appropriate.”

Those are the conversations we’re working through right now with the department of education, CPS, the advocate representatives, and ISBE. As you can imagine, those are some pretty hefty and lengthy conversations. We’re all trying to get on the same page, and all trying to come to an agreement about what that would look like. But also, what’s fiscally responsible?

This is a three-year process. What should parents and students expect to happen between now and the end of the school year?

We’re holding schools more accountable now and we have them on our radar.

There’s going to be a lot more eye-opening information that emerges from this role, and it’s the first time it’s really been done in this way. This is truly a way for one person to explore CPS through the special education lens like nobody has ever done before. I find that really exciting.


Making the grade

Memphis board looks for a better way to grade its top education chief

PHOTO: Laura Faith Kebede/Chalkbeat
Peter Gorman, a former Charlotte superintendent and consultant, is helping Memphis board members update Superintendent Dorsey Hopson's evaluation process.

Memphis school board members want to measure more accurately the accomplishments and failures of the superintendent of Shelby County Schools.

Currently, school board members rate Superintendent Dorsey Hopson’s job performance on a scale of 1 to 5 in several categories, including student achievement, facilities and finance, and relationships with staff, the board, and the community. But those categories don’t include specific benchmarks board members expect him to meet.

As the district strives to meet its goal for 2025 to prepare students for beyond high school, effectively evaluating those at the top will become more critical, said Peter Gorman, a former Charlotte superintendent who is working with the district and school board to improve the process. Board members are lining up the superintendent’s evaluation measurements with the district’s updated academic plan.

“We have a lack of quantifiable measures within the tool that we’re using,” said board member Kevin Woods. “There are, internal to the district, already measures that have been outlined in the academic plan… and it’s already what the superintendent is holding himself and his staff accountable for.”

What do you think board members should use in evaluating the superintendent? Let us know by emailing tn.tips@chalkbeat.org.

Gorman plans to work with Hopson’s team to recommend data points the board could include in the new evaluation. Board chair Shante Avant, evaluation committee chairman Scott McCormick, and board vice chair Stephanie Love will lead the effort to craft a new evaluation that would take effect next year.

Board members also hope to add a “constituent services” component to make sure his staff is being more responsive to the public.

“This benefits everyone. This increases performance,” he told board members Tuesday. “There’s got to be this alignment piece that it trickles all the way through the organization.”

This would not be the first time the board changed the process for evaluating Hopson. The school board has rated Hopson as satisfactory, though not exemplary, in recent years and last year extended his contract to 2020 with a $16,000 raise. In 2015, his evaluation score dipped after reducing the number of categories board members examined.

Hopson has led Tennessee’s largest school system for five years and overseen a tumultuous time for the district. In 2013, the city’s school district folded into the county system, a complicated logistical feat that still reverberates today. The following year, six suburban towns split off to create their own districts with about 34,000 students. At the same time, the state-run Achievement School District grew as it took over district schools that had chronic low performance on state tests. Nearly two dozen district schools closed during that time as Hopson and his staff rushed to fill budget deficits left in the wake of all the changes and reductions in student enrollment.

Despite the strenuous circumstances, fewer schools are on the state’s list of lowest performing schools and the district’s Innovation Zone has boosted test scores at a faster rate than the state’s district. Schools across the state are looking to strategies in Memphis to improve schools — a far cry from six years ago. And recently, Hopson was among nine finalists for a national award recognizing urban district leaders.

Hopson’s evaluation for last school year is expected to be presented at the board’s work session Tuesday, Nov. 27.

Board members also briefly acknowledged it has been three years since the panel has done a self-evaluation to make sure they are doing what they need to do to govern well.