Lawmakers in the Classroom: The Battle for Wyoming’s Schools

A classroom in Converse County, District 1

A classroom in Converse County, District 1. State legislators are contemplating their next steps after new studies show that Wyoming public schools are struggling to meet previously set legislative standards. (Courtesy of the Wyo. Dept. of Education — click to enlarge)

By Geoffrey O’Gara
November 27, 2012

“There’s a disconnect between the education community and the general public,” said Bill Schilling, chair of a legislative advisory committee on education meeting in October at the Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission building in Casper. Peering sternly over his bifocals, he reeled off a series of negative responses from a public opinion survey; high school graduation rates are unacceptably low, senior exit exams should be required, students and teachers must be held accountable … The disapproving list went on.

Legislature 2013 series page

Click to read more

One of the meeting’s participants complained that the survey was incomplete; educators needed more time to respond, and the quality of the questions themselves was questionable.

The chairman, whose day job is running the Wyoming Business Alliance, cut her off. “We won’t discuss the questions.” He acknowledged the survey was not scientific, but said it was a gut reaction showing the Wyoming public’s dissatisfaction with public education.

The chastened speaker, Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction Cindy Hill, sat back in her chair. “You and I will have to agree to disagree. You are the chairman and I respect that.”  It was rough handling, bordering on disrespectful, for one of Wyoming’s top elected officials. But Hill’s two years on the job have had plenty of rough moments, particularly in her dealings with state legislators and their surrogates, and that’s not likely to end soon.

The gymnasium for the newly constructed Big Horn Middle School/High School

The gymnasium for the newly constructed Big Horn Middle School/High School, which opened in Autumn 2011. New schools and improved facilities have been a part of the state’s vigorous education spending agenda, but results appear to be mixed. (Gregory Nickerson/WyoFile — click to enlarge)

“The Department of Education is in a shambles,” says Sen. Hank Coe (R-Cody), chairman of the Senate Education Committee. “They’ve had over a 40 percent turnover in the last two years, there’s a lack of direction, they’re not complying with statutes. It’s almost to the point of being obstructive.”

That view was underlined recently in a report by two Legislative Services Office liaisons hired to monitor the department’s efforts in following legislative directives to evaluate how well public schools, teachers and students are doing in Wyoming. The report cited “a loss to institutional knowledge, experience and capacity” and a “misunderstanding of, disregard for, or stated opposition” to the law requiring accountability for educators and schools. Misplaced priorities, delays in meeting federal requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act, and usurping duties of the state Board of Education were also cited.

Hill’s initial response was aggressive. “The good ol’ boys are at work and they’re pretty nasty,” she told the Casper Star-Tribune. Hill is aware that many legislators, including Republicans, rooted for her opponent in the 2010 election, former Democratic State Sen. Mike Massie of Laramie. And last spring, Rep. Steve Harshman (R-Casper), introduced a bill to make the Superintendent post an appointed, rather than elected, position, which many considered an indirect indictment of Hill’s brief tenure.

But in an interview last week, she was more conciliatory. “We’re looking at this as an opportunity,” she said of the liaisons’ report. “There is information they don’t have. People don’t understand the calculations … We have to work side by side.”

In a sense, the Department of Education and the legislature are working side by side. Both have embarked on expensive efforts to develop programs to hold schools accountable for education, which is not as simple as it sounds. You have to test or appraise what students know, how teachers teach, and how schools are run. Then you have to double-check, consider variables like socio-economic status, and adjust for changing demographics and academic environments. The legislature has hired its own consultants, and tasked them to bypass the Department of Education and bring their proposals to the state Board of Education, an appointed policy board with almost no staff. Hill’s department, meanwhile, is doing show-and-tell around the state on its own pilot accountability program, a partially-formed system that she says “we’ll improve as we go along.”

It’s like the parallel play you see in small children; two kids on opposite sides of the sandbox, not speaking, not sharing, but imitating each other, doing essentially the same thing autonomously. An administrator in one of Wyoming’s mid-size school districts, whose role in developing state accountability policy requires anonymity, said, “It makes no sense to anyone out here in the sticks.”

*     *     *      *

During a decade of rising state revenue from booming energy industries, Wyoming has poured ever-larger resources into improving its schools and the success of its students. In recent years, legislators, and voters, have started asking for results. They want to know if the new buildings, the better-paid teachers, the classroom coaches, and the infernal tests are paying off. Sometimes the answer is yes – test scores have improved over the years, though not as dramatically as some would like. By other measures, the answer might be no – the dropout rate from Wyoming high schools remains high (over 20 percent don’t finish high school).

“It takes a long time to turn around,” says Mary Kay Hill, an aide to Gov. Matt Mead who has worked for several previous Superintendents. “My personal observation is that we’re seeing a positive trend.”

Still, there are confusing signals. This fall, some 40 percent of Wyoming schools were deemed not to be achieving “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP), a mandate of the federal No Child Left Behind act to improve student achievement. In recent years, legislators trying to spur educators have debated carrot and stick methods – merit pay for good teachers, removal of tenure so bad teachers can be fired – and various methods of evaluating educational success. They passed the Wyoming Accountability in Education Act two years ago, beginning a lengthy process to develop ways of evaluating schools, teachers and students. In 2012, they put the Board of Education in charge, a move that underlined the Department of Education’s limited role in setting policy.

They’ll be back on the issue again in 2013, making the law ever more explicit in hopes that the Department of Education can’t avoid doing it the legislature’s way, and possibly adding more staff and responsibilities for the Board. It seems redundant, and it appears to pit the Board against the agency it sets policy for, an outgrowth of legislators’ frustration with Cindy Hill’s administration.

“It’s just not getting done,” says Sen. Chris Rothfuss (D-Laramie). “I don’t know if it was feigned or actual confusion, but things weren’t carried out. … It doesn’t feel like cooperation, it’s push and pull at every turn.”

Cindy Hill

Cindy Hill, Wyoming Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Among the “things not getting done” cited by the LSO liaisons in their report was the department’s compilation of data on schools’ success or failure to make AYP under the No Child Left Behind act. The state’s initial release, in September, indicated more than half of Wyoming’s schools failed to meet AYP, which measures progress toward the 2014 goal of having all students proficient in core subject areas. There were complaints about missing data and misapplied formulas, and in October the department issued revised figures showing only 40 percent of Wyoming schools falling short. Hill says she has asked to respond to this and other charges in the report at a December 12 meeting of the legislature’s Joint Education Committee and the Select Committee on Statewide Education Accountability.

Hill contends the legislature is accustomed to an education agency that takes whatever lawmakers put on the table, and soldiers on to make school districts comply without applying its own expertise. What’s different now, she says, is that she is staffing the agency with educators, “and I’ve said to my staff, we’re not going to break the law, but it’s going to be different. Less top down, more teachers involved.”

But, even the new staff is a sore point with legislators. They say the extraordinary turnover at the department (48 percent in two years) is part of the problem. “You spend millions of dollars in state employees to develop expertise – you develop all that institutional knowledge, and then you have an election and bring in new people,” says Rep. Harshman.

That’s part of why he introduced his bill last year to make the Superintendent position an appointment by the governor, rather than an elected post. In a budget year, it would have taken a two-thirds vote of the 60-member House to introduce the bill. Harshman’s bill had 39 votes (several changed votes from ‘yea’ to ‘nay’ after its failure was apparent).

Gov. Matt Mead has not voiced an opinion on whether the education post should be elected or appointed. Mary Kay Hill, his education policy expert, says that with the task of public education growing ever more complex and broad, “the chief operating officer is consumed with other things, like the SLIB board and ribbon cuttings.”

(As one of five elected state wide officials, the Superintendent serves on several decision-making boards that oversee agencies like the Office of State Lands and Investments.)

The Governor has not been entirely hands-off in the Department of Education controversies. Charged by the legislature with watch-dogging the department’s assessment work, executive staff found a number of Education employees funded to do assessment work were actually working on other things, and some positions not funded for assessment were doing assessment. It sounds like dull bureaucratic nit-picking — only a few positions were involved — but state appropriations require that position ‘align’ so that the right amount of resources be applied to different department tasks.

Then the Department of Education informed the Governor’s office that there were actually around 30 positions — the number changed a few times — that needed to be realigned, and the Governor called a halt. According to Hill, the Governor has not accepted the agency’s representations, and is asking for a review of every position in Education. Says Hill: “It will take an enormous amount of time.”

Harshman notes that few other states still elect their education chief. “They don’t want education politicized.” But last week, Harshman had not decided yet whether he would introduce the bill again. He was recently appointed House Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, one of the toughest, most consuming jobs in the legislature.

What legislators are likely to do, with less high-profile legislation, is continue the erosion of the Superintendent’s authority. A bill is being drafted that would have data for the accountability program developed by the state’s information technologies department and delivered to the Board of Education, without a stop at the Department of Education. That’s partly because when the legislators tried to appropriate $250,000 to the Board last year to provide them some support staff and a new Professional Judgment Panel (more about that later), they felt the dollars got held up for a period of time in the Department of Education.

Is the Board of Education ready for a major role in determining how we evaluate education? Not if you measure it by staff. Compared to the sizable bureaucracy at Cindy Hill’s Department of Education, the unpaid board has a staff of … one. Or maybe two, if you consider Paige Fenton Hughes, a former Wyoming school superintendent, who serves as “coordinator.”

“Our work has to be on the policy side,” says Hughes. “We don’t have administrative mechanism at our disposal.”

With the $250,000 that almost got lost in the Department of Education last year, the board is paying Hughes, and assembling a Professional Judgment Panel, to evaluate the proposals being developed for the legislature by consultant Scott Marion. (Marion, incidentally, worked for the Wyoming Department of Education more than a decade ago, first for Superintendent Judy Catchpole, and briefly for her successor, Trent Blankenship. Blankenship, under fire from legislators and Gov. Dave Freudenthal, quit the job in 2005 and fled to Alaska.)

*     *     *     *

For a state where limited government, local control and libertarian principles are popular notions, Wyoming’s public education system is surprisingly top-down; funding, scholastic achievement standards, and school design all are largely helmed in Cheyenne, not local school districts. Combine that with all the strings tied to federal education funding, and local administrators and school boards might sensibly wonder if they’ve been transported to some top-down, socialist experiment in education.

It wasn’t entirely the choice of Wyoming legislators to concentrate so much power over education in Cheyenne. The driving force has been the Wyoming Supreme Court, which back in 1980 (Washakie County Sch. Dist. No. One v. Herschler) declared “until equality of financing is achieved, there is no practicable method of achieving equality of quality.”

Rock River

Wyoming’s poorest towns, like Rock River, were unable to maintain school districts of quality equal to those of wealthier areas. Lawsuits brought before Wyoming’s Supreme Court in past decades have forced state legislators to find ways to redistribute tax revenue to close the achievement gaps between districts. (Jimmy Emerson/Flickr — click to enlarge)

The old way – local property taxes and bond issues mostly paying for local school buildings and education – fell far short of that education equality goal, considering the huge gulf in property tax revenues between, say, coal-rich Gillette and little revenue-poor Rock River. Wyoming, its Supreme Court ruled, needed to throw out the old system and create a new one that collected property taxes for education from around the state and redistributed them so all Wyoming kids got an equal chance, whether it was metal shop skills or a chance at Harvard.

Activist judges are not a hallmark of Wyoming jurisprudence either, but the state Supreme Court, once it got is feet wet, has been diving into the classroom with relish for more than 25 years. The legislature’s half-hearted attempts to redistribute education funds more equably in the 1980s led to another series of landmark lawsuits beginning in 1992 (Campbell County, et al v. State of Wyoming), and known by the shorthand of Campbell I, II, III, and IV (the last in 2008). The courts’ rulings more and more required that state lawmakers and administrators take charge.

Legislators from those early years, and even today, will say they have been forced against their will to take over the traditionally local business of education policy. But many of them now talk with pride of the legislature’s role in building a first-class public education system. And they seem to be relishing a larger and larger role for Cheyenne in everything from the seating capacity of high school basketball arenas to the questions kids have to answer on achievement tests.

Again, an anonymous school administrator, no friend of the Hill administration, is equally dubious about the legislature, citing its part-time status and many other concerns: “They’re way too far into the weeds. The legislature is not the body to do what it’s been doing.”

Coe says the legislature – which is constitutionally limited to 60 session days every two years – can nevertheless, albeit reluctantly, handle the load. “I think people have a tendency to overlook all the work we do in the interim,” he notes. (Joint legislative committees meet several times during the year to consider issues and draft legislation.) But after praising the House Education Committee Chairman Matt Teeters (R-Lingle), he expresses some concern,. “In the House, they have 14 new members, and 34 members with two years or less experience. I’m concerned about their immaturity – they’re all good people, but understanding what’s been going on over the years takes more institutional memory.”

*     *     *     *

The legislative action on accountability will be small scale in 2013, fine tuning the system to remove any ambiguity about the lawmakers’ intent, but the rancor between Superintendent Hill and her overseers in the Capitol is likely to be large. Remember, too, that this is only Phase I; next comes the complicated task of measuring all the factors that contribute to student achievement, such as growth, equity, and capacity, in order to improve the system.

Other education issues that have generated considerable controversy in recent years are not expected to flare in 2013.

Sen. Hank Coe (R-Cody), chairman of the Senate Education Committee

Sen. Hank Coe (R-Cody), chairman of the Senate Education Committee.

The Hathaway scholarships, a product of the decade-long boom, provide financial support to Wyoming students attending the University of Wyoming and community colleges. The Hathaway endowment is in good fiscal shape, despite the recent slump in state revenues. In September, the endowment stood at $530 million. The endowment is fed by mineral revenues and “backfill” from funds that were designated for other things, but not entirely used up.

In the past, legislators fought over how stringent qualifications for the Hathaway should be. But taxpayers, and parents of college students, seem generally pleased with the “Success Curriculum” which requires four years of core subjects English, math, social studies and science. Coe expects no Hathaway controversy this year, though there might be some discussion of increasing the scholarship levels to adjust for increasing education costs.

Simplicity is not the hallmark of education issues, but Rothfuss is drafting a seemingly straightforward bill to address the disappointing graduation rate in Wyoming high schools. Noting the contradiction in faulting schools for a high dropout rate while allowing kids to leave school at age 16, the legislation would raise the age when you can drop out of school to 18.

Building schools has had its own niche apart from the school foundation program in the budget, but school capital construction is driven also by the courts’ efforts to give every Wyoming student equal opportunities. During the years of budget surpluses, the state has invested over $1.4 billion in upgrading or building new schools. Much of that money comes from coal lease bonus payments, money collected when the U.S. Bureau of Land Management leases federally-owned minerals within Wyoming, and gives the state a share of the payment. Despite the threat of carbon constraints to continued coal production, recent lease sales suggest this revenue stream will continue. But Gov. Matt Mead suggested in a recent press conference that the list of school construction projects “needs to get a lot shorter,” musing that coal lease bonus money could be used for other priorities. (Usually, in Wyoming, that means highways.)

Still, the problem with school construction isn’t going to be lack of funds. Currently, the problem is more a backlog of funds that haven’t been spent. Legislators are impatient with the slow pace of contracting for approved school projects – over $400 million sits waiting. Harshman blames a cumbersome approval process through the Wyoming School Facilities Commission. “You don’t need a 50-page contract, developed by out-of-state consultants, to build a fence,” he says. There may be some legislative tweaking to better incorporate growth projects in new school construction, and possibly efforts to turn over more of the construction process to school districts.

*     *     *     *

A legislature that has been so active in the education field is bound to find new ways to involve itself. In 2013, there is a lot of urgency, if not a lot of legislation, because the demands of federal and state law are creating pressure on an agency that appears to be struggling. Deadlines are upcoming for seeking waivers from tough federal requirements, but attention will focus on the continuing struggle over who will manage the development of a complex system that will evaluate our schools, our teachers and our students, and give Wyoming the tools it needs to improve the education edifice it’s invested in so heavily.

Will it be the legislature, with its limited schedule, its limited staff, and its many other distractions?

Will it be the Wyoming Board of Education, heretofore an unstaffed panel of citizens who surely never envisioned themselves overseeing an accountability process that – and this is only one sentence out of hundreds of pages of documents generated so far – requires an understanding of how to combine multiple indicators that include “compensatory, conjunctive, disjunctive and profile methods”?

the newly constructed Big Horn Middle School/High School, which opened in Autumn 2011.

The newly constructed Big Horn Middle School/High School, which opened in Autumn 2011. As Wyoming’s education system continues it’s development, empowered by state funding, the question of who will oversee it’s progress goes unanswered. (Gregory Nickerson/WyoFile — click to enlarge)

Or will it be Cindy Hill and her beleaguered Department of Education?

In late October, she took her team of experts to Newcastle, as she has to several other Wyoming communities, to show off the pilot accountability model that they’ve developed – the one that the legislature seems entirely uninterested in. The audience included school officials, school board members, and a confused journalist or two.

There was a video of Dr. Michael Fullan, a Canadian sociologist who criticizes “using accountability as a stick,” and there was some discouraging-sounding statistics about Wyoming school performances (18.9 percent of Wyoming schools were not meeting expectations; 30.9 percent were only partially meeting expectations), followed by reassurances that “this is just a pilot, don’t go home thinking we’ve got 40,000 kids in schools that are failing.”

Hill, who had left most of the presentation to aides, told attendees, “It’s really kind of cutting edge.”

The audience was attentive, if not enthusiastic. One district educator said, “I want to make sure we don’t get bogged down in the formula, and it doesn’t work.” A school official in a different district said to me later he was unsure whether Hill’s effort to pitch her evolving plan around the state “is serious, or is it diversionary.”

For administrators, the question of who is really in charge is important because of the enormous work involved in implementing whichever formula comes out on top. If the legislature is going to ignore Hill’s work, and direct its consultants to create their own plan, school districts will have to prepare for that instead. And if the Department of Education is reduced to being simply a compliance agency for the legislature’s plan, can they be expected to do that job diligently, or will the legislature and Board of Education operate their own “shadow” agency?

“We want them all working in harmony,” Hill insists.

“Our spending on students is the 2nd or 3rd highest in the country (per capita),” says Coe. “We should be right up there with Massachusetts.”

But for now, as government branches battle over who should guide public schools, we’re not.

If you’d like to weigh in on the legislative debate, see WyoFile’s guide to contacting your legislators for ways to make your voice heard in the 2013 session.

— Geoffrey O’Gara is a longtime Wyoming journalist. He was a Wyoming Public Television producer and host of the influential Capitol Outlook and Wyoming Chronicle programs. He is the author of What You See in Clear Water: Indians, Whites, and a Battle Over Water in the American West (2002) and A Long Road Home, Journeys Through America’s Present in Search of America’s Past (1989) and several other books. O’Gara served on the Fremont County District One school board for eight years. An avid cyclist, basketballer and fly fisherman, he lives in Lander.

REPUBLISH THIS STORY: For details on how you can republish this story or other WyoFile content for free, click here.

— If you enjoyed this article and would like to see more quality Wyoming journalism, please consider supporting WyoFile: a non-partisan, non-profit news organization dedicated to in-depth reporting on Wyoming’s people, places and policy.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!

Published on November 27, 2012

{ 16 comments }

Chris G December 8, 2012 at 11:16 am

Instead of political appointment or popular vote, why not create a committee of school superintendents and have them elect a state superintendent? They have the experience and knowledge of what is needed in our communities.

DeweyV November 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm

- here’s an interesting factoid that didn’t appear in this excellent article. Wyoming trails only the state of New York in the amount of per capita-student spending it devotes to K-12 public education. Both New York and Wyoming are currently spending north of $ 15,000 per student per annum.

Where do Wyoming students rank in educational proficiency ? W-a-a-a-a-a-a-y down the list. New York is ranked 10th , getting more of it’s money worth than Wyoming at 23rd. Our neighbor to the south Colorado is ranked 4th. Most of the highest performing students are found in new England states.

How do states that spend far less than Wyomning per student and have lower base teacher salries end up producting more educated more skilled more prificinet students with a higher H.S. graduation rate and much lower dropout rate ( not the same thing) ?

Riddle me this. No, on second thought , ask Cindy Hill….

Mary Flitner November 29, 2012 at 7:47 am

Very informative piece. In my own county I hear teachers saying they spend as much time “testing” and explaining/justifying test results as they do teaching. That doesn’t seem appropriate. Little mention is made of students and their curricular needs, other than to meet the Hathaway criteria. So much is at stake here – egos will have to be put aside to find solutions. Way back when, I once said in conversation that I thought schools ought to be accountable to some kind of standard, but I never envisioned anything like what’s going on today.

Hollis Hackman November 28, 2012 at 8:16 am

Great article. As a fairly new school board member, I appreciate the historical backdrop, which helps explain why “local control” appears to be an oxymoron on many levels.Having heard the DOE presentation at the recent WSBA convention in Casper, I must say that much of it appeared to be political damage control. The rest of it was difficult to grasp and I came away from the presentation not unlike the reporters in Newcastle. My guess is that the best model of accountability will come from some collection of local districts who have to deal with this issue on a daily basis. No doubt there are already good models available in districts that are excelling in student learning and have high graduation rates. However, there is always room for improvement and to that end I appreciate the comments from the apparent moniker above regarding student evaluations of teachers. Why not ask the students? After all, they sit in front of the teacher day in and day out for 9 months. The October issue of the Atlantic has an excellent article about this and I’m curious if anyone in the state is piloting student surveys.

Gerry Chase November 28, 2012 at 5:23 am

This article is researched well and communicates the atmosphere in Cheyenne in regards to public school education in Wyoming. As a public school superintendent, it has become increasingly difficult to navigate state and federal governance while serving our local communities’ youth. The actions and communications from Cheyenne can become a distraction for our District in accomplishing our objectives. In order to remain focused on our purposes, we have begun to filter our actions by asking two questions:
1. What purpose is being served?
2. Whose needs are being met?
If it is not our District’s purpose being served or our students’ needs being met, we give ourselves permission to dismiss the distraction.
When the Legislature and the WDE can serve and support our schools in providing a safe and orderly environment, a guaranteed and viable curriculum, parent and community involvement, a climate of high expectations for success, and collegiality and professionalism, we will welcome their support.

Chris Merrill November 27, 2012 at 10:57 pm

Great article. Obviously, there are no simple answers. But this will help me when it comes time to vote.

Bob Bonnar November 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Geoff, this is the most balanced piece I’ve seen about this issue to date, and I applaud you on your effort. Just wanted to clarify that I, as a school board member in Newcastle, invited the Superintendent to bring her accountability staff up here during our annual Stakeholders’ Day- when we invite the community to come into our schools and experience what education looks like in Wyoming in the 21st Century. I thought a presentation from the WDE on where they think the accountability bill is taking us would be appropriate for that setting, and was pretty pleased with what they presented. I understand that there is disagreement between WDE and the legislature, BOE and LSO about what WDE is presenting, but don’t find that as troubling as others. First, it is a demonstration of the checks and balances between the legislative and executive branches of government, and second, nearly everybody involved in the process- from legislators to local school officials- will disagree on some level as to what EA65 is seeking to do and what it will look like when implemented. My belief is that the situation may be a bit more confusion because of the legislature’s decision immediately after Hill was elected in 2010 to bypass the WDE and its staff, and instead put this process in the hands of the appointed Board of Education- with the assistance of well compensated consultants. I honestly don’t think the confusion will be alleviated until the WDE is invited into the process more, and question the wisdom of spending so much extra money on consultants and go-betweens selected by the legislature instead of utilizing those tasked with the job at WDE, and the consultants that have been part of the process there since Hill took office.
Again, I think did a nice job of presenting the issue here, and simply wanted to clarify the purpose and motivation behind the meeting in Newcastle. We invited a number of legislators, including several members of the Education Committee to attend our Stakeholders Day for the past three years but have been unable to entice any of them into attending (understandable given their busy schedules). I give the WDE credit for coming up and participating at the request of my district. My own reporter who covered the event admitted that much of the technical information shared was over her head, and I’m not surprised by that. She said she could follow the conversation, but I don’t expect somebody who isn’t exposed to techniques and vocabulary associated with implementing an accountability system to get the whole picture the first time out. My hope was that by beginning to expose people in my community to the issue we could at least invite them to start participating in the conversation on the local level, and I think the visit accomplished that. For that, I am grateful to the Superintendent for the level of transparency she demonstrated, and hope that the emphasis she has put on transparency and public involvement is a point that won’t be lost as the finishing touches are put on our accountability system. Nobody wants improvement in education more than I, but I have followed the issue for long enough that I know the challenges don’t simply exist in the classroom. It is as much a societal issue as an education one (which is why I favor increasing the dropout age to 18), and I think it will take a lot of meetings like the one in Newcastle before the general public starts to understand what accountability means, what the ramifications are, and what the ultimate benefit will be.
Thanks again for putting the thought you did into this.

Judy Engelhart November 27, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Do we really want to cede our power of choice to the governor? People may vote party lines BUT with an election we can actually look at the candidates and weigh them against our personal values. If the position is appointed then we really put this position in the hands of the governor and the elected party only. The past election was interesting and had two people with different ideas but with the best interest of our students at heart.

Trout November 27, 2012 at 12:03 pm

A fascinating article and great comments.

I’m a high school teacher, and I came to this career relatively late in life, having worked in the business world beforehand. Teaching is hands-down the hardest job I’ve ever had.

I’m bemused by the fact that no one’s asking students for their opinions about any of this. If you really want to know how well teachers are performing, ask the students. If you really want to know whether students believe that test scores are a fair way to evaluate teachers, ask the students. If you’re wondering what makes a good teacher or bad teacher, ask the students.

I hold quarterly meetings with my classes to discuss education issues (both in my class and in the larger sense), and they’re astute observers. The recurring theme: classroom atmosphere matters, as do instructional strategies and passion for the content. Meanwhile, bad teachers are lazy, daily lecturers, burned out, only here to coach sports, and/or bossy. And in terms of efficacy, students rail against test scores as an evaluation tool. In the 8 years I’ve been doing this, NOT ONE STUDENT has ever said that standardized test scores are a fair indicator of a teacher’s ability. Not once. And yes, I trust that my students are being honest and not telling me what I want to hear.

There are no magic solutions, but I would propose the following steps:

1. Keep competitive pay structures. As Richard points out, money draws talent. My district pays well, and that’s reflected in the quality of the candidate pool when positions open.

2. Incorporate students’ experiences into teacher evaluations. This is tough. I do it with my classes and they occasionally sting. But they also make me better.

3. Slowly (as in, over several years) transition school athletics to the private sector. Schools spend far too much time, effort, and money managing an endeavor that simply doesn’t pay off.

Jack Tors November 27, 2012 at 11:58 am

Two questions: (1) What do legislators and business people know about education? Nothing. Moving on. (2) Who assess the assessors to make sure what skills they are assessing matter for learning assessment? You see where this is going.

Nancy Espenscheid November 27, 2012 at 11:25 am

I hope Rep. Harshman will re-introduce his bill or find someone who will. Can you help keep us posted about that? Thanks for a very thorough and thoughtful article. The funding model and federal funding criteria together make Wyoming education issues extremely complicated. We must continue to strive for solutions. Good reporting will help us sort this out and motivate us all to perservere.

Richard Garrett November 27, 2012 at 11:15 am

O’Gara is not only a journalist and a former school board member but also a successful parent. The article reflects that expertise. Certainly no one mentioned in this article – or reading it – wants kids to fail but clearly all are frustrated. I wonder if the ‘formula for success’ in education might be to recruit and retain the best teachers (pay them like WY kid’s future depends on them, because it does), make sure the student/teacher ratio is right, and find a mechanism for parent involvement. As for the politics, perhaps a 6 year term for the school superintendent would be an alternative to an appointment?

maria katherman November 27, 2012 at 10:55 am

When voters choose party affiliation over competence (both in the legislature & state-wide office) should we expect any other outcome?

Scott Marion November 27, 2012 at 10:50 am

Just a clarification–I worked for Judy Catchpole for almost six years and Trent Blankenship for 1 week! Please don’t link me with Blankenship’s administration.

Inky November 27, 2012 at 7:13 am

Geoff, I’m surprised you have a full head of hair, when your thorough exploration of what’s wrong with public education makes this reader want to pull out my hair in frustration. The Gordion Knot known as the education bureaucracy has been getting worse and worse in recent years, most notably through the stunning arrogance and incompetence of Blankenship and Hill. Hill rode the anti-Obama tide of 2010 to victory, and has since revealed herself as someone entirely over her head, unable to present a coherent case for her administration for one simple reason — there is none! Would that she emulate Blankenship, resign and let Mead appoint a caretaker, like Mike Massie.

Robert Hoskins November 27, 2012 at 6:40 am

Geoff’s one of the best journalists in Wyoming and has done a nice job here of describing how chaotic Wyoming’s system of eduction has become.

Most of the problem is cultural; in Wyoming, as Alan Simpson’s brother says, “everything’s political except politics. Politics is personal.” The conflict among Cindy Hill, her staff, administrators, teachers, and legislators is so typical of Wyoming.

The rest of it is legislative and policy meddling in education from the feds and the state and so-called “experts,” using a business model of “accountability and production” that can only fail when applied to people, especially young people. In that sense, it really doesn’t matter how the Dept. of Education is structured or who’s in charge. The whole concept is wrong.

Until we understand that the purpose of education is to create citizens, not products for the abstract “work force,” the system will continue to deteriorate.

Paradoxically, it will deteriorate faster the more money’s thrown at it, because the more money that’s thrown at it, the more calls there will be for “accountability,” and “accountability” requires more and more bureaucracy, more experts, more personality politics, and thus more gridlock.

Welcome to the world Wall Street made.

Previous post:

Next post: