7-15-2024 1:05pm

Opinion: A Teachers Perspective No to Charter - A Lack of Understanding, Conflict of Interest and More

The following editorial was submitted to us for publication. For fear of retaliation by members of the community we are not revealing the name of the submmission writer.

A teacher's insight into the proposed Sacramento School of Engineering and Science, based on virtually attending the public feedback session:1. The SSES founding committee appeared to have little practical knowledge of what running a school would entail.

a) They stated a goal of achieving high passing rates on the AP Calculus, AP Physics, AP Lit/Lang and other AP exams. The College Board has strict guidelines about what should be taught in each AP course. AP teachers are required to submit a course syllabus for review, and if that syllabus does not follow the CED (Course and Exam Description) then it is not approved. (source https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/courses) ALL content and skills contained within the CED for each course must be addressed, as an AP course is meant to be a stand in for college level courses. When taken within the context of the SSES's proposed four period day wherein all content areas are taught in a truly integrated, PBL approach, all content within all abovementioned AP course CEDs could not reasonably be covered. It is the nature of these courses to be highly specific and targeted in their instruction. There are instances wherein there is some horizontal alignment and collaborative PBL between AP classrooms in separate disciplines, however, the participating classes must be closely aligned and have clear crossover in their subject matter. One example of this is AP Language (which focuses on US authors) and AP US History. However, in the context of SSES, where there are many different students across multiple grade levels, and only four class periods within which to teach, I struggle to see how any AP course could be taught with fidelity according to College Board's exacting standards, especially with an integrated approach.

b) Building on the above, AP courses also must be taught by Highly Qualified teachers who are experts in their subject area. (source https://www.srca.nm.gov/parts/title06/06.061.0004.html)

It requires much schooling and professional credentials for a teacher to become Highly Qualified in one content area. For example, a secondary math teacher must understand and be able to teach Geometry, Algebra I and II, Precalculus, Calculus, Financial Literacy, Statistics, etc. A secondary science teacher must likewise be fluent in Biology, Physical Science, Chemistry, Physics, etc. The same with an English teacher. Ms Perry stated to the PEC that "all teachers must and will teach all subjects"

I question how she proposes to recruit highly qualified teachers, who can teach all of the above subjects in an integrated approach while still maintaining a high rigor.

c) Further, the SSES stated an achievement goal of a 90% SAT proficiency rate. For a school with a projected enrollment of ~60 students, this means all students except for 6 must show proficiency in both reading and math on the SAT. This is an incredibly high, and in my opinion unreasonably unattainable, goal. It tells me that the SSES has not researched state or national SAT proficiency scores. For example, according to the NM PED 2023 accountability data (source https://webnew.ped.state.nm.us/bureaus/accountability/data/), 10 New Mexico high schools scored above 70% proficient in ELA on the most recent SAT. This includes charter schools. Four of those schools scored in the 80% range, and only one, the Albuquerque Institute of Math and Science, scored above 90% proficiency (94%). On the math portion of the SAT, only one high school school scored above 70%. This was also the Albuquerque Institute of Math and Science, scoring 87% proficiency in math. This means that NO New Mexico school achieved the goal of 90% overall proficiency on the SAT in 2023. While the goal of 90% proficiency is lofty and commendable, it betrays a lack of understanding of what is probably possible given constraints of having differently abled learners, students from underrepresented backgrounds, and other student populations who historically under perform on standardized tests.

Best practices state that learning and growth targets must be attainable, and the fact that the SSES stated such a robust goal, along with Ms Perry's repeated statement during the session that "all students can and will learn math and science" betrays a lack of understanding of both existing data, and the realities of providing education to diverse learners. Yes all students can learn varying degrees of math and science, but not all students can test proficient on the SAT, as a cursory viewing of a normal (bell) curve depicting IQ will show.

d) Diverse learners is the fourth and final area of concern with regards to educational logistics. The SSES stated a proposed budget line item of $6,000 to fund special education support services for students on an IEP. This betrays a severe lack of understanding of special education and federal special education law. Districts are required to provide, or if they cannot provide in house, pay for, any and all services a student with disabilities needs, as outlined in their IEP. Larger districts can offer all sped support services in house, however, smaller districts address this by contracting out to regional educational cooperatives. Our area is served by Region IX out of Ruidoso, and smaller districts in the area pay over $1M annually to access support services such as:

-speech and language

*occupational therapy

*behavioral health

*diagnosticians

*vision and hearing

*autism support

*student based health

*transition support

*legal services(source https://www.rec9nm.org/Special_Education_Bureau)

The SSES's plan to provide $6000 to support students on IEPs reveals a lack of understanding of the intricacies of special education amd special education law.

2. The SSES were not forthcoming about conflicts of interest

.a) Ms Perry owns and operates Learn IMRSV, a company that sells VR technologies and VR curriculum to school districts. (source https://learnimrsv.com)

Ms Perry mentioned the use of VR many times during the presentation when queried as how technology will be integrated into the SSES student experience.

b) The SSES's "dream location" is a building currently located in Mesa Village, an upscale housing development owned by Mesa Verde, who are very involved in MainGate United, an organization of which Mr Klump is the chairman. MainGate United's stated purpose is to "make Alamogordo a place that Airmen and Holloman AFB want to be". (source https://www.facebook.com/share/YVzVLVSyCdJwi1tW/?mibextid=qi2Omg) The

SSES proposed using part of their funding to renovate the building which they plan to lease, thus funneling state funds directly into the pockets of local companies.

c) When questioned about community internship opportunities, the SSES's only direct reference was working with the Holloman Test Track. This, in conjunction with Mr Klump's presence on the founding board, brings into question if the SSES is too narrowly defining their scope and focusing disproportionately on students connected to Holloman Air Force Base.

In summation, the Sacramento School of Engineering and Science sounds on its surface like an innovative and positive way to bring STEM education to students in our community. However, during the public review it was revealed that the SSES founding committee has failed to consider the nuts and bolts of how their plan will work with a diverse population of students, as well as failed to consider potential conflicts of interest.