As a peripatetic educator for most of my adult life and a teacher for 45 of its years, I am accustomed to the conventional rhetoric of School Boards and their Superintendents. So I was not surprised by the nonsense offered by LCPS Superintendent Ignacio Ruiz, as reported by Algernon D’Ammassa’s column “LCPD presents first ‘State of the District’ address,” in the Las Cruces Bulletin (7 June). I do not know the man; I assume him to be a good fellow, diligent to keep everybody happy and problems invisible. Indeed, Ruiz identified no educational problems, only initiatives on communications, in the District.
Ruiz introduced his report by saying, “We have close to 5,000 highly trained professionals including over 1,600 of the most dedicated educators in the country across our 40 schools.” Everyone, especially the School Board, accepted the statement without question because it states what everyone wants to hear. But its claim is absurd; Ruiz has no basis for using this superlative. If the superlative were not just gush, it would require facts about the identification and measurement of the dedication of teachers here and elsewhere in the country. Of course, there are no such facts.
Ruiz’s gush, intended to gratify the School Board and placate parents of current students, makes addressing any problems in LCPS education, especially any problems traceable to those “most dedicated educators,” disagreeable to the powers-that-be. Nevertheless, the facts about proficiency scores in reading and math reduce his gush to a trickle. “LCPS students in grades 3 thru [sic] 8 and grade 11 averaged 38 percent in reading proficiency, while math proficiency scores in those grades were 23 percent.”
D’Ammassa rightly does not blame Ruiz for these inconvenient facts about continuing deficiencies in Las Cruces public education by prefacing them with the observation that the scores date from “before his arrival at the district.” Fair enough for judging his performance in his first year, but irrelevant to judging those “most dedicated educators” who taught the students before he arrived.
Obviously, even if those 1,600 teachers are “dedicated,” their dedication is irrelevant because it has not translated into effective teaching. Whatever “dedicated” means, it does not mean competent or effective. Ruiz, with the tacit approval of the School Board, is eager to avoid the inference that those “dedicated educators” are mediocre at best because it raises controversial questions about teacher quality, including preparation.
One way to avoid the problems of poor education of which parents might otherwise complain is to celebrate the higher-than-state-average graduation rate of 81.5 percent. I credit Ruiz, who, despite the dark cloud of low proficiency scores in basic academic subjects and high rates of absenteeism, finds a silver lining in the fact that “The district’s graduation rate continued to top the New Mexico rate.” However, the fact accentuates the poor quality of public education. Given low proficiency scores, another unwelcome inference is that the District sets its standards low enough and teachers inflate grades high enough that presumably, of its graduates, 62 percent are not proficient in reading and 77 percent are not proficient in math. I am pleased that Ruiz does not descend to touting how well these “dedicated educators” are doing despite a truancy rate of 39 percent and to blaming the students and their parents for their absenteeism. Students too young to cast ballots often vote with their feet. I wish that he could consider that, if his “dedicated educators” were good teachers, absenteeism might be lower. Since much school funding is based on per-student attendance, absenteeism costs the District a lot of money. Has anyone considered making the parents or guardians of “chronically absent” students responsible for both their children’s truancy and the District’s lost revenues?
D’Ammassa reports Ruiz noting that “The data [presumably of graduation rates, not of proficiency scores] only tells [sic, sic] part of the district’s story.” Non-academic measures of District success are “Safety and dignity for a diverse student body, equity in services for all students and respect for the various constituencies represented by LCPS.” These measures, intangible and unquantifiable as they are, are all well and good, but they reflect no academic achievement.
If I were a parent of an LCPS student and knew of this dismal record about which the School Board is indifferent, I would be moving heaven and earth and the other place to put the District in receivership for proven, persistent failure. If I were a School Board member, I would insist that the Superintendent either ensure that student academic performance as measured by proficiency scores dramatically improve or expect to be fired. I would also insist that the Superintendent, at whatever expense necessary, ensure that teacher quality is priority number one, even if it means firing “dedicated,” but incompetent or ineffective, “educators.” Finally, either as a parent or a School Board member, I would campaign for an independent “truth commission” to investigate and evaluate the academic character and condition of the District, its schools, and its teachers. Otherwise, the “State of the District” will remain what it is: holding pens to enable parents to have jobs without the inconvenience and cost of hiring babysitters, and credential factories rewarding students for attendance with worthless diplomas.
[Just for fun: The article “The right to choose,” The Economist (1 June), reports, “Republican-controlled state legislatures moved quickly to restrict abortion,” then notes parenthetically, “Texas bans even women who have been raped from obtaining them.” That is, Texas is exceptional in going farther than other states, which apparently ban only men who have been raped from having abortions.]
