Schools for Tomorrow Blog

In the past 3 years the Denver BOE has authorized exactly two charter schools now in operation: West Denver Prep (opened 2006) and Denver Venture Academy (opened yesterday). In contrast, in New York City, Mayor Bloomberg just announced that 18 charter schools will be opening this fall. Charter schools under Bloomberg (and Joel Klein) have grown from 3,200 students in 2002 to an estimated 24,000 this fall. Bloomberg says:

“It’s the charter schools that let parents vote with their feet and tell us what the parents think about the quality of the education, of the schools. And I can tell you, one of the reasons that the public schools in the city have gotten better is because the charter schools exist and give parents an alternative and let parents see that you can do something better.”

This Spring the Denver BOE authorized exactly one new school operator: the nationally known Envision Schools (as well as an expansion of the Charter for West Denver Prep). Depending how you count new operators versus expansions of existing charters (DSST received an expansion in 2007), that is a total of four operators and seven charter schools - in five years.

Part of the difference here is the quality and number of charter applicants, but it is also the decision (or lack) to integrate charters as part of a larger strategic effort to improve schools. This is where Denver and NYC have gone separate ways.

In addition, DPS also has yet to close a charter school, even though some are among the worst schools in the city. Paradoxically, when you can’t close the bad ones, it seems harder to open the good ones (and there have been BOE votes where may of the same members who vote to stop promising new schools from starting then vote to keep bad existing schools open).

My question is: Has NYC closed charters successfully? And is the ability to close underperforming schools (district and charter) a prerequisite to opening good ones?

After all, there are fiscal reasons to close schools, but if you are not replacing them with a better option, what’s the point.

It’s sad to see when some who push a policy agenda rooted in deep, heartfelt compassion try to cover up the agenda’s defects with a façade of scholarly research. Such is the case with the allegedly new “Broader, Bolder” approach to education reform, and in particular the American Federation of Teachers’ so-called “evidence.”

Research guru Jay P. Greene exposes the hollow case underlying the agenda:

The Broader, Bolder folks provide a list of “background papers” to support their cause.  But those papers are very far in the background in that only a handful of the more than 100 studies cited actually assess the effects of providing students with additional services.  And even fewer look at the effects of public schools providing those services.  Before we endorse a bold new plan for education wouldn’t we want at least a few  evaluations of pilot programs in which public schools actually provided the full set of services being advocated?  I can’t find one such evaluation in the list of 100+ studies provided.

If we were to believe the issue at stake is whether kids might benefit from improved health and social services, then it would be a no-brainer. But before we go and spend lots of money and risk our schools losing their focus on their important missions, the real question that needs to be asked is whether schools as institutions are well-equipped to deliver these services. Apparently, no such evidence can be found. And judging from the results of Great Society welfare programs, government institutions—schools or otherwise—aren’t likely our best bet to get the job done.

What’s most remarkable is that the AFT can ignore the research on school choice - which consistently shows small but real, favorable gains from various pilot programs - and oppose vouchers and tax credits. Yet with scarcely the batting of an eye, the union can conjure up support for a “Broader, Bolder” agenda without any evidence that it will work on a small, piloted scale? And then to have the hubris to portray the research as saying something it does not. Someone must be getting paid well.

I see this kind of desperation as a sign that the larger battle is being lost by school choice opponents. Just remember: While it may make you feel good about yourself to go Broad and go Bold, the evidence isn’t there to give us confidence of success.

The Education News Colorado website has published several stories over the summer that cast the Aurora Pubic Schools regime of Supt. John Barry in a generally favorable light. Read stories here, here, and here, for example.

But one area where Barry’s forward-thinking regime has been slow to see the light is on charter schools. Last night, the Aurora school board decided to asked voters to approve a $215 million bond issue this fall. From that amount, the district is ofering a total of $750,000 to the district’s six charter schools. That’s a grand total of one third of one percent of the proceeds.  Not exactly generous. Still, better than Denver, Adams 12 and Douglas, which are planning to leave charters out altogether.

In this article in this issue of the EdNews enewsletter, Jim Griffin, executive director of the Colorado League of Charter Schools, laid out the challenges faced by charters in Colorado when attempting to share in the bounty of school district bond issues. Aurora has reinforced Jim’s worst fears through its actions last night.

Read this article for an account of last night’s vote.

Hurrah for a court that put a stop to institutional discrimination, and to state officials who received the message loud and clear. From last Friday’s Rocky Mountain News report:

Students at Colorado Christian University will get state scholarships under a decision Friday by two Colorado agencies.

State Higher Education Director David Skaggs and Attorney General John Suthers said they will not contest a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling reversing a state decision barring scholarships to students at the Lakewood campus.

The Colorado Commission on Higher Eduction [sic] had determined that CCU is “pervasively sectarian.”

In the July 23 decision, the appeals court held that the state erred in treating CCU differently from other schools that are owned by religious groups, but which were not deemed “pervasively sectarian.”

Both the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals and CCHE made the right choice. However, a serious inconsistency remains. CCHE doles out scholarships for students to attend private, and even sectarian, postsecondary institutions. Yet where are similar opportunities for students in elementary, middle, and high school? Vouchers and private tuition tax credits for K-12 are not allowed under state policy, and are considered anathema in powerful political circles.

Colorado’s big education buzz over the past year-and-a-half has revolved around the alignment of early childhood, K-12, and colleges and universities—embodied in Gov. Ritter’s P-20 Council and his recently enacted CAP4K plan. The emphasis is on “postsecondary and workforce readiness.” The idea is to bring a consistent connection between the different levels of education institutions. We are told that every student in K-12 should be prepared for entry into college, even if he or she ultimately doesn’t choose that option.

Some Colorado students end up attending private and even religious colleges, subsidized in part at state taxpayer’s expense. But no Colorado K-12 student, not even the neediest, can be afforded the same option. The state is unwilling to help enlist the services of private education operators to meet its admirable public education goals, but just for students who have yet to attain a high school diploma.

I’m not sure if it’s exactly discrimination, but something isn’t right with this picture.

In a guest column this week for EdNews.org, conservative writer Robert Holland takes the broad view of recent charter school developments across the nation:

There has been a bumper crop of charter school stories this graduation season. What’s more, the articles have been largely positive, a sign that these independently managed public schools are gaining popularity.

From a Massachusetts graduating class that started in seventh grade without a building in which to learn to the booming growth in post-Katrina New Orleans and rising demand in Minnesota, Holland documents a series of anecdotes that suggest the charter school idea has taken hold. A lot of questions remain to be answered, but evidence seems to indicate an increasing familiarity and comfort with, as well as demand for, the charter school idea in different parts of the country.

Bringing it closer to home, Holland specifically documents a case from Denver a couple months ago where parents demanded more successful charter school options like West Denver Prep. It’s important not to forget that 25,000 Colorado students are on waiting lists to get into charter schools.

Parental demand is just one key part of the equation, though. As others have pointed out, the creation of successful new charter schools have been “invigorating” to the public school system. Right here at Ed News Colorado, a recent interview with Manual High School principal Rob Stein revealed how much Denver charter schools provided him a critical “lifeline” to success. Stein said:

There were a few really bad days when I just went over [to Denver School of Science and Technology] for their morning meeting. I needed to be reminded of an exemplar that was more positive. Then I went back to Manual reinvigorated, thinking ‘we can make this work here.’

Stein also mentioned the hands-on support he got from the staff at KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy, another Denver charter school.

We know a lot of what makes a successful school tick, and the charter model is nimbly equipped to make it happen—not to mention the fact that thousands of families want into charter schools but can’t get in. Maybe, just maybe, we could hope for leading lawmakers who don’t have a burning antipathy for charter schools?

Colorado can do a lot better job standing up and leading in the field of charter schools.

I haven’t carefully studied the strange case of Challenges, Choices and Images charter school. But then again, the facts seems so stark that I’m not sure I need to. In voting 7-0 to keep open a school that is by all measures failing, the Denver school board would seem to be doing the equivalent of keeping a ripening corpse on life support to make the family feel better.

Will Denver never close a charter school, no matter how hideous its performance? It is beginning to seem that way. The board’s reluctance to pull the trigger actually tarnishes even the city’s stellar charters. Unlike the Life Skills charter, which the district had valid reasons to spare, CCI students would have other options, which couldn’t possibly be worse. (Could they?)

Never mind that the school will have a new leader,  governing board, chalk, fresh paint on the walls, fresh-cut flowers in every classroom, whatever. The fact that this school will remain open is, to quote Woody Allen (that well-known school reformer), a travesty of a mockery of a sham.  

The impressive new DPS School Performance Framework ranks CCI as one of the four worst elementary schools in the city, the second-worst middle school, and the single worst high school See the data here ).  CCI is not a new school: its CSAP results have been in sharp decline since 2005, and were not particularly good back then.

In 2007, not a single student was proficient in 8th grade math or writing, and just 8% were proficient in reading; in 10th grade again zero in math, 3% in writing and 21% in reading.  I can hardly wait to see the 2007-08 numbers.  On CCI’s School Accountability Report the school ranked low in every category, and was in decline in both elementary and middle, with a significant decline in high school.   

And did you notice that I haven’t even mentioned the juicy stuff yet? The "mixing public and private dollars, hiring convicted felons and bouncing paychecks to its teachers,"  to quote the dailies?

The stringent corrective actions the board is now forcing upon the school are probably a couple of years too late. I guess it took a full-blown crisis, like having the assistant principal arrested for buying crack (not his first arrest by a long shot) to force some action.

I hope CCI becomes the next Denver School of Science and Technology. But I’m no David Blaine: I’m not holding my breath.

In the ongoing debate about charter school performance, another piece of evidence emerges today from Los Angeles (H/T Joanne Jacobs). Here are the key findings of the peer-reviewed report:

1. Charter schools in LAUSD outperform traditional public schools on a variety of student achievement measures.
2. Charter schools in LAUSD are more likely than traditional public schools to improve their Academic Performance Index (API) at a faster rate.
3. API for African American students is higher in charter schools in LAUSD than in traditional public schools. API results for other traditionally disadvantaged groups are higher at the middle and high school levels, but not at the elementary level.
4. Charter middle schools in LAUSD consistently outperform traditional public schools.
5. Median API scores increase as charter schools in LAUSD mature. In 2006 - 2007, young charter schools in LAUSD had strong results increasing student achievement.

This is good news about the promise of school choice expansion, especially in urban settings. The L.A. Times story gave a hint of other promising news:

Ramon C. Cortines, L.A. Unified’s newly appointed senior deputy superintendent, said the report pointed to how traditional schools could learn from charters — a strikingly different attitude from that typically expressed by district officials.

“I think that what it says is that they have some best practices, and those should be replicated in the district in all schools,” he said. “I would say the same about islands of excellence in the Unified district. . . . We need to each learn from each other.”

Are Los Angeles district officials truly committed to copying and pursuing best practices in their successful charter schools? Can they do so without stepping on the prerogative of parents who want to choose the charter option? Can iron truly sharpen iron in this context? It’s encouraging to see at least lip-service given in this case, but it would be even better to see follow-through.

And what about Denver? Seeing the administrator’s quote in the L.A. Times reminded me of a story last fall in the Rocky Mountain News, highlighting a charter school success story in our own backyard, with a sobering side note:

Yet not a single principal from a DPS neighborhood school has come to visit West Denver Prep or, for that matter, the nearby KIPP Sunshine Peak Academy, a charter school serving a similarly high-poverty population with similarly successful results.

It remains my contention that the overall high performance and competitive threat of charter schools has made some limited inroads. But there still is not enough incentive in the current system for a true cross-pollination of best practices.

Many thousands of Colorado students are on the cusp of summer vacation, if not already there. Few are looking ahead to the return of school in August. But thanks to open enrollment and the growing number of public school choice opportunities, some parents already have seized the opportunity to ensure that summertime marks a break that leads to an improved experience for the 2008-09 school year.

One of my favorite local Colorado bloggers is Michael at Best Destiny, a public school teacher who writes passionately, candidly, thoughtfully, and articulately. (No, I’m not him.) You may not share his views on partisan politics or matters of faith. However, his series last October on “Education Reform that Matters” from an insider’s perspective I found to be helpful and enlightening.

But I digress.

The reason I decided to write this post was in response to something Michael recently wrote as a parent, not as a teacher, as he recounted his search for a new school for his daughter. A strong supporter of public school choice and charter schools, he nevertheless found it difficult to move his child from the neighborhood school. He shares some factors that went into the decision, including – but not limited to – CSAP scores.

In the end, after weighing several options, including a charter school, Michael found another district school that provided a satisfying alternative:

We feel fortunate to have been accepted on open enrollment to the other school. Like I said, it was not an easy choice, as we have formed friendships within our home school community that we value, and we really have liked many of the teachers we’ve come into contact with.

But a school’s culture is an immeasurable and priceless component of the school experience. We wish a culture of excellence and mutual benefit were the norm; but wishes don’t make it so.

And as long as there is choice in the public schools, we will pursue the best choice for our family.

I look forward to finding out how well the choice paid off. Scenarios like this are being played out by many in Colorado, but still not enough yield the happier endings desired by parents.

Reading Michael’s post made me think it would be a great idea to have a team of independent and honest parent/consumer school choice advisers, who could add their firsthand knowledge to great resources like this one.