School officials and politicians often talk these days about being “agnostic” on charter schools. How often have you heard this line in the last year or two (including from me, I must admit): “I don’t care if a school is a charter school, a neighborhood school, a magnet school, what have you, as long as it serves kids well.”
Well, we’re about to see agnosticism in action. In a fascinating and audacious move, Denver Public Schools is proposing that new charter schools housed in district buildings become neighborhood schools – having kids from a particular geographic “catchment area” assigned to them by default.
While unusual, this isn’t wholly unprecedented. In rural areas, charter schools can be the only school for miles around, making them effectively the default schools for families living in proximity. Some new housing developments – notably in Brighton – have included charter schools to which kids living there are assigned. In other states, particularly California, public schools have been converted to charters and maintained the “catchment area.”
What I find intriguing about the Denver proposal is that two of the schools at the vanguard of this change would be new, northwest Denver campuses of West Denver Preparatory, a school serving high-poverty populations, where students and their parents must affirmatively invest in a highly-defined culture. Discipline is strict and consistent, norms are non-negotiable, work loads are intense. And achievement is high.
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools across the country – 82 schools in 19 states – operate on a model similar to West Denver Prep’s. No KIPP school has ever had students assigned to it. Steve Mancini, KIPP’s national public affairs director, said that one of the “five pillars” upon which KIPP is built is choice and commitment.
“All three members of the partnership must choose,” Mancini said – student, parent and school. “We believe it’s very important that parents are actively engaging, acting as consumers and advocates for their child.”
But KIPP also goes door-to-door, actively recruiting families. And in Denver, KIPP’s two schools are essentially neighborhood schools. About 75 percent of KIPP students live within 2.5 miles of their school, according to KIPP Denver Executive Director Rebecca Holmes.
The West Denver Prep model is not for everyone. Like KIPP, its two existing schools are schools of choice, as is usually the case with charters. In other words, a family must be seeking options for their children, find West Denver Prep, buy into the model, apply and then get lucky enough to be chosen by lottery.
That’s very different from getting a letter in the mail from the school district telling you that your son or daughter has been assigned to this new school called West Denver Prep, whatever that is.
Jim Griffin, president of the Colorado League of Charter Schools, finds this potentially concerning. “Having parents choose a school is one of the most profound aspects of parental involvement,” Griffin told me this morning as he packed his own kids off to school. “It’s a psychological thing that allows parents to expect more of a school, and vice versa.”
Taking away the choice and having students assigned to a charter takes eliminates that immediate investment, Griffin said. In a charter that differs only in minor ways from a “typical” neighborhood school, this would be no big deal. In a “culture-intensive” school like West Denver Prep, he worries it could create tough challenges.
“There is likely to be a higher degree of kids not working out,” he said. “It does no one any good to have a kid go to a school for six weeks and then leave because it isn’t a good fit.”
From what I heard last night, West Denver Prep hopes to mitigate this by visiting the home of every student in its attendance zone, explaining the expectations, having families sign compacts. Those who don’t like the sound of the school will be told of other neighborhood options. Still, the risk of a larger number of kids washing out is a real one, and something district officials must ponder as they move forward with this plan.
Still, charters as neighborhood schools sounds like a worthy experiment. I’ve long thought that no one should be assigned a school. Requiring parents to make an affirmative choice creates at least a modicum of investment. But this, in effect, does the same thing. Assign kids to a school with a distinct flavor. Explain it to the families, and let them choose. Sign a compact and they are in. Make a decision to go elsewhere and their home school helps them find a nearby school that seems like a better fit.
Superintendent Tom Boasberg said yesterday that he wishes all Denver schools, charter and traditional, would take this kind of proactive stance. Create a culture, make expectations clear, and help families who don’t feel comfortable find another home. Schools shouldn’t and can’t be generic boxes that work for everyone. Maybe someday. We’re still a long way from that.
Please note that none of what I have written here deals with the particulars of DPS’ recommendations about Lake, Greenlee and Philips, the schools it wants to transform. Lake in particular will continue to be a hornet’s nest.
The district is going to have to do a far better job explaining its plans to the community than Chief Academic Officer Ana Tilton did last night at Lake. Tilton seemed unprepared; she gave stumbling, incomplete, occasionally inaccurate answers to the kinds of basic, informational questions the district must have known were coming. What she said hardly inspired confidence among those the sparse audience.
Again, what DPS is trying here is audacious and potentially trailblazing. But there is organized and vehement opposition to some of these plans. It would be a pity if poor communication and poor execution strangled the district’s ideas in the cradle.
Popularity: 37% [?]
Absolutely spot on, Alan. This is a great precis of what is happening, and what is at stake. Honestly, I do not think that DPS has thought this through at the level of detail that you have just expressed.
“The district is going to have to do a far better job explaining its plans to the community than Chief Academic Officer Ana Tilton did last night at Lake. Tilton seemed unprepared; she gave stumbling, incomplete, occasionally inaccurate answers to the kinds of basic, informational questions the district must have known were coming. What she said hardly inspired confidence in the sparse audience.”
I will add that the district must do a better job of counting noses– the numbers in Lake plan are at best mythical, and put the whole enterprise at risk, no matter how you view the experiment. DPS need to be absolutely, fanatically transparent in both its projection of enrollment for the Lake diaspora- which is actually four schools, and how it will fund, and at what level, the remaining public school part of Lake (the residual IB program).
I think this is the obvious next step for charters. To be sustainable, people have to be able to attend the “public” schools that are in their neighborhood when the only other option is miles away.
While no plan is perfect and many details will need to be worked out, this is the most impressive plan I have seen from DPS on school improvement since moving to Colorado in 1996. This is the first time that I have seen the district integrate a set of best practices from other urban districts into a Denver context. Denver is often lagging 5-10 years behind other urban districts. It is also the first time that I have witnessed the district design an improvement strategy that puts kids ahead of adults. It’s a brave and audacious start.
Alan – just want to chime in that West Denver Prep welcomes the opportunity to partner with the District on an geographic-specific model for some charters. We think this is an important and worthy development in public education, and hope that we can continue to serve the needs of parents who entrust us with their kids. We fully support the District’s proposal and look forward to working with parents in both communities.
Let’s praise boldness. Let’s be wary, though, of praising what strikes me as an attempt to redefine a charter school. Today’s Denver Post uses a phrase, “Charter schools are typically schools of choice,” and I stared at the word typically and wondered if and when they are anything but schools of choice. OK, I grant that Ridge View Academy –a residential program for young people serving time in the division of youth corrections—is not. Maybe the Brighton example Alan speaks of also fits. But what is a charter school? Can a district decide what it means? Go to the Charter Schools Act of 1992: “to provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of education opportunities that are available within the public school.” Assigning students to a building is not the same as families choosing a program, its mission, and its culture. Further: “… to encourage parental and community involvement with public schools,” which happens to a large degree by the act of choice, rather than by being the “default” position, sending a son or daughter because it’s what nearby. Further: “a charter school application… shall include …(a) mission statement,” which is not—We are here to become what the neighborhood wants us to be, and we will adapt our mission statement year by year based on an annual poll of …. If you want success it might be absolutely critical to create a school around a clear mission—and not to have the mission compromised by being told—first and foremost, you will be a neighborhood school. No, first and foremost we established charters to be schools of choice. And if in the process they can serve a good many folks—or most—or all—in the neighborhood well, great. But not let’s not change the priority; to do so seems to me to redefine what it is to be a charter. It’s baffling to think a superintendent can announce “there will be absolutely no distinction between charter … and district schools.” Can a superintendent just make up any definition he thinks will do?
Important to note that the catchment area for charters would (at least so far) only apply to charter schools located in District buildings. This makes sense to me, in that these schools are taking District capacity.
There are a variety of enrollment programs both at and within District schools (magnet, G&T, etc), and I think this is a start towards some differentiation within the charter model.
IMPORTANT correction here
This quote from your commentary is misleading: ***”In other states, particularly California, public schools have been converted to charters and maintained the “catchment area.”***
This has happened with only ONE school in all of California — Locke High School in Los Angeles’ Watts area, which was taken over by the charter operator Green Dot and committed to serve neighborhood students assigned by default, rather than being entirely attended by students who chose it. Press coverage (in the L.A. Times and elsewhere) has emphasized that this is unique among California charter schools.
Locke has had only one set of test scores since Green Dot took it over, with zero improvement. Scores either remained flat or dropped.
I can’t speak for other states, though I would challenge anyone to name any charter schools anywhere else that enroll students by default.
I’m a San Francisco parent activist and education blogger (and, full disclosure, a charter skeptic).