Editor’s note: Kristin Waters is DPS’ assistant superintendent for reform and innovation

On Tuesday, I had the profound pleasure of attending the commencement ceremony for Bruce Randolph’s Class of 2010—the first-ever graduating class for that school, which I led from 2005-2009. As the Denver Post reported yesterday, 97 percent of Randolph’s senior class graduated and 87 percent were accepted to college.

In Van Schoales’ commentary here, he posed the question: What innovation? A very compelling and inspiring answer to that question was on full display at the Ritchie Center Tuesday afternoon, on the faces of the 72 graduates who crossed that stage—many of them taking their first step toward college and representing the first members of their family to do so.

The Denver Public Schools’ bold and innovative move to transform Bruce Randolph from a troubled middle school to an autonomous 6-12 school was the critical first step in putting so many of those students on the path to a great future.

Bruce Randolph was the model for Colorado’s Innovation Act. The Denver Public Schools helped draft and staunchly supported that legislation for its focus on giving schools the ability to gain more control over their operations and being freed of the cumbersome and inflexible laws, agreements, and policies that have held back our schools. We want that for all of our schools, and we continue to be fully supportive of our Innovation Schools. DPS has the first (and only) three Innovation Schools in Colorado, and the Denver Green School was recently approved by the state to open this fall as our fourth Innovation School.

As a former principal, I fully appreciate the importance of decentralization and school-based decision making. As the head of the District’s Office of School Reform and Innovation, I continue to be deeply committed to those principles, as is our entire district leadership team.

In short, all of our schools should be empowered to make the critical decisions about their people, time, and money in order to best meet the needs of their students. That’s what innovation schools are about.

In this regard, there has been discussion about whether all district schools should simply receive 1/78,000th of district funds (a per-pupil split) times the number of their students or whether the district should continue to fund certain school-based services and programs centrally. In order to foster a strong culture and practice of empowerment and accountability, the district has been clear that innovation schools should have the choice to either receive their proportionate share of dollars or a proportionate share of centrally funded services.

We believe that in most areas, schools (as did Bruce Randolph) will choose to receive district services rather than the equivalent per-pupil dollars, in part because of the economies of scale. But that choice should be for the schools to make.

The only limitations should be where there is a compelling health and safety issue (e.g., protections for special education students, suicide risk assessments, diagnoses of disabilities, etc); where there is a contractual or legal prohibition on distributing funds in a per-pupil manner (e.g., certain federal programs or private grants); or where there is a compelling equity factor.

One can certainly dismiss the equity rationale and argue that distributing district funds strictly on a per-pupil basis is the best approach. But as someone who believes deeply in school autonomy, I would caution against oversimplifying and distorting this issue.

I strongly support the importance of targeted programs and services aimed at the district’s neediest students and struggling schools. Examples of these programs include summer school for English language learners, summer academies for incoming 6th and 9th graders, credit recovery programs for high school students behind in their credits and at risk of dropping out, alternative schools that cost significantly more per pupil than traditional schools but are critical to stemming the dropout rate, extra resources and focused professional development for schools that are underperforming, etc.

While these programs are “centrally” funded, of course all of the services are delivered in our schools and to our students. As someone who was present at the creation, I do not believe that anyone who helped introduce the Innovation Schools Act intended for the Act to undermine these critical equity programs and set back district efforts to focus targeted resources on closing our achievement gaps and driving better results for students at risk of not graduating.

At the end of the day, I do not believe there is a real controversy here. We all agree on the main points. Where there may be some disagreements on whether a program is truly necessary to meet a compelling health and safety or equity need, we should discuss it thoughtfully and carefully.

This is difficult and complicated work, and I am confident we will get it right. We owe that to all of our 160 schools and 78,000 students, as we work hard to put every single one of those students on the path to the commencement stage I was so proud to stand on this week.

Popularity: 5% [?]