You are viewing the EdNews Blog archives.
These archives contain blog posts from before June 7, 2011
Click here to view the new Voices section of EdNews

Archive for the ‘Autonomy’ Category

« Older Entries

DCTA president: School board violated innovation law

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

The following post was submitted by Henry Roman, president of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association.

The membership of the Denver Classroom Teachers Association would like to take this opportunity to rebut a few of the assertions made by Denver Public Schools in the article “DPS board 4-3 on FNE schools” published by your organization Monday, May 2.

The Denver school board did not have legal authority to approve three new Denver public schools (Noel Community Arts School, the Denver Center for International Studies at Ford and the Denver Center for International Studies at Montbello) for innovation status because these schools do not have the complete staff employed to approve this action.  According to the Innovation Schools Act, schools may only be approved for this status when they have secured:

  • Evidence that a majority of the administrators employed at the public school, a majority of the teachers employed at the public school, and a majority of the school accountability committee for the public school consent to designation as an innovation school.
  • A statement of the level of support for designation as an innovation school demonstrated by the other persons employed at the public school, the students and parents of students enrolled in the public school, and the community surrounding the public school.

Since the new schools have yet to employ a complete staff, and have yet to create levels of support among students, parents and the community, it’s impossible for the board to meet these requirements for approval.  The Innovation Schools Act does not allow a new school with no current teachers employed and no current accountability committee to begin as an innovation school.

Further, the board’s rush to approval also brings up the significant concern that these schools will use consent for innovation status as a condition for employment, which is clearly outside the scope of the Innovation Schools Act. The article quoted DPS legal counsel John Kechriotis, who claimed the board had legal precedence for approving these new schools as innovation schools.  The two cases he cited, however, should not be used to approve these new schools.

In the case of Denver Green School, the law requiring a staff in place for an innovation vote was not applied in creating its innovation status. The failure to apply the law for this school does not mean the law shouldn’t be applied in new cases. In the case of the Math and Science Leadership Academy, this learning institution is a performance school, not an innovation school. MSLA was negotiated collaboratively between DCTA and the district in accordance with performance school policy. Its status is irrelevant to the creation of new innovation schools.

DCTA does not oppose a school’s right to apply for innovation status; however, in the case of these new schools, their faculty and school accountability committee should vote on whether they actually need innovation status or not.  Alternatively, the District could work with DCTA to create new performance schools like MSLA.  Either of these options would give the teachers and the school community a voice in such an important decision.

The law needs to be implemented as it was intended – rushing new schools into innovation status without the consent of employees who haven’t even begun employment in these schools neither fulfills the spirit nor the letter of the law.

Popularity: 66% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, featured, Reform, Teacher unions | No Comments »

Why DPS needs a strong innovation policy

Monday, January 31st, 2011

Mary Seawell is an at-large member of the Denver school board.

Update – Denver school board members unanimously approved the policy on innovation schools on Feb. 3. Read it here.

On Feb. 3 the Denver school board will have a final discussion and vote on a district policy for innovation schools.  If approved, it will be the first policy passed by the board since I was sworn in 15 months ago.

Denver was the first district in Colorado to approve an innovation school.  Since the state’s school innovation law passed, Denver has approved seven innovation schools.  If estimates are correct, the number could double in the next year. At that pace, innovation schools will surpass the number of charter schools in just a couple of years.

In terms of transforming education, innovation schools will provide the systemic reform that the growth and replication of charters alone will take too long to provide.

The Innovation Schools Act was passed by the Colorado State Legislature in May 2008.  The law gives schools the flexibility to improve student achievement by waiving state, district and union rules.  Initially, arguments in favor of the Innovation Act focused on the waivers from the union rules.  But there are many of us who believe the reform debate and focus needs to be expanded to include flexibility around district rules and practices, too.

For the first three schools to earn innovation status, the challenges came in unexpected places.  Montclair, Manual and Cole experienced roadblocks from the district’s systems.  One of my favorite stories is one I heard from Rob Stein.  When Rob became principal at Manual then Superintendent Michael Bennet said, “Well, this is your school now.  We are handing over the keys to the building.”  To which Rob replied, “Actually, I haven’t been able to get a key to the building.”  From that moment forward, it became clear that the system itself wasn’t ready to release control and a key to the door was perhaps the smallest problem.

In March of 2010 I began meeting with the principals (Stein, Julie Murgel and Shannon Hagerman) of the first three innovation schools to learn why they were encountering roadblocks in implementing their innovation plans.  Dealing with the barriers was a daily task for the principals. Each was spending large amounts of time negotiating with the many DPS departments to get the autonomies that had been promised.

Just getting clarity on small issues was taking months or they would get an answer and then there would be a personnel change in a department and the negotiating would start all over again.  It was creating an adversarial dynamic between the district and some of our best principals.

The issue finally reached a critical point in May of 2010 when the Donnell Kay Foundation requested legal advice for the schools. The legal opinion stated the district was in potential violation of the Innovation Act in three areas:  budgetary control, staffing and hiring, and central office support.

Equally important, it appeared the district was violating the spirit and intent of the Innovation Act.  The Act intended that principals have the flexibility to determine the most effective and efficient manner to meet their students needs.  This was not happening to the degree or with the speed it should.  While I didn’t believe there should be legal action against the district, I agreed the district wasn’t in compliance with the spirit of the Act.  There needed to be a strong district innovation policy.

Safety, equity and health reasons for denying autonomy

The proposed policy sets out that the district can deny a request for a specific autonomy if there is a health, safety or equity concern.  For example, let’s say a school wanted to receive money instead of using DPS security services.  The school felt it could perform the work by empowering teachers to provide security. The district could rightfully say no.  Beyond a few people in Arizona, no one believes that arming teachers is good for student health or safety.  This is a slightly silly example, but there are ones which are much grayer.

What if a school requests to opt out of instructional superintendent support?  The school shows the district how it will be accountable to meeting the necessary academic standards and growth. Perhaps the school joined with three other schools to find support they believe will improve academic performance.

There is an equity argument the district could make that four schools opting out of IS services will create a higher burden and cost on schools which continue to need the IS support.  The district would either need to let a position go, creating a larger burden on the remaining IS staff to serve more schools per FTE, or it would need to charge the remaining district schools more to cover the same number of personnel.

Either way there is a potential equity concern – by granting the request the distract would adversely impact the non-innovation schools. In this example, granting the autonomy could negatively impact the students at those schools.  This is a real and legitimate concern, but in my opinion it’s a resource issue and not an equity problem.

Board review of decisions

Opting out of district services on a wide scale could dramatically change the operations of the district.  Ideally it would show what services most need to be performed by a centralized agency.  The reality is once we have enough schools taking advantage of autonomy, we could see a reduction in the size of certain administrative departments.  Conversely, it will likely affirm that there are many services that schools will retain, because of the quality or for cost savings reasons.

The purpose of a board review is to protect against future decisions being influenced by financial protectionism.  One purpose of a board is to make sure changes in the system are not dependent upon the discretion of a single superintendent.  I can envision a future superintendent being concerned about budget cuts to the point he or she denies innovation schools’ requests.

A board review will ensure denials are actually for safety, health and equity reasons, because there is the potential to value district jobs over a school’s right to make its own decisions about how to spend money.  Our schools need a predictable, sustainable policy so they will always have the opportunity to find better and different ways to operate, regardless of the district’s leadership.

Standards for innovation schools

The Innovation Policy is also designed to ensure that schools use autonomy to improve academic performance.  The policy expects schools to meet more rigorous academic and operational standards if they are to get autonomy.  In addition, the policy recognizes the critical aspect leadership plays in a schools success.  Many teachers vote for innovation based on the trust and strength in the school leader, so applicants will be required to show detailed succession plans and internal leadership pipelines for replacing principals.  In other words, schools must meet strong standards or they will not be approved.

Innovation shuffles the reform deck

The dramatic dynamics between members of the DPS Board of Education are more interesting to some than highlighting when we work together.  The idea the board is made up of two philosophical or ideological sides is much too simplistic.  I know all six of my colleagues want our schools to be improved.  By looking beyond issues like district versus charter schools, there are reform areas where we have real agreement.  School leadership as the key to improving schools is another area of enormous agreement.

What I like about this innovation debate, and why Jeannie Kaplan is co-presenting the policy, is the issue is not about collective bargaining or the union.  It’s acknowledging there are significant system barriers to improving schools that have nothing to do with a teacher.  Innovation schools give us a way to see how the district can be reformed to support improving schools.  It also makes clear that we need real standards when granting schools autonomy.

My assumption is the policy (if passed) will continue to evolve as we learn more about the schools.  One of the biggest challenges is how to create appropriate accountability measures that are not so stringent they prevent schools from utilizing their freedoms but not too loose so children and public funds are jeopardized.  It’s a balance that will take time to find, but this is the start.

Popularity: 37% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, featured, Reform | 10 Comments »

Elections resound from D.C. to…Kit Carson?

Thursday, November 4th, 2010

The recent election results and their likely effects on education reform, both at the state and national level, deserve a closer look. In Colorado it seems clear enough that marginal gains were made in favor of school choice and tenure/evaluation reform. Four of the five Democrat incumbents defeated by Republicans en route to their new majority — Dennis Apuan, Debbie Benefield, Sara Gagliardi and Dianne Primavera — were SB 191 opponents and significantly supported by teachers unions.

The state senate picture looks like more of a wash, even as races in two districts appear unresolved with ballots still being counted. Senate Majority Leader John Morse voted against the initial version of SB 191 but was one of a number of Democrats to come on board to accept the final House version. His challenger, Republican Owen Hill, likely would push education reform to the Right. Filling the shoes of pro-SB 191 Democrat Dan Gibbs offers a big divide on that vote for education reform. Conservative Republican Tim Leonard would be a staunch supporter of school choice and other reforms, while liberal Democrat Jeanne Nicholson seems to be more aligned with the unions than the retiring officeholder was. Meanwhile, SB 191 opponent Bruce Whitehead was defeated by supporter Ellen Roberts.

At the national level, with a Tea Party surge bringing a new majority and a new dynamic to the U.S. House, a big issue will be the ESEA reauthorization. I tend to agree with Fordham’s Mike Petrilli that the shift entails “less money, less reform” from D.C., as there will be a strong, new focus on trying to devolve federal power — perhaps halting some of the Obama-Duncan initiatives.

That brings me to an overlooked election result from Colorado’s Eastern Plains, that just may have national significance. On Tuesday, voters in the 100-student Kit Carson School District passed a $45,000 mill levy by a roughly 3-to-2 margin. In conservative Cheyenne County. During the big Tea Party wave. What gives? The money will be used to offset the small district’s position (rogue or avant garde, perhaps, depending on your point of view) to refuse federal Title One dollars.

Superintendent Gerald Keefe said receiving the roughly 2 percent of the general fund budget prevents the district from either having to dip into reserves or consolidate elementary classrooms. Still, it’s no small feat in a fiscally frugal rural area not known for backing many tax increases. Opting out of the federal strings was key. “This one is more on principle than anything,” Keefe said.

A few years ago, Keefe received confirmation that his was the only district nationwide that had taken the bold step of bucking federal dollars. To the best of his knowledge and mine, that still remains the case. Though I did find a northern Wisconsin school district that less boldly refused $45 (not $45,000) in allotted Education Jobs funding.

Next up for Kit Carson? A plan to opt out of Title Two dollars (currently used for professional development through BOCES), which would effectively liberate the district from No Child Left Behind’s “highly qualified” teacher requirements. Through either this approach or its Innovation proposal pending before the State Board of Education, Kit Carson is looking for greater flexibility to suit its local personnel needs.

It will be interesting to see how much of a trend Keefe’s school district propels, given the national mood and the latest election results. And it will be interesting to see how the newly configured Congress and Colorado legislature assume their roles in driving (or in standing back from) the next steps in education reform.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, Politics, School choice, Teacher evaluation | 8 Comments »

Move off the dime or get pushed

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

Editor’s note: Amy Slothower is executive director of Get Smart Schools, a charter school development and management non-profit.

I’ve been working in education reform for 10 years now, and I’ve come to accept that this business is full of frustrations and battles over divergent interests and an achingly slow pace of change.  However, the A-Plus Denver committee meeting I attended this morning has me so aggravated that I am moved to do something I’ve never done before: blog about it!

A-Plus Denver is a group of concerned citizens working to push Denver Public Schools to pursue school reform that benefits all students.  The topic of this morning’s meeting was the Educator Performance Assessment System that is being collaboratively developed by the Denver Classroom Teachers Association and DPS.

Basically, they are trying to come up with a system of evaluating teachers that everyone will sign-off on.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded this project and apparently work has been underway for at least 10 months now.  I say apparently because there is little evidence that any progress at all has been made during that time.

And, as A-Plus committee member Bennie Milliner, a former DPS board member who now works for U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, pointed out, this work has actually been under way in one form or another for more than 12 years with no measurable results.

Add to that Pro Comp, which passed five years ago and is costing Denver taxpayers $25 million, also with no clear impact, and the new CDE Colorado Educator Effectiveness Project, which is going to cost $1 million, and its hard to even fathom the energy and money that has gone into circling around and around this critical issue.

The presenter this morning was Henry Roman, president of the DCTA.  He was asked to speak about the progress that the joint DCTA/DPS committee has made to date, but instead he essentially talked for the full 90 minutes about all the “challenges” of creating an effective teacher evaluation system.  I’m sure a lot of those challenges are real, and I personally have no expertise in teacher evaluations, so my exasperation is not about the details of the work that is or is not happening.

I am annoyed with the attitude!  I was reminded of a favorite African proverb: “A leopard is chasing us, and you are asking me, is it a male or a female?”

The bureaucratic headwinds that are bogging down this particular process are just one example of why I am such an ardent believer in autonomous schools.  While 900 Grant Street is spending years upon years and millions upon millions of dollars trying to decide on minutiae like, “do classroom assignments have to be randomized for evaluations to be legitimate?” autonomous schools are actually getting the work done.

Granted, some are having much better success than others, but at least they are trying.  They are using multiple measures for teacher evaluations, they are giving teachers more meaningful ratings than “satisfactory or unsatisfactory,” and they provide teachers with regular feedback from multiple sources – all of the things that the DCTA/DPS committee says it wants to achieve.  Perhaps even more importantly, they are actually using this information to decide who gets to keep their job.

When I posed the question this morning, “has anyone on the Educator Performance Assessment System committee looked at what is happening around teacher evaluation at, say, West Denver Prep,” the answer I got was yet another list of “challenges” in comparing what a highly effectively school like WDP is doing to what happens in traditional schools.  Well, isn’t that the point?  Wouldn’t we like to take some of the lessons learned in great schools and apply them in the rest of our schools? Apparently, that is just too “challenging!”

I would rather see 100 creative new approaches to teacher evaluation being tested, even if some of them fail, than sit through one more meeting listening to what cannot be done.  I have the privilege of working day-in and day-out with talented, passionate educational entrepreneurs who are starting new autonomous schools.  These are people who dream big and who act boldly.  And yes, they sometimes fail.

I have had some epic failures in my own efforts to start new schools including the far-from-successful Denver Venture School.  But at least I, and others like me, take action.  We understand that doing nothing is a guarantee that nothing will change.

I predict that if the DCTA and DPS don’t start to act more nimbly and don’t understand the urgency that the community feels about the sorry state of our public schools, two things will happen.  First, autonomous schools will continue to gain momentum and the most talented teachers and leaders will flock to these environments where they have the freedom to take whatever aggressive action is needed to meet the needs of their students.

And second, the state will create more and more mandates like SB10-191 that will dictate how things get done rather than allowing local districts to languish for years mired in academic debates about how to move forward.  Either way, the union and the district will have lost out on the chance to set their own direction.

And at least I won’t have to sit through any more meetings like the one this morning.

Popularity: 7% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, Politics, Reform, Teacher unions | 6 Comments »

Innovation and equity: Striking a balance in DPS

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

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: 6% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, Reform, School funding and finance | 4 Comments »

What innovation?

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

Nancy Mitchell’s EdNews article finally makes public the growing tension between what I often refer to as the DPS Borg and the Innovation Schools.  It’s been simmering for over a year.

While I know Tom Boasberg and Michael Bennet were involved in helping to create the Innovation Schools Act (as was I), I never had the sense DPS leadership wanted legislation allowing schools to choose to manage their own operations, or being free to purchase (or not) the district’s professional development, curriculum, custodial or security services, etc.

Instead, Boasberg and Bennet wanted to grant their hand-picked schools freedom from DCTA hiring and work rules.  This was also true for the Colorado Association of School Boards and Colorado Association of School Executives in terms of their support of the bill.  The administrators and professional associations were only in support of legislation that allowed schools of their choosing to go to the state for some charter-like autonomies.

While there is no question that the DPS teacher contract (at 122 pages!) poses huge constraints in terms of running a highly effective school, the district’s central command control bureaucracy creates an equal if not greater challenge for any school wanting to go beyond implementation of the district plan.

The 15-plus years of experience of charters and Boston “Pilot” schools clearly shows that high quality schools need to be held accountable for student outcomes while the schools have control over money, people and program.  DPS and others might save the airfare to Boston and head over to Aurora to get a better understanding of what APS is learning around implementation of their new Pilot Schools.  The APS “pilots” operate under agreements that are very similar to the DPS Innovation schools.  The achievement results are not in yet but it will be worth following.

Let’s hope the Isaacson and Rosenbaum review along with the now public discussion of the problems helps the district move more quickly to allow schools the freedom to succeed.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, Reform | 5 Comments »

From the editor: P.S. 1 and Manual don’t fit

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Editor’s note: As someone from P.S. 1 has correctly pointed out, my original headline on this article was inappropriate. Apologies.

Last week, I wrote enthusiastically about a proposed partnership between Cole Arts and Science Academy and the Denver School of Science and Technology. The joint venture between Denver Public Schools and a high-performing charter school could, if consummated, provide an excellent option from preschool through high school for children living in the Cole and Whittier neighborhoods.

The idea also won the praise of dignitaries, who showed up in force at a recent Friday afternoon news conference to laud the idea. Mayor John Hickenlooper was there. So was Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll. Oh, and let’s not forget DPS Superintendent Tom Boasberg.

I still think this partnership is a great idea. I hope and trust it will proceed. Meanwhile, though, another school in the neighborhood has had a different experience with a similar proposal.

Almost a year ago, Manual High School Principal Rob Stein wrote to Boasberg and the school board “to request that a KIPP Charter School be located on the Manual High School campus in 2010.  KIPP would be a vital addition to the educational choices for Northeast Denver’s children, and it would be an ideal partner for facility sharing at Manual.”

KIPP, the Knowledge Is Power Program, has built a strong national reputation by opening and operating high-performing charter schools serving low-income children in grades 5-8 in cities across the country. Manual, closed during the 2006-07 school year because of chronic low performance and declining enrollment, was in its second year of rebirth when Stein penned the letter.

Though the school has made major strides under his leadership, Stein has come to realize that, as KIPP co-founder Mike Feinberg once told him, trying to get 9th-graders who are several years behind in basic skills to graduate on time and ready for college is akin to “throwing a Hail Mary pass into the end zone with no time left on the clock.” A strong middle-school partner would be a huge boon to Manual, and the neighborhood.

According to Manual’s Leadership Team and School Advisory Council, DPS responded to Stein’s request with silence. Stein heard the occasional vague promise about having the discussion at the appropriate time, but nothing ever happened. The district seemed uninterested in or unwilling to engage in dialogue about the idea.

Boasberg views the situation differently. He told me during a phone call last night that shortly after receiving Stein’s letter last April, he heard from KIPP that the organization did not want to open a new middle school, for which it had won approval, until 2011, because it wanted to focus on the launch of its first Denver high school, which opened last fall.

DPS won’t begin until November the process of deciding where to place new schools opening in 2011, Boasberg said. So there was no reason to ponder the Manual-KIPP proposal before now. It was too far off in the future.

Just as the Cole-DSST proposal will come under review in the coming months, so will any proposal Manual and KIPP might put forward, Boasberg said. “I look forward in that process to talking to both Manual and KIPP about the proposal,” he said. The Cole-DSST and Manual-KIPP proposals – should the latter submit one — will be treated equally, Boasberg said.

But the Manual community is now nervous about a more recent development. On Monday, the Manual School Leadership Team and School Advisory Council sent a letter, penned by a parent, to Boasberg and school board President Nate Easley, stating that the school has learned “of the District’s intent to locate the P.S. 1 Charter High School in the Manual facility.” You can read the letter here. It asks again that the district consider KIPP as a partner for Manual, and that the P.S. 1 decision be rescinded.

That chronically struggling school, one of Denver’s first charters, is being closed by the district at the end of next school year.

This is exactly what Manual does not need – a failed school, full of low-performing students, undergoing hospice care inside Manual’s walls. Even if it is only for a year.

Boasberg said Manual’s concern about P.S. 1 is premature. He said Manual is one of several locations “potentially under consideration,” because it has plenty of space to accommodate P.S. 1. But he stressed no decision has been made. “There hasn’t even been a recommendation,” he said.

Well, that’s not exactly true. An internal memo from Kristin Waters and Kelly Leid of the Office of School Reform and Innovation to senior central administrators Happy Haynes and Antwan Wilson, dated Feb. 19, says:

“..after the exploration of several facility options, we are recommending the relocation of  to excess space currently available at Manual High School.” The memo also says that “Other viable options explored would require displacement of current users along with related financial support…”

The memo recommends bringing the issue to the school board for a vote this week. But the item is not on this week’s board agenda, so the decision apparently has been pushed back.

In other words, this may be only an internal DPS recommendation, from one layer of the bureaucracy to another. But Manual parents and staff do, in fact, have cause for concern. And the talk of using  Manual for P.S 1 seems to have gone farther than Boasberg told me it had.

Boasberg said he has talked to Stein about the possibility, “and I think it’s fair to say there is not a lot of enthusiasm.”

“Manual supports the mission of P.S. 1,” says the letter from the leadership team and advisory council. “However, as a school that caters to struggling students with low achievement and high dropout rates, P.S. 1 represents where Manual has been -not where it is headed.”

If Manual’s nightmare scenario became reality – an arranged marriage with P.S. 1 rather than a consensual marriage to KIPP – it would demonstrate boneheaded decision-making on DPS’ part.

When the school board made the abrupt but correct decision to close Manual, then-Superintendent Michael Bennet promised the community to reopen it as “a premier high school.” A partnership with KIPP could help make that promise a reality.

A one-year shotgun marriage with P.S. 1 might not deal a fatal blow to that vision. But it sure wouldn’t help. Even without that unwanted distraction, it will take time and careful planning to determine how — and whether — both a Cole-DSST and a Manual-KIPP might fit in the same neighborhood.

Feelings are still raw in Cole and Whittier over the closing of Manual three years ago. It wouldn’t take much for people to start complaining, with some justification, that Manual has gotten the shaft. Again.

Don’t let it happen, Mr. Boasberg.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, From the editor, School choice | 4 Comments »

Visiting Cole, an innovation school pioneer

Friday, November 13th, 2009

This week several of my Independence Institute colleagues and I were blessed with the opportunity to visit Cole Arts and Science Academy. About four months ago I wrote about my brimming hope for this school with a troubled past — hope set free by Cole’s new-found Innovation School status and brought to life by teachers and school leaders on a mission.

Without a charter, school leaders and parents have engaged in a pursuit to visit some top-flight area schools and incorporate some of their best practices inside their beautifully renovated, 3-story facility near 32nd and Downing. Besides the growing number of rock star teachers (including some TFAers) in the building, what stands out is the emphasis on individual students owning their academic performance and growth.

Add in a concerted effort to reach out to families, a systematic regimen of frequent and purposeful teaching evaluations, and the opportunity for students to elect from a wide range of “infusion classes” to spice up their heavy emphasis on math and literacy. What you get is a school unique to its community, set free to pursue excellence.

It was a special privilege to get to talk briefly to a classroom of energetic 1st graders, then pose for a picture that we were sent home with as a token of appreciation. No school visit I’ve ever taken has made me feel more warmly welcome or left me feeling more hopeful.

If we set more struggling schools free from the regulatory burdens on program and staffing, and afford them the opportunities to learn what works and put their own plan of continuous improvement into action, where are the limits to what can be accomplished? But first we’ll have to see what sort of progress Cole makes schoolwide in its inaugural year as a true pioneer Innovation School.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Posted in Autonomy | 4 Comments »

A guide for spreading autonomy fever

Monday, August 17th, 2009

The proliferation of school models and governance structures in Colorado over the past couple of years is baffling even to the most seasoned veterans of school reform waves. Now, a consortium of foundations and non-profits (some of which fund this website) have produced a handbook to help other school districts, and individual schools, differentiate among the different labels.

“Options for Autonomous Schools in Colorado:  A Handbook for School and District Leaders,” includes detailed explanations of “state routes” to autonomy. This section includes information on how charter schools and innovation schools (both canonized in state law) get authorized and funded. Another section looks at “district routes” to autonomy, focusing on Aurora’s Pilot Schools and Denver Performance Schools.

Colorado has become a leader in creating models for autonomous schools of various stripes. If this handbook helps spread the autonomy fever to other parts of the state, all the better.

Popularity: 3% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, School choice | No Comments »

Balancing autonomy and individual rights

Monday, April 27th, 2009

Friday’s Denver Post brought news that teachers in Cole Arts and Sciences Academy gave the OK to pursue autonomy. Looking ahead, the question will be whether this development, following Manual and Montclair, marks a sign of critical momentum for the cause of school-centered innovation. How many more schools in Denver (not to mention across the state) will look to take this step in the coming months and years?

But as the process unfolds, a key sticking point is one hinted at in the Post story:

The biggest piece to innovation is that newly hired teachers are not protected by state tenure laws, which shield teachers from being fired after their first three years on the job.

I suspect this had something to do with the 17 (out of 51) Cole teachers who dissented from the majority. What’s impressive and significant is that the number wasn’t larger. It tells me that many teachers in this challenging urban school environment not only are on board with the urgent need to implement school-based innovation but also are eminently confident in their own skills and/or the leadership of the school. (more…)

Popularity: 4% [?]

Posted in Autonomy, Teacher unions | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Colorado Health Foundation Walton Family Foundation Daniels fund Pitton Foundations Donnell-Kay Foundation