Category Archives: Public Charter Schools

The Brookings Institution has released a new “Education Choice and Competition Index” (ECCI) to rate the availability of schooling options for families in the nation’s 25 largest school districts (H/T Eduwonk). RiShawn Biddle has a great breakdown of the index’s strengths and shortcomings, including the need for a clearer picture of the quality of choices and an expansion to cover more districts. Expanding to the 100 largest districts, as Biddle urges, would include some of Colorado’s own. I’m pretty sure Denver Public Schools would do well on the ECCI, given the commitment to expanding charter and innovation school options. Interestingly, the Denver Post featured a piece yesterday about how DPS schools are increasing their efforts to market themselves to parents.

Last week I told you that the first-ever Digital Learning Day is less than three months away. Someone out there must have been paying attention! Today the Wall Street Journal has a big — no, make that a huge! — article by Stephanie Banchero and Stephanie Simon about online education cleverly called “My Teacher Is An App”: In a radical rethinking of what it means to go to school, states and districts nationwide are launching online public schools that let students from kindergarten to 12th grade take some—or all—of their classes from their bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens. Other states and districts are bringing students into brick-and-mortar schools for instruction that is largely computer-based and self-directed. The first sentence talks about full-time online education, something that Colorado has had going for more than a decade. (You didn’t hear it from me, but a helpful new report on this topic from my Education Policy Center friends may be coming soon.) About 2 percent of our state’s K-12 public school students are enrolled in a full-time online program, and the number has been rising significantly in recent years.

So here we are, almost a week after the election here in Colorado that got a lot of big people’s attention. Prop 103’s “for the kids” tax hike went down in a ball of flames. A record number of local school tax and debt elections ran headlong into defeat. In at least one case, “negative perceptions” of a school district’s level of financial transparency has been credited with bringing down a mill levy override proposal. If that’s the case, then the timing couldn’t be better for the release of my Education Policy Center friends’ new issue paper Time to Show the Money: Complying with Colorado’s Public School Financial Transparency Act. Research associate Devan Crean was the lead author, and senior policy analyst Ben DeGrow was the co-author. In 2010 our state legislature passed HB 1036, a bipartisan measure requiring local K-12 agencies to post budgets, financial audits, financial statements, salary schedules, and as of July 2011, expenditures in the form of check registers and purchase card statements. So how well are they doing?:

In the past couple years some national critics have made a living off distorting the findings of a major national study on public charter schools. If someone has a knee-jerk reaction against charter schools, it’s not surprising they would run with part of the findings that seem to support their conclusion and make sweeping generalizations that don’t stand up so well under the light of scrutiny. Onto the scene this month comes the most comprehensive analysis of studies on public charter school impacts on student achievement. The Effect of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature, created by Julian Betts and Y. Emily Tang for the Center on Reinventing Public Education, reminds us that the big picture is more nuanced (and positive) than some cranky critics would like us to believe. As quoted in the accompanying press release: Despite considerable variation among charter schools, there is ample evidence that charter elementary schools on average outperform traditional public schools in both reading and math, and that charter middle schools outperform in math. Elsewhere in the report it is noted:

Colorado’s education story of the month has been the state of public online schools. An in-depth investigative report by Ed News Colorado (and Rocky Mountain Investigative News Network) coincided with a request for a formal legislative audit by the state senate’s highest-ranking Democratic official. Ed News Colorado’s three-part series: Identified a problem with students transferring out of online programs after the student count day that determines funding; Observed shortcomings among online schools in academic test performance and completion rates; and Found one bad apple of an irresponsible online school operator that since has changed management companies. The discouraging news cannot be completely brushed aside, yet the attention brought to online schools in Colorado demands context and a focus on genuine, equitable policy solutions that benefit students and support the ability of families to choose among excellent educational options. That’s why I have waited to write about the “story of the month” until my Education Policy Center friend Pam Benigno’s op-ed response was published today in the Denver Post:

It’s less than two weeks past my Education Policy Center friends’ series of school board candidate briefings. In other words, it’s time for education reform senior statesman Checker Finn to raise the challenging and provocative question for National Affairs: Are local school district boards and the 19th century governance structure they represent about ready to wither away and disappear? Four years ago Education Policy Center director Pam Benigno wrote an article suggesting that online learning technologies were pushing school district boundaries into irrelevance. Of all places, the article was published in the Colorado Association of School Boards’ (now defunct) Prism magazine. (Sadly, no link is available.) Finn fleshes out the increasing policy and governance dilemmas as online and blended learning begin to skyrocket in popularity:

A new piece for Education Next by June Kronholz profiles Virginia’s four Performance Learning Centers (PLCs) — blended learning environments that use online technology to help get struggling at-risk students to graduate high school (H/T Joanne Jacobs). The story is chocked full of interesting anecdotes and insights. This one caught my attention: Students graduate when they earn the state-mandated 22 credits, but they can’t receive diplomas until spring. Firth, the Virginia PLC director, said he recently learned that some of those graduates-without-diplomas were being counted as absent by the district because, well, they weren’t in school. “We’re so outside the box and education is so inside the box,” [Richmond Technical Center PLC academic coordinator Wes] Hamner sighed.

Earlier this year the Colorado legislature considered a bill by state representative Don Beezley that would have empowered parents of students in low-performing schools with new options to turn around those schools. Unfortunately, the “parent trigger” bill was shot down by the House Education Committee. Now, anyone in the know could tell you that the “parent trigger” is hardly an idea unique or original to Colorado. A major version of the idea has taken off in California, and a number of other states have weighed similar proposals. Like Connecticut — where Dropout Nation’s RiShawn Biddle this week exposed an internal American Federation of Teachers (AFT) document giving a transparent look at the union’s anti-parent power strategy and tactics. Biddle later posted a follow-up after the union’s initial reply, noting:

Learning to read is essential to a quality education. Kind of goes without saying, doesn’t it? There has been increased attention in recent years on the importance of phonics and scientifically-based reading instruction. These are crucial features of instructing students in the early grades, ensuring they get off to a strong start in their educational careers, yet in too many cases (at least in Colorado) teachers are not adequately prepared to impart the learning to students. Yet can what sustain and build on those reading skills as students reach 8th grade and beyond? Take a glimpse at what has gone on the past few years in a small corner of the New York City Public Schools (New York City? I can almost hear some of you ask in the voice of disgruntled Texas cowhands. Yes, the Big Apple!). In a New York Daily News op-ed, Sol Stern highlights the success of the three-year Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA) program piloted in 10 Bronx and Queens elementary schools: After the first year, [then school chancellor Joel] Klein announced the early results: On a battery of reading tests, the kindergartners in the Core Knowledge program had achieved gains five times greater than […]

(H/T Adam Emerson, RedefinED) From yesterday’s Boston Globe, the innovation school idea is starting to take off in Massachusetts: “It’s really catching fire,’’ said Paul Reville, the state’s education secretary. “I would predict innovation schools in a relatively short period of time could surpass the number of charter schools in the state if the growth continues at the rate we’ve seen recently.’’ … Innovation schools and the state’s 56 independently run charter schools are similar in that decisions about curriculum, staffing, and budgeting are made by a school-based governing board with the goal of crafting programs that meet the specific needs of their students. But unlike charter schools, which report directly to the state, innovation schools must negotiate the extent of the freedom to make their own decisions with the superintendent and School Committee, and are bound by most provisions of the district’s teachers union contract.