Category Archives: Uncategorized

It’s been awhile since I’ve written about good old SB 191, Colorado’s 2010 law passed in an attempt to create a more meaningful teacher and principal evaluation system. As the 2013-14 school year gets underway, school districts across the state are meeting the requirement to put the new system into place. What can we expect? That’s the question to ask, as observers wonder how the new system will affect classroom practices and behaviors, as well as interactions with principals and the role of districts in support. What we do know as of August 1 is who will follow the state’s model evaluation system. Ed News Colorado tells us that 160 of 178 districts have adopted this approach fully, further noting: Another 10 districts will use a “hybrid” – usually the model system for principals and their own systems for teachers. Jeffco, the state’s largest district, is among the “hybrid” category. According to Ed News, only seven districts are going their own route completely:

For some Colorado students, the school year is already back. For most of them, it’s coming very soon. So I can enjoy the last days of summer vacation, I wanted to share something quickly for you to help appreciate some more of the possibilities raised by The Rise of K-12 Blended Learning in Colorado. So in the spirit of Rocketship Education, Carpe Diem, and KIPP Empower LA that I’ve written about before, here are a couple more videos to watch about schools successfully adopting blended learning models. Unfortunately, they won’t let me embed them here. But you should still check out Aspire ERES Academy (Oakland, CA) and the BLAST Alliance College-Ready Prep Schools (Los Angeles). Yes, most of these highly promising innovations come from California, but that’s far from a good reason to dismiss them out of hand. Glimpse the future, contemplate the policies that Colorado needs to change, and join in helping to inspire and bring more effective blended learning models to life. The tremendous potential is undeniable.

How many of my posts here have been inspired by a story at Education Next? Someone with too much time on their hands and go find the exact answer. But you’ll have to add this one to the count, because I think readers would find interesting a new piece by Marc Holley & Co., “Competition with Charters Motivates Districts.” It’s a creative project in which the authors look for evidence from 12 different urban school districts across the U.S. — geographically disbursed in four different regions — to see to what extent the growth of public charter sectors might actually “prompt low-performing districts to improve their practice.” They looked at more than 8,000 media reports since 2007 to determine whether the dozen districts responded constructively and/or obstructively. They conclude:

A good reminder when analyzing policies, including in the world of K-12 education, is to take some time to look beneath the surface. A policy may not be exactly what it seems. The inimitable Mike Antonucci recently offered up a telling example. Under the heading “How to Close ‘Open’ Bargaining Sessions”, he points readers to a column written by Las Vegas teacher Chip Mosher, recounting his adventure trying to attend so-called open negotiations. The result? It turns out before he could enter a session in which a union bargaining team was supposed to be bargaining on his behalf, Mr. Mosher says he had to sign a form that’s somewhere between a nondisclosure agreement and a “loyalty oath.” This encounter came after two previous attempts to observe negotiations. When Mosher asked if the union leader could sign his own form, something to the effect that he wasn’t being singled out, he was refused. The Las Vegas teacher tried to get more of an explanation, wanting to know from the union representative at the door if only teachers had to sign the union’s “loyalty oath” form:

A little disappointed? Yes. Surprised? Not really. I’m talking about digital learning guru Michael Horn’s new Education Next breakdown of 2013 legislative policy changes affecting the world of online education. It’s a long read, but Horn essentially identifies three different trends: More course-level choice and freedom for students; More restrictions on full-time online learning programs; and More steps toward the flexibility needed to embrace competency-based (rather than seat time) learning.

The list of substantive reforms ignored by backers of SB 213 and the billion-dollar statewide tax hike continues to grow. Today it’s the idea of Performance-Based Funding (PBF), promoted in a brief new Lexington Institute paper. Noting that Florida, Michigan, and Arizona have undertaken steps in this direction, the authors note: What all these efforts have in common is the recognition that the current practice of funding schools based almost exclusively on attendance taken several times a year is a fundamentally flawed model that misaligns incentives, rewards sub-par performance, and diminishes the imperative for significant and sustained educational outcomes. So why didn’t the School Finance Partnership that led to SB 213 and the tax hike take on a truly innovative, even transformational, idea like this one?

Check out this great story from yesterday’s Miami Herald, which shares some spectacular news about the growing number of families taking advantage of Florida’s scholarship tax credit program: The number of students attending private schools on tax-credit scholarships jumped 27 percent last year, reaching a record high of 51,075 kids, according to the state Department of Education. The dramatic spike was the result of 2012 legislation increasing the amount of tax credits available. The bill prompted corporations to donate more money. There was also a surge in parent demand, said Doug Tuthill, of Step Up for Students, the non-profit that administers the scholarships. “So many parents are interested that we’re struggling to keep up,” Tuthill said. [link added]

Okay, all you education transformers out there, I’ve got something for you to take to heart. Seriously, here’s your opportunity to pay attention, ponder, process, and personalize. If someone asked you to define or explain what public education is, what would you say? For that purpose, I urge you to read a great new essay piece by James Shuls of the Show-Me Institute titled “Redefining Public Education.” Though the idea isn’t original with Shuls by any means, his piece deserves a few minutes of your time. The execution is very good, because it’s rooted in a compelling true story of a young man from St. Louis named Korey Stewart-Glaze:

It seems like a good day to step back and savor a big school choice victory. The American Federation of Children today applauds the major new voucher program: The new Opportunity Scholarship program was passed yesterday as part of the state budget, which is expected to be signed into law by Gov. Pat McCrory. The bipartisan-sponsored and supported Opportunity Scholarship program is tailored to assist low-income families in obtaining high-quality educational options for their children. Opportunity Scholarships? Sounds like the school choice program for poor students in our nation’s capital, the program that doubles as a political punching bag for some in Congress. It also happens to be the same name used in Colorado’s 2003 voucher program, later overturned by the state supreme court.

There’s a growing appetite to change the way schools run and learning is delivered at the local level. The forward-thinking innovative programs of Douglas County and Falcon 49 have raised interest in a number of areas. One of those school districts is Greeley 6 in northern Colorado, which my Education Policy Center friend Ben DeGrow has just highlighted in a brief new issue backgrounder: Northern Colorado’s Greeley Public Schools serves a challenging population of nearly 20,000 enrolled students. Receiving nearly $9,000 per student, the district has achieved unacceptable academic results–including low performance on state assessment tests, high remediation rate for graduates, and a decline in the district’s accreditation rating.